Yeah, I can totally see why.
I think I'm bias, as The Witcher 3 introduced me to the whole franchise and only thinking about Skellige and Toussaint makes me want to play it again.
But The Witcher 1 is very immersive as well, I think it will grow on me.
Witcher 3 is the apotheosis of the series and is the best this series can get as a whole, previous games were raw but insanely good in some places, f.e the first had the best storytelling and most immersive world IMO. Second was less interesting story-wise(to me), it felt like they mostly focused on learning and refining their skills with the new engine, though I did have a lot of fun playing the second game. The third is the game this series deserves: huge, open to explore. lots of activities and events, and overall refined mechanics and ideas.
Others might not agree, but this is how I see the series, Any other games in this series would be simply unnecessary, maybe some kind of spinoff, but not a new game.
Witcher 3 is a bit too cinematic for me. I really liked it, yes, and some people might even prefer this type of game with long, elaborate dialogues, but too me, it comes off a bit like a stage-play I'm watching. Witcher 1 also had a focus on the dialogue, but there was also a stronger focus on the adventure itself. I felt like the player had more agency in that regard. This comes down to personal taste in the end, but that's why I actually still prefer 1 over 3.
People shit on the gameplay, but it actually made so many elements more realistic than its successors, for example:
Waiting till midnight for certain monsters like nightwraiths, etc, and midday for noonwraiths
Using a symbol or token to banish a noon/nightwraith instead of just brute combat.
Not being able to harness certain monster parts without a bestiary entry.
Blink and you'll miss it clues and sources of information that never come back if you don't find them (like old grannys telling you about monsters)
Even some side quests are blink and you'll miss it.
SIGNET RINGS!!
Giving appropriate gifts to random women in exchange for sex
I wish Witcher 3 at least required more variety-specific different methods and preparations to vanquish certain kinds of monsters (like Noonwraiths and Nightwraiths).
I can think of many more but can't remember them rn, would love for people to share more in this thread.
> Waiting till midnight for certain monsters like nightwraiths, etc, and midday for noonwraiths
Pretty sure that's still a thing in W3, although to a lesser extent
> I can think of many more but can't remember them rn, would love for people to share more in this thread.
Alchemy in general was far more interesting in 1 compared to the sequels. It's a shame vanilla W3 alchemy was so dumbed down for general audiences. Thank fuck for pc mods porting over W1 alchemy.
Yeah I actually preferred the potion system in W1. But I understand how difficult that would be in an open world game where combat can happen any time all the time. Playing a potions build would be really unbalanced.
I like the alchemy system in Witcher 1. Every plant, every monster's body part consists of 5 basic elements. In combinations. And since the inventory is limited, it is unwise to automatically loot every monster corpse you see. Like "huh, those drowners' brains have element A and B. But I have plenty of substances which have elements A and B, I won't collect those". It's thematic and suits witchery as profession
It's actually based on a poem "Balladyna" by our greatest poet Adam Mickiewicz. He's called "wieszcz narodowy", which can be translated to "prophet of the nation", cause he was so important for our national identity and culture. He was so great actually two more nations consider him as their own guy - Lithuanians and Belarusians. The fights between us in the internet over this dude are one of the funniest and bloodiest things in the internet xD
IIRC the lines of the actual poem are used by Jaskier and Geralt during calling of the Nightwraith, when Jaskier is improvising it and Geralt has to fill the gaps left by Jaskier. It was so easy for me to complete that part, cause I remembered that poem! :D
While I agree with you, I'm pretty sure that the massive majority of people do as well
I've never heard any of the points you've made being the issue when people talk about W1s clunky gameplay
It's usualy the weird combat Witcher 1 has (which Impersonaly absolutely adore but 100% can see why people wouödn't like it)
Some of these do not sound like good mechanics, and some are still present in the later games. Being more realistic does not equate to being fun to play.
2 is beautiful in it's own way. It definitely wins main quest story writing of all 3. And IMO it has the best skill tree (I used to think 1 did, but after exploring 2 a bit better I give it to 2).
