Are the first two Witcher games any good?

I saw that the Witcher games are on sale on steam so I'm finally buying The Witcher 3 but I want to know, are the first two games good? I've heard a lot of people say they are boring and mediocre but I want to know you opinions.

I saw that the Witcher games are on sale on steam so I'm finally buying The Witcher 3 but I want to know, are the first two games good? I've heard a lot of people say they are boring and mediocre but I want to know you opinions.

Though such things are subjective, I personally wouldn’t say they are boring and mediocre. Perhaps they drag on a bit (as did The Witcher 3) and are not as polished and pretty as the third game, but they have their charms.

The first one is a bit clunky and patchy, and a lot of people disparage the timing-based combat, though I quite liked it. It can be played in different camera styles - the standard third person over-the-shoulder view, or a more old school action RPG mouse-based style. I’ve played through it a couple of times, and started it and stopped it several times more, and it’s okay really, fairly diverse, and a good grounding in The Witcher universe.

The second one is much more technically accomplished, and ups the ante regarding production values. I’ve only played through it once and so don’t recall much about it really, apart from it has lots of intrigue.

To be honest, they are not really essential playing, and could seem a bit of a slog to get through, making you feel jaded by the time you get to the third game. By all means get them if they are really cheap (as they invariably are in sales these days) but I would probably just jump straight into The Witcher 3 if I were you, after maybe reading/watching an introduction to the Witcher universe and/or a summary of the previous games.

Though such things are subjective, I personally wouldn’t say they are boring and mediocre. Perhaps they drag on a bit (as did The Witcher 3) and are not as polished and pretty as the third game, but they have their charms.

The first one is a bit clunky and patchy, and a lot of people disparage the timing-based combat, though I quite liked it. It can be played in different camera styles - the standard third person over-the-shoulder view, or a more old school action RPG mouse-based style. I’ve played through it a couple of times, and started it and stopped it several times more, and it’s okay really, fairly diverse, and a good grounding in The Witcher universe.

The second one is much more technically accomplished, and ups the ante regarding production values. I’ve only played through it once and so don’t recall much about it really, apart from it has lots of intrigue.

To be honest, they are not really essential playing, and could seem a bit of a slog to get through, making you feel jaded by the time you get to the third game. By all means get them if they are really cheap (as they invariably are in sales these days) but I would probably just jump straight into The Witcher 3 if I were you, after maybe reading/watching an introduction to the Witcher universe and/or a summary of the previous games.

By all means get them if they are really cheap (as they invariably are in sales these days)

Yeah they're like 4 bucks so I might buy them, I can tell you really like the first game.

You can tell they've improved alot over time. In the series Witcher 3 is the best but I would recommend Having a look at the old ones. The Witcher has some questionable design choices (The card collecting with women you sleep with is a prime example) and it was built purely for keyboard and mouse but I'd still recommend a look as it has alot of the hallmarks that made witcher 3 fantastic and the endearment of a developers first video game

I've only played TW2 and I gave it a 6/10, but in retrospect in I remember it almost exclusively negatively. I found it really dull and boring at times, plus the graphics gave me an actual headache and the writing was especially juvenile. Seriously, prepare for a few brain cells to die unless you're a 12-year-old boy.

Overall, it's medicore at best, and at worst it's a physically and mentally painful experience.

I've retired the first game and am looking forward to moving on to the second - I picked them all up during sales and I think they're definitely worth it when they're super cheap.

Even though I retired the first, it was only because I have limited time at the moment to commit to long games, and the first has dated a fair bit. However, if you have the time and interest, it's definitely a lot of fun still and a really good introduction to the universe. Maybe one day I'll go and finish it because I liked it, but I've played enough to get the vibe and move on. Was still worth the discounted price though, so I would say definitely go for it - even if you don't get all the way through the older ones, they're good to get you into it =)

I've retired the first game and am looking forward to moving on to the second - I picked them all up during sales and I think they're definitely worth it when they're super cheap.

Even though I retired the first, it was only because I have limited time at the moment to commit to long games, and the first has dated a fair bit. However, if you have the time and interest, it's definitely a lot of fun still and a really good introduction to the universe. Maybe one day I'll go and finish it because I liked it, but I've played enough to get the vibe and move on. Was still worth the discounted price though, so I would say definitely go for it - even if you don't get all the way through the older ones, they're good to get you into it =)

It's worth noting, I think GOG has given away both of them a couple times. I own them both on there that way and I think I've seen them do a giveaway a few times over the years.

I'm with @knalb. I thought they got better as the series went on, but I enjoyed all of them. From a story perspective they feel a bit like a book trilogy to me. The first spends a lot of time getting you into the world, "basic" monsters feel like a real threat, and a story that is interesting but self contained. When the first book makes money, the publisher options for the trilogy and suddenly the story and world really open up in part 2 and 3.

Without going into review mode, I'd say the gameplay also improved as the series went on.

Personally, I'd put 1 at 3.5/5 and 2 at 4/5; and my benchmark for a game I think most will enjoy is 3/5.

The first game didn't age so well in my opinion, keep your expectations in check while buying it...

I played through the first two in anticipation for the third coming out and had a really good time. Witcher 2 especially holds up and is really demanding of the player in terms of combat, plus the branching story is great.

If you have the time and the desire to play them then I say they are worth the time.

The first one is obviously old, and by modern standards, the combat is pretty dated but I personally had very little problem with it. It just takes some getting used to. Also, it has a kind of charm and atmosphere to it that not even the other two have. It captures the essence of Witcher pretty well too.

The second game is perfectly fine by modern standards. The branching story path in the middle of the game is fairly unique and pretty neat too. As far as I know, not many games did that sort of thing on the scale that Witcher 2 does. It's also not that long either (at least compared to other RPGs).

I'm scared to start Witcher 3 let alone think about the first two games 😜

I'm scared to start Witcher 3 let alone think about the first two games 😜

Well the first two games are shorter, so perhaps starting with them would be less scary?

Well the first two games are shorter, so perhaps starting with them would be less scary?

I understand your logic. However, isn't 3 where the magic formula actually worked? Isn't that the "skyrim killer" as it were.

I understand your logic. However, isn't 3 where the magic formula actually worked? Isn't that the "skyrim killer" as it were.

Haven't played it, though it doesn't take much to kill Skyrim. From what I understand, all the games are different from each other, and yes TW3 is well-loved but so was TW2 and I didn't like it that much. So yeah, TW3 may be the one beloved by many, but if it scares you, don't start with it lol

Haven't played it, though it doesn't take much to kill Skyrim. From what I understand, all the games are different from each other, and yes TW3 is well-loved but so was TW2 and I didn't like it that much. So yeah, TW3 may be the one beloved by many, but if it scares you, don't start with it lol

I managed to pick it up cheap on ps4. I thought one day when I get a ps5 and have the time I'll venture into it

I hope you got them Finn. I prefer the first one over the other two. It's got far more cringe but the mechanics are preferable to me. Witcher 2 was good and Witcher 3 was too but I didn't like the Ubisoft-ification it had (or levelled loot). I also prefer the RTWP with single click-rhythm game over mashing attack and Quen.

The skill tree is a bit weird at first but you'll get it after a few levels and so is that weird fire sword mini game but overall it's nice. If I replay any of them it'd be the first one.

i am 37 hours into the first one and like everybody else said obviously it didn't age well gameplay wise and graphics wise but the story is worth it and i'm honestly having fun with it

I've only played the first one and it is a bit clunky and back and forth quest wise, but I had a good time, good story, nice combat system if a little janky, but overall it's alright.

Update I finally bought them after 2 years

I liked the first Witcher game.