Patient Gamers

I Like gog but is there any reason why to prefer the gog Version over the Steam one?

Complete edition is 100% worth. The dlc is crazy long and excellent.

The first game is rough by modern standards. Most people (even the most diehard fans) will tell you to just skip it. The second is worth playing, but with the mindset of “this game was made in the 2000’s”. Because it is definitely showing its age too.

For the third one, just know that the intro is a slog. Get to the Bloody Baron before you write it off, because that’s when the game actually starts to get interesting.

or be like me, play Witcher 1, then play other stuff for 12 years, then start replaying it again to go through the whole series this time, then take a 6-months break 2 chapters in... 😅 (yea, I have issues)

I love its atmosphere and writing, but the jank...

The bundle is $7.49. I just saw it but already have the first two.

I got it free from epic a few years ago.

I got the worst ending. I should really replay it with a guide some day.

I think I’ve played the opening scene a dozen times. I know it’s gonna be good, but I never go back to playing it.

I played all the way once and less than 50% a half dozen times. It's just hard to get into for some reason.

The third one is a significantly better game in pretty much all aspects.

The intro act is a bit of a grind, but once you make it to the main story, it's really good.

I tried the first two and didnt play more than 5 minutes. But nearly 100% the 3rd. Make that as you wish.

Skip 1, play 2. The second game opens with the main character having amnesia, so basically everything important from the first game is explained to you. The first game is rough by modern standards, and will almost certainly put you off of playing the rest of the series.

2 is starting to show its age, for what it’s worth. It’s still a great game, but go into it with tempered expectations; It’s missing a lot of the quality of life things you have probably come to expect. Though you can also mod the game, so that may be worth looking into if you enjoy modding.

3 is a great game, but get through the intro area before you actually judge it. The tutorial is a massive slog. The game picks up around the time you reach the Bloody Baron, so at least get to that point before you write it off as boring. The DLC is 100% worth playing. Play the Hearts of Stone DLC before finishing the main story, then the Blood and Wine story after beating the game. And again, there are a few mods that I would install, like an auto-loot mod. The “apply oils when you draw your sword” mod used to be necessary too, but the devs actually ended up adding that into the base game.

The first game is very dated and not recommended to play. CDPR admits it themselves and wanted to do a rework of the game, but that was said years ago, and IDK if they did it or not.

You can play the 3rd before the 2nd game and be just fine, because the two story lines are not completely connected, only with references and side content. Same with the first in the series.

The 2nd game is much shorter than the 3rd, and is not open world like the 3rd is. I liked both games, and didn't played the first.

I recommend playing them in order, you can Import your save file from 1 to 2 and from 2 to 3, carrying over narrative choices you've made. Also you get really good (and well earned) starting gear if you import the save.

The first one, while being ultra mega jank has some of the best writing out of any game I evet played. Choices really matter in this game and the game really respects your time for doing your homework whether it be monster hunting or investigations. It has more than the usually bad side, good side choice, characters can die because of your decisions (or even lack of). If you can see past babies first attempt of a combat system, the first Witcher game is amazing.

The atmosphere of game 1 is incredible, but it might be a bit dated for most people, especially the combat system. You can perfectly start with any of the 3 games without a problem.

I would only recommend the first one of you can stomach a dated system. The story very well written.

Just to be safe, I recommend 2nd then 3rd. The second game is short enough and the graphic still hold up.

There is a continuing story, but the first two are very different games, even from each other. They're certainly fun, but won't really be indicative of anything other than if you like the story or not, which you could mostly gather from wikis or video summaries. All that to say - it likely won't change your experience of 3 if you don't play the previous two directly.

I only played W2 and W3. W2 was not necessary to play the third one, but it's certainly not a bad game (I personally didn't like it as much due to the fairly linear story telling). W1 I am told is not that great. Both are much shorter than the complete edition of Witcher 3 I'd argue. The DLC should be fine if added afterwards, I can wholeheartedly recommend both. Blood & Wine especially has received wide praise back then as "being a whole game in the shape of a DLC" .

Thronebreaker is a tales-game that I haven't had the time for yet. I was told it's solid.

The Witcher Adventure Game is essentially a board game and is absolutely not necessary for any of the other games. If you like board games and have people to play it with, it's actually quite good. It has a bit of a learning curve and I very much recommend reading or watching whatever tutorial you can grab a hold of, because it is not all that intuitive.