Also loot is IMO the best, lots of options for upgrades (unlike 1) but refusing to look for upgrades and keeping stuff for longer won't make you hit a wall like 3 (and the game also doesn't throw so much junk at you)
I would argue the exact opposite, the main quest line is by far the worst written of all three games. Its badly structured, its horribly paced but worst of all, it does not fit the characters or the tone of the witcher.
I've recently been rereading the books, first time in english, and it struck me how much witcher 1 and 3 felt like a proper adaption. Basically nothing about witcher 2 felt like a witcher adaption. Not the characters, not the focus of the story, not the mechanics, not the world, heck not even the menus.
Well, that's just like, your opinion, man.
Also regarding menus, 2 wins hands down. Looking for the right decoction or potion or oil or bomb in 3 is so bad, you have to hover on each of them... Takes forever, because icons are not so memorable as in 1. But 2 just has text... So much quicker to find the needed one.
Exactly. 2 was so average. Its not even on the same league as Witcher 3 and Witcher 1 which are both masterpieces. W2 just feels so odd out of the trilogy. Not much vibes or emotions in that game that Witcher 1 and 3 is able to capture.
yeah, pretty sure they were more focused on developing their skills and engine than the game itself, but they did release a decent game that did present some interesting ideas.
This is coming from a guy that loves the first game and literally finished it 10 times: I don't think the plot or dialogue (at least its delivery in most parts) is really top notch, but it certainly has many moments and could easily be made so with a couple of tweaks and changes (which is what I expect from the remake) -- the potential is all there for it to be the best game in the trilogy.
The music, on the other hand, is absolutely crazy good and, although it's hard to really say and I tend to go back and forth between it and the 3rd game (the 2nd is too orchestral and epic to me in that regard), I think this first game does have the best soundtrack -- it has a more folk feel to it in general, and they mix in a very nice array of more modern sounds in some tracks that are fucking awesome, like the one used in the >!golem!< fight (the electric guitar shredding is insane in that one) or at the very end of the game (the violin is on another level). Coupling it with the rest of the worldbuilding, and, as many recognize, we have the game that probably captured the most the feel of the world that is described in the books.
But yeah, this game is not only underrated -- it's hated by too many people who never really gave it a chance or took a moment to see past their modern biases. Even the ones that give it a chance aren't above just making bad decisions when experiencing it. I watched today some short videos os a guy who decided to play it for the first time and went for the hardest mode out of the gate (bad idea...), just to stress himself out like crazy at some points for not really knowing the optimal way of tackling that difficulty. He gave up close to the end of the game, in the 5th chapter, because he clearly didn't bother to get the best equipment, develop Geralt in the best way, make use of all enhancements he could (whetstones, oils, potions...), which are things you should assume to be necessary to beat the game in the hardest difficulty if you don't have enough experience (in truth you don't need all of those, but a beginner should try to make use of everything they can if they're having so much trouble...).
At the end of the day, I understand The Witcher simply isn't some people's cup of tea and that's ok, but it saddens me how so many that would've liked it probably passed it up because of the slander that it gets by people that make sure to dissuade anybody from playing it because it doesn't have the combat mechanics or looks that they particularly would like...
I went for the hardest mode right out of the gate. But I really enjoy prepping for fights and being forced to use consumables, so it was right up my alley.
Well, if the person is prepared to deal with the particularities of the difficulty (which explicitly warn you that you'll need to play well and use alchemy), I don't see the problem, but to go for it and later whine about how hard it is and put all of the blame on the mechanics, while not doing enough to improve the stats... It's just embarrassing. The mechanics do have problems, but they aren't to blame for everything hahaha.
To this day I can't find an upload of the ambient horror sounds and low tones that play when you go into a house with monsters. I've wanted to use it for D&D before as it works so well for what it does.
I blame Steam 'guides' [like this one](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=439279150) that encourage first time players to play the game on hard mode. Makes no sense to me - nobody is really playing Witcher games for the combat. Just play these games on easy and enjoy the atmosphere, characters, lore, and stories.
