Question about "The Witcher"...

[Rath Darkblade]

... hmm, so I never got to play "The Witcher" games. From what I can see, though, they are both available on GOG and Steam, and have been for some time. So I thought I might give the first one a try.

I just have a few questions for anyone who's played this game. I know as much as the wiki-article told me - Geralt of Rivia is a "witcher", who hunts monsters for a living. There are humans, dwarves, elves, gnomes, werewolves and vampires involved. That's about all wiki says.

Alas, it appears that this game is huge (about 15 GB). So, with my relatively constricted bandwidth, I am cautious.

What kind of game is it? Is it like the first Dragon Age (with grey-and-gray morality, difficult moral choices etc.)? Or is it simply a kill-everything-that-moves, like Diablo? Just wondering...

[MusicallyInspired]

There are 3 games, actually. 4 if you count the newish digital trading card game too. They were made by CD Projekt Red who also own GOG, so heck yeah they're on their own platform. lol

From what I've heard (and played) the first Witcher was a very different type of game before it was overhauled to behave a little more like an RPG. It's a little awkward to play actually and I think a little closer to Diablo but with a story to it. I gave up on it. But The Witcher 2 and 3 are full on open world RPGs. I started Witcher 2 and never really got beyond the tutorial area. At the time I was expecting something more like Skyrim and the system was just too different at the time (and time of day. I believe it was late in the evening when I tried it) for me to care about learning a whole new interface so I shelved it. Will get to them someday. I hear The Witcher 3 got tons of awards and is much loved by the community, though. The storytelling is top notch I've heard.

They're based on a series of books (books which now have a series on Netflix headlined by Henry Cavill).

[Rath Darkblade]

Hmm. Yes, I'm aware of the three Witcher games (I wasn't aware of the card game), but I figured that I might give the first one a try, just to see what it's all about. After all, the description isn't very descriptive - "you kill monsters for a living". That could mean anything. Then, if I liked the first one, I might give the others a go, once they go on sale.

If Witcher 2 and 3 are open-world RPGs, they sound like The Elder Scrolls (though with a different system, of course). But the first one is simply a "you see it, you kill it" bloodfest? Like Diablo or Doom? *grimace*

[Datadog]

They're worth playing if you like fantasy role-playing. The gameplay is generally hack-and-slash, with a few gimmicks like potion mixing and magic systems built in. But the overall experience is more "Dragon Age" than "Diablo". It's very story-oriented, with a lot of morality choices built into the quests. It's not dissimilar from a Bioware game if that's what you're looking for.

Personally, I love the first game and recommend it, but be warned: the fighting system in the first game is something you'll have to get used to. You have to repeatedly click the targets to fight, and you frequently switch weapons and fighting styles to accommodate different enemies. The 2nd and 3rd game's combat is much more streamlined and user-friendly, so there's no shame starting from the second game. But if you're up to the challenge, go for the first. You can usually get it for around $3 on sales anyway.

As an aside, I also highly recommend the novels the games are based on. They're prequels to the games, and many NPCs are cameos from the series.

[Rath Darkblade]

Fair enough. I guess I may as well wait for the sales and pick up the second game, if the combat is easier. Thanks, Datadog.

Only thing is ... do I need to know the back-story of the 1st game in order to play the 2nd one?

[Datadog]

A lot of events and choices in the first game don't carry over to the second. Anything important will get revisited and shown again. You can read a summary somewhere if you want the details, but it's still a great game worth visiting.

One thing that might throw you off in the second game are all the returning characters, but you don't need to play the first game to know how they met. They're all characters from the books, so even in the first game, you don't get a proper introduction.

[Rath Darkblade]

Oh, dear ... and they all met in the pub!!!

Or does the witcher only meet them when it's time for them to become relevant to the story?

[Datadog]

Oh, dear ... and they all met in the pub!!!

Or does the witcher only meet them when it's time for them to become relevant to the story?

Typically, both. They appear when it's story-relevant, and you'll often run into them at a pub.

A good example is a character named Dandelion. In the books, he's Geralt's long-time best friend, but in the first Witcher game, Geralt (the Witcher) has amnesia and forgets a lot of people. So when he runs into Dandelion in a pub, Dandelion will re-introduce himself for the player's sake, but he'll avoid discussing any book spoilers.

[Rath Darkblade]

Um, I was only kidding about "meeting in the pub". *head-desk* Isn't that supposed to be one of the laziest ways to introduce new characters?