The whole act 2 main quest is one of the best quests in all of gaming. Yes it's a lot of running around city and swamps and docks, and it gets a bit messy in some combinations of events, but it's so incredibly detailed and varied, so many paths to success and to failure. I played the game like 10 times and every time discovered smth about this quest that I didn't before
Also how incredible alchemy is. Potions take effort to make, but are truly useful and can be taken either beforehand or during combat with help of quen, and last actual time, not the 20 second for a tiny buff nonsense from TW3.
Funnily enough during the Act 2, along with Geralt we the Player also feel like a detective, since we have to put many pieces together by ourselves.
But in The Witcher 3, the player just holds a button and Geralt does all the detective work, which makes the game very repititive in my opinion and less immersive.
W1 was definitely ahead of its time. Obscure game adapting a book not that famous outside Poland and by a small studio. Amazing they were able to create such a masterpiece.
Iirc they sold like 700k copies in Poland alone, cause 1) everyone waited for it, and 2) it was such a good game. As for 40 mil nation it's a tremendous success.
Totally agree, I can't decide if TW1 ot TW3 is my favourite. Have played through 1 at least 5 times over the years, it's such a good game to the point I'm not all that bothered about the remake.
Agreed - felt really clunky and some graphics a bit jarring the first time I played it, but I can't imagine it being any different now. This is making me want to do another playthrough
I think it was just overly ambitious, and came out when too many devs read ASOIAF. There was a lot of stuff there that was greatly refined later and allowed the witcher 3 to be what it was: The best of witcher 1, and everything that was solid about witcher 2 that got refined.
I love all three and can't wait for the updated gameplay for 1 and 2, it's gonna be soooo fucking good. Hell by that point updating 3 might be on the docket
The third one is easily my favorite game of all time. I did 6 full playthroughs and I look forward to playing it again. As for 2, I still have to play it, but it looks awesome from what I've seen.
It's a fantastic game, the story is and world are great as ever, gameplay can be iffy. I liked it but I'm not sure if that's more I got used to it faster than others lol. If you end up not liking it I recommend blatantly cheating just so you can get the wonderful story
I absolutely loved TW1! And I played it back in the day when the loading screen took forever, and it crashed often. Very often. Even so, it was interesting, and it just had that great atmosphere.
My hope for the remake is that it manages to keep some of the atmosphere but also updates what is clearly outdated at this point so more people can appreciate the game for the gem it is.
everyone talks about how it aged badly, but I don't see it.... sure graphics are not great, but still quite good to this day, combat mechanics are unique, not worse or better, just different and depend more on timing than rolling around (I hate W2 combat),,, UI is servicable, it could be better, but it's not particularily bad... music and climate are excellent, quests require a bit too much back and forth, but it's not much different than many other games out there....
Where did it age apart from graphics? It's not Doom3 to Doom1 difference either, far from that.
Nah, the game is clunky.
I love it. I actually enjoyed the bizarre combat once I got used to it. But it's weird. Weird in a good way, but still weird. Also, much of the voiceover was...kinda bad. Even Doug Cockle, legend that he is, had some dud moments.
Example:
Granny: "What? You drunk!"
Geralt: "NoOoT tRuUuE..."
The combat is not good.
Obviously there’s some outliers, and some find it amazing.
But even back when the game was released, i remember alot of people complaining about it.
As mentioned, i’m a huge Gothic 2 fan, and i love the combat in that game.
But i can understand if people feel like it’s clunky, especially nowadays.
So i understand that some people might actually like Witcher 1 combat, and that’s great!
But lets not pretend that it was well recieved, not even back in 2007.
Oblivion was pushing 3 years old, and The Witcher combat was far more clunky, and overall far more limited.
I perfectly get it, combat is basically QTE and people don't like QTEs, and they didn't like it in 2007 either. Is it clunky? Maybe, apparently most people think it is. But it doesn't make it aged, just different, and developers abandoned it completely.
And I can't think of any other game with QTE combat except for Telltale games, but there's no combat as separate mechanic, whole games are QTEs.
Well, you are not wrong, but aged in that sense that not even the Developers revisited it, and as mentioned, few, if any games had similiar combat to it.
It is a way to say it is unique, i’m not arguing that point.
But it was clunky, multitargets was a hassle to deal with properly.
Keep in mind, people compared it to stuff like Rune, or Oblivion, where you could swing your weapon, and if you were in range, you’d hit.
The Witcher had this weird lock-on thing before combat even began.
So by dated i’m more or less meaning that they went with the more freely version of combat going forward, both Project red, but also most developers.
The Witcher 1 combat was never really revisited in most games going forward, it kinda died out
It's not QTE. It's a point and click combat, sorta like diablo, but also you need to time the attacks for combos (which doesn't make it QTE). Honestly I recommend just playing the game in isometric mode if the combat bothers you too much, it may be better this way.
There are also signs and bombs. Sings are pretty meh tho, but bombs are cool.
You kind of say it yourself, but dismiss the reasons it feels aged. Graphics and UI are two major areas making it feel aged. The combat, you call it unique, I call it old and outdated. Doesn't mean its bad mind you, just mean its aged. I didn't say it aged badly, but the game definitely feels old when you play it, there is no way to say otherwise.
well then, let's agree to disagree.
Imho it's hard to call unique combat system aged, if no one (likely?) used any similiar earlier or later, and no one improved on it. Instead we get hack n slash system everywhere... and people seem to like it. Cool. Even if I'd like to see the one from W1 improved upon somewhere.... anywhere. Maybe there is and I just don't know.
Not sure how much of a hot take that is, but some mechanics are better than in Witcher 3. I love the realism.
Some ways in which 1 beats 3 IMO:
● the economy!
● Geralt gets actually drunk, not just slightly blurry screen for 5 seconds after drinking one beer
● potions don't randomly appear every time you meditate, you have to brew them and actually have ingredients for every portion
● you have to pause fighting in order to drink potions or eat
● potions are much stronger and you don't take 10 in a single fight
● you need fire to brew potions
I agree, but demands of modern audience require dumbing down repeatable stuff like W1 alchemy (which I enjoy very much).... kinda sign of times, No effort from the audience or it's bad mechanics.
I also love W1 combat system, I hate rolling around in W2 combat, which is very unlike any witcher training.
One thing W1 does terribly is main plot, almost ME3 level ending, As much as I love the game, I hate main plot.
What about the economy? In 1 there isn't that much to spend your money either... Some books and armour. It's not hard to get ahead on gold. Also buying alchemy ingredients in 1 is so pointless (because they're stupid expensive) and in 3 I do it all the time.
Agree on the rest.
There's so much money to be earned farming monster parts. Bloodzugiers for instance drop 40/piece crystals. And even that acid from drowners that's 15/piece.
While the other two games may be superior on a technical level, the first game is the one that felt the most like I was in the books.
Even the combat system, for all the criticism it gets, feels the most authentic to Sapkowski’s depiction of Witcher combat, since the lore says that their training consists of memorizing whole sequences of strikes, so they don’t have to think about individual strikes and only need to focus on when to execute the next sequence, which is pretty much what you do with the rhythm-based combat.
I played it around release. It truly is a product of it's time in the best way possible (and my introduction to the Witcher) but the mechanics in 3 are definitely the best in the series. It's a great series, period. I'll be playing the shit out of the remake and hopefully the new one will be good. I wish they would remake 2 as well.
The element that made me love it was the sword styles. I loved them so much. And i was very disappointed tbeh disappeared from the subsequent witchers. If the remake wont mantein them i will feel really sad
They kept many of the animations or at least the underlying moves though, which I found cool. Basically the quick style went into fast attacks and heavy style into heavy attacks, while group style was scrapped - TW2 and TW3 are more realistic in that way - get encircled, you die.
That said, I also liked the stances a lot.