[Tawmis]

Um, I was only kidding about "meeting in the pub". *head-desk* Isn't that supposed to be one of the laziest ways to introduce new characters?

Well, as he said, it's done to avoid spoiling the book, in the event the player's not read them.

And the whole idea of meeting at a pub being lazy, is bull...

Dragonlance Chronicles, where are all the characters headed? A pub/tavern to meet up again.
The Hobbit, where are all these characters meeting? Biblo's house, which is treated like a pub.

Two of my favoritest books used this "gimmick" to start both of their stories.

[Rath Darkblade]

Well, sure. And in LOTR, the hobbits meet Aragorn at the Green Dragon - and later, everyone meets at Elrond's house, which is treated like a pub.

Maybe I phrased this badly - I didn't mean lazy, just overdone. Many authors, film scriptwriters and game scriptwriters have done this. Some have done it badly. So it needs to be done well to be effective. Tolkien does it well. Weis and Hickman do it well. Some authors ... don't. That's all I meant.

[Rath Darkblade]

Whoopee - I finally picked up Witcher 3 (plus one of the expansions!) in a local electronics store! I prefer to pick up games on DVD if possible, because that way, I always have a back-up and don't need to download the game again. And a game like Witcher 3, for me, will take a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time to download. 35-odd Gb or so ... yikes. A 10-Gb game takes nearly 6 hours for me, so a 35-Gb game?

Anyway, my questions (too late!) are:

1. Do I need to have played Witcher 2 in order to play Witcher 3? As Datadog pointed out, I don't have to have played #1 in order to play #2. But what about #3?

2. I have the "Blood and Wine" expansion, but now it seems there are 16 (!!!) other expansions ... and just one available on GOG, funnily enough. I'd have thought GOG would have them all, seeing as it's their game. Anyway ... do I need them all? (Yes, I know, the word "need" ... :rolleyes: I mean ... are they worth getting? The other expansion on GOG, "Hearts of Stone", adds about 30 hours to the adventure, which is nice. The other expansions that exist, as far as I can see, are just for decoration. Any ideas?)

Thanks!

[JasefWisener]

Unless I'm wrong, only 2 of the DLC packs are expansions: Hearts of Stone and Blood and Wine. I'm pretty sure all of the rest were just free DLC addons.

[Rath Darkblade]

Oh. Then I'm confused... how do I get these free add-ons? It doesn't look like they're available through GOG, unless I get the full complete ultra-mega package.

[DeadPoolX]

Whoopee - I finally picked up Witcher 3 (plus one of the expansions!) in a local electronics store! I prefer to pick up games on DVD if possible, because that way, I always have a back-up and don't need to download the game again.

You can easily back up ANY downloaded game from GOG or Steam, so having the disc is irrelevant, especially since it won't be updated to the newest version.

And a game like Witcher 3, for me, will take a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time to download. 35-odd Gb or so ... yikes. A 10-Gb game takes nearly 6 hours for me, so a 35-Gb game?

LOL! If you think 35 GB is large, you'd freak over games like Hitman 2 (150 GB), Red Dead Redemption II (115 GB) or Assassin's Creed Odyssey (98 GB). Those aren't unusually large, either, so something like 35 GB is definitely considered "small" nowadays.

Six hours to download 10 GB? What's your internet speed because for a 10 GB game to take that long to download, it must be insanely slow.

1. Do I need to have played Witcher 2 in order to play Witcher 3? As Datadog pointed out, I don't have to have played #1 in order to play #2. But what about #3?

No. In fact, the Witcher 3 lets you make choices in the beginning in case you haven't played Witcher 2 or want to change what you did in Witcher 2 without replaying the entire game over. Here's a guide on the choices you can make that would've been made in Witcher 2 that would've carried over to Witcher 3.

2. I have the "Blood and Wine" expansion, but now it seems there are 16 (!!!) other expansions ... and just one available on GOG, funnily enough. I'd have thought GOG would have them all, seeing as it's their game. Anyway ... do I need them all? (Yes, I know, the word "need" ... :rolleyes: I mean ... are they worth getting? The other expansion on GOG, "Hearts of Stone", adds about 30 hours to the adventure, which is nice. The other expansions that exist, as far as I can see, are just for decoration. Any ideas?)

Just look at your download page in GOG. It should either list all the free expansions or you might need to just add them from GOG itself. Either way is super quick and easy.