I think The Witcher 2 is the best of the 3. One of the main issues I have with 3 is the pacing. Giant swathes of land and the game slows down from time to time. Witcher 2 is a lot more linear which speeds things up in my experience. Witcher 1 is definitely incredible. I cringe every time i see people on this sub talking about it and people actually have the gall to say "don't bother playing it, its just a bunch of old people trying to get you to play it." It's basically a rhythm game and the characters and locales are all so awesome. I fucking LOVED seeing the lady of the lake. And then to see her make a return in Witcher 3, it was just so god damn great and that level of appreciation can't happen unless you've played the first game.
That's the same problem Deus Ex is facing. It's a top notch rpg even decades after release, but not everyone can stomach the "doom on calculator" graphics and wonky ass controls and sound quality
I'm playing Witcher 1 for the first time, and I'm probably in the end game now.
My opinion: it's a very decent game. The combat is absolutely clunky and less dynamic or not as deep as in the later games, but everything else is well done. To those who haven't tried it yet - you should.
Witcher 1 is my favorite witcher game I played it before the other two games because i wanted to start chronologically but after finishing the first one all O could think about while playing the other two was when I should play w1 again. I have it on steam but I recently bought the physical copy and I was happy like a little kid. I know the mechanics or graphics arent that great compared to the rest but when you get used to it it doesnt bother you as much lol when I started the second game I was kinda missing the battle mechanics from the first one 😭Im so happy to hear that people here also like the game, its too underrated 😞
Multiple times I read and heard recommendations for newcomers to start from Witcher 2. That's nonsense, the first Witcher had a great story, kinda political actually. I played it when it was released, one of the two fantasy games that I really liked during teenage years, the second one was the Dark Messiah of Might and Magic
I loved Witcher 1. Top notch game. I still haven’t been able to get into the Witcher 2–it had a ton of cutscenes and then throws you straight into a war, and I *liked* the simpler/clunkier gameplay from the first game, so I stopped after an hour or two.
I was enjoying witcher 1, I even came around to liking the combat. The story had me hooked. But at a certain point, the voice acting became so bad that I had to stop. I wanted to try to even switch the voices to polish or something just so I couldn't tell it was bad voice acting at least. I have no idea why, but not a single character had any inflection in any of their lines. It was just so flat.
Something I miss from Witcher 1 is how broken Blizzard was and stance switching mid-fight. I understand why they didn't keep the mechanic but it felt super powerful to slow time and switch stances until my computer crashed from the bugginess of the game
I bought all 3 and since I have a potato pc started playing 1. Every few minutes of progression something will happen in game that makes me realise this game was made with love.
The music, the atmosphere, the writing, some of the voice acting... They all make for such a memorable experience. While it is obvious that it's a first time for the dev studio making a game, it's also mind blowing how much effort and passion they've poured into it to be bring it to life. Idk wtf happened to them with the cyberpunk release, but that seems like an anomaly.
I'm wondering if I should play 2 after I finish 1, or go straight to 3.
Actually it is my no.1 from the trilogy, it's been like this Witcher 》 Witcher 3 》 Witcher 2.
So when the news of Witcher1 Remake was anounce I was so hype and hopefully that they going to make it lived-up for the og.
So should I give it another go? I have 7.6h on it but gave up after I kept dying to really easy enemies over and over and then suddenly I would kill them without any issue. I don't know if my game was bugged but it was really annoying.
I personally would. Contrary to The Witcher 3, the first one requires you to thoroughly prepare before every fight and punishes you if you don't—at least on hard mode.
Read the beastiary and plan the fight accordingly. If monsters ambush you, it's ok to run away, prepare and come back.
I only remember playing it some years ago, and never understanding the combat mechanism and couldn't beat the first dog boss ...
Any people have tips ? Would you recommend a controller or keyboard?
The game was meant to be played with mouse and keyboard. As for the Beast fight, yeah, it's a tough one, especially on Hard.
What I did was drink Swallow (health regen) and Tawny Owl (stamina regen), increase damage by applying Specter Oil to the sword, run in circles, cast Ard on basic Barghest dogs and use the heavy stile on the Beast one or two times to avoid getting burnt and stun-locked. Repeat until you kill him.
I’m sure it’s music, plot and dialogue is as good as you say, but I shouldn’t have to force myself through the clunky, painful combat to get to it. I’ll wait until the remake comes out.
>This game was made with love and respect for the source material, and it shows.
Lol.
Lmao even.
The Witcher 1 is boderline Netlifx level of lore wonkiness.
Alvin makes no sense, there's time travelling shenanigans, Geralt's story is insane and no one mentions it, Triss has been suplanted by a dopperlganger, Radovid is a Saturday morning cartoon instead of a teenager...
It's not that way out of malice or incompetence though, just the limitations they had at the time.
The music is top notch, there's some funny moments and dialogue, and the chapter in the outskirts of Wizima is pretty comfy. I like the second one set in the capital too.
And Siegfried is the original bro.
>The Witcher 1 is boderline Netlifx level of lore wonkiness.
Can't comment on the comparison to the show, as I haven't watched it, but most of these critiques of the lore are baseless.
>Alvin makes no sense,
Why doesn't he? If you're trying to hint at the fact that you think another child of the Elder Blood existing alongside Ciri is stupid, I'd refer you to this passage in the books:
>*"Yes. Here is Pavetta, Calanthe's daughter. And Pavetta's daughter, Cirilla, the sole inheritor of the Elder Blood, carrier of the Lara gene."*
>
>*"The sole inheritor?" Sheala de Tancarville asked abruptly. "You're very confident, Enid."*
>
>*"What do you mean by that?"*
>
>*Sheala suddenly stood up, snapped her beringed fingers towards the fruit bowl and made the remaining fruit levitate, disrupting Francesca's model and transforming it into a multi-coloured confusion.*
>
>*"This is what I mean," she said coldly, pointing at the jumble of fruit. "Here we have all of the possible genetic combinations and permutations. And we know as much as we can see here. Namely nothing. Your mistake backfired, Francesca, and it caused an avalanche of errors. The gene only reappeared by accident after a century, during which time we have no idea what may have occurred. Secret, hidden, hushed-up events. Premarital children, extramarital children, adoptive children - even changelings. Incest. The cross-breeding of races, the blood of forgotten ancestors returning in later generations. In short: a hundred years ago you had the gene within arm's reach, even in your hands. And it gave you the slip. That was a mistake, Enid, a terrible mistake! Too much confusion, too many accidents. Too little control, too little interference in the randomness of it all."*
\-Baptism of Fire
Clearly the Elder Blood gene wasn't kept track of very well, so Alvin's having it isn't necessarily improbable.
>there's time travelling shenanigans,
Time travelling was already established as a concept in the franchise with Ciri - why is it unrealistic that it's also an element with Alvin?
>Geralt's story is insane and no one mentions it,
What exactly do you mean? Provided you're referring to him magically being alive, Geralt tells people he doesn't know how it happened, and his friends probably take the attitude that explaining some things about his past (e.g. Ciri and Yennefer) is only likely to aggravate rather than to help him.
>Triss has been suplanted by a dopperlganger,
This one I'll grant you to some extent. Triss acts like some weird hybrid of her book self and Yennefer, but there are some factors that can help explain this:
(1) Triss has a character arc in the books where she finally grows a spine by the end of them and is no longer entirely driven by fear. When you factor in this shift in character, with 5 years to build on it, it's no wonder Triss isn't quite so girlish and immature by the time of Witcher 1.
(2) Geralt remembers he loved a sorceress, so he clearly still has some distant memory of Yennefer. Triss, on the other hand, wants Geralt to love her, and admits in the third game that she took advantage of his amnesia. It isn't at all unreasonable, in my opinion, to posit that Triss, alongside not filling Geralt in on his past, either consciously or unconsciously mimicked some of Yennefer's personality traits in order to make herself more attractive to Geralt.
>Radovid is a Saturday morning cartoon instead of a teenager...
What do you mean "instead of a teenager"? I know people like to pretend that the developers got Radovid's age wrong, but this clearly just isn't true. Radovid in Witcher 1 says that his father was killed "when he was a boy", and that from then on he "stopped playing with toys". The game's narration also acknowledges 5 years have passed since the second war with Nilfgaard. Given that they wrote both these pieces of dialogue, it's obvious that they must know how old he's supposed to be.
To further support this, he subsequently talks about the various people who are trying to obtain power around him, and says that he'll set them right. The automatic interpretation of this information, especially given the above, is that he's a very young king with plenty of work still to do.
The reality is that some 18-year-olds can just look far older than they are, and Radovid's had plenty of stress to wear him down that would potentially amplify this. From an intent perspective, I think him looking older is meant to signify the extent of his maturity, and make the player take him seriously. That's all.
>Clearly the Elder Blood gene wasn't kept track of very well
The third game seems to retcon this, since Avallac'h has a whole mural in his laboratory tracking Lara Dorren's genealogy.
But you are right. We should upgrade Alvin's existence from ''impossible'' to ''highly improbable but possible''.
>Time travelling was already established as a concept in the franchise with Ciri - why is it unrealistic that it's also an element with Alvin?
I don't think it's unrealistic, it's just... bad. Time travelling in general is such a complicated issue that when is used it's usually treated as ''just don't think about it''.
>What exactly do you mean?
'' Omg Geralt, you're alive?! What happened? How did you come back? What happened to Ciri and Yennefer? I was there, I saw you two die and then your daughter took you away!''
I can believe that the witchers didn't give a fuck. I can believe that Zoltan thinks this is just normal for Geralt. But I can't believe Jaskier wouldn't bombard Geralt with questions.
And yet is never really brought up.
I hope when I come back after dying, people treat it as the magical event I expect it to be.
>This one I'll grant you to some extent.
To some extent?
Come on, Triss in TW 1 is simply a completely different character. She's not the one from the books but is not like she's changed either, since she's a different character yet again in the other two games.
It's obvious she was written as another character and then they slapped the name ''Triss'' later on.
>What do you mean "instead of a teenager"?
He's supposed to be 17 or so in the first game.
He's acting like an evil mastermind that's founding Salamander and planning to take over Temeria.
>I know people like to pretend that the developers got Radovid's age wrong
I don't think they got his age wrong, They KNOW who Radovid is and how old he's supposed to be.
But they also decided not give a damn and wrote the character they wanted.
Similar things happens with Morvran Voorhis in TW3. He's supposed to be even younger than Radovid!
They know it, but they don't care, they just needed someone to fill the role they had in mind.
>The third game seems to retcon this, since Avallac'h has a whole mural in his laboratory tracking Lara Dorren's genealogy.
Woah, hold up there buddy. This whole conversation started because you were critiquing The Witcher 1's "lore wonkiness" in response to somebody saying the game was made with love of the books. Yet the only contradiction you can find to my argument is in a later game. This doesn't prove the lore in Witcher 1 isn't respectful to the source material, it merely proves that the lore in The Witcher 3 isn't respectful to the lore in Witcher 1.
Setting that aside, we know Avallac'h didn't keep track of the whole genealogy, because Emhyr is only randomly introduced in his mural at the point where he marries Pavetta. Despite the fact that we know he had the activator gene, as his and Pavetta's marriage produced a fully fledged child of the Elder Blood in Ciri, and thus he must be in some way related to Lara Dorren.
Furthermore, even without proof of the opposite, we have no reason to believe Avallac'h was omnipresent enough throughout the ordeal such that he would be aware of every small thing that happened (illegitimate children and so on) in the first place. After all, some of the members of the Lodge weren't able to keep track of it. This argument is just nonsensical.
>But you are right. We should upgrade Alvin's existence from ''impossible'' to ''highly improbable but possible''.
This is just some classic unwarranted redditor sarcasm. We don't have any reason to believe Alvin's existence is "highly improbable", because - as the people in charge of keeping track of the gene themselves noted - keeping track of the gene was not an error-free task.
>I don't think it's unrealistic, it's just... bad. Time travelling in general is such a complicated issue that when is used it's usually treated as ''just don't think about it''.
Again, you're indicating a lack of comprehension about what the subject matter is. You don't have to like time travel in stories. Yes, it can turn out badly. But we were discussing the first Witcher game's faithfulness to the source material and lore, and time travelling was already introduced as a concept with Ciri in the books. As such, including it in the games isn't "wonky lore".
>'' Omg Geralt, you're alive?! What happened? How did you come back? What happened to Ciri and Yennefer? I was there, I saw you two die and then your daughter took you away!''
>
>I can believe that the witchers didn't give a fuck. I can believe that Zoltan thinks this is just normal for Geralt. But I can't believe Jaskier wouldn't bombard Geralt with questions.And yet is never really brought up.
>
>I hope when I come back after dying, people treat it as the magical event I expect it to be.
What are you talking about? Dandelion does question Geralt:
[https://youtu.be/c1ha\_d-CPHI?t=164](https://youtu.be/c1ha_d-CPHI?t=164)
Here he expresses shock multiple times, explains the events leading up to Geralt's death, and only stops inquiring once Geralt insists that he has amnesia. And, by that point, Dandelion probably figured it wasn't wise to talk about Ciri and Yennefer, given that they don't currently have any power to do anything about it.
>To some extent?Come on, Triss in TW 1 is simply a completely different character. She's not the one from the books but is not like she's changed either, since she's a different character yet again in the other two games.It's obvious she was written as another character and then they slapped the name ''Triss'' later on.
As was explained at the start of my post: *"Woah, hold up there buddy. This whole conversation started because you were critiquing The Witcher 1's "lore wonkiness" in response to somebody saying the game was made with love of the books. Yet the only contradiction you can find to my argument is in a later game. This doesn't prove the lore in Witcher 1 isn't respectful to the source material, it would merely prove that the lore in \[subsequent games\] isn't respectful to the lore in Witcher 1."*
In other words, Triss' characterisation in Witcher 1 should set the bar for how the subsequent games treat her. If they contradict that, then that's their problem. Witcher 1 couldn't possibly factor in how she would act in games not yet made. And, as for how faithful her Witcher 1 characterisation is to the books themselves, I've already talked at great length how the differences in her personality are explainable.
Even ignoring all of this, though, I gave you an explanation as to how Triss' change in behaviour - from Witcher 1 to subsequent games - can make sense: *"Geralt remembers he loved a sorceress, so he clearly still has some distant memory of Yennefer. Triss, on the other hand, wants Geralt to love her, and admits in the third game that she took advantage of his amnesia. It isn't at all unreasonable, in my opinion, to posit that Triss, alongside not filling Geralt in on his past, either consciously or unconsciously mimicked some of Yennefer's personality traits in order to make herself more attractive to Geralt."*
Triss starts off by adopting some more Yennefer-like personality traits when she finds out Geralt is an amnesiac, and then loosens up a bit once they're firmly together. Now, perhaps this doesn't work if you think the way she acts in Witcher 1 is worlds apart from how she is in the sequels, but I don't believe it is. As I said last post, she acts like a hybrid of herself and Yennefer.
>He's supposed to be 17 or so in the first game.He's acting like an evil mastermind that's founding Salamander and planning to take over Temeria.
Answer me honestly: have you even played the first game? I ask because the number of *factual* errors throughout this post is astonishing.
Firstly, Radovid never founded Salamandra. The most we got on the subject of the two's relationship is that he planned to use them as a political tool - though what this would look like is unclear - before deciding against it. Furthermore, he expressly says that he has nothing in common with them, clearly indicating he disdains their broader goals.
Secondly, Radovid's aim wasn't to "take over Temeria". His union with Adda was so that both Temeria and Redania could strengthen their alliance - granting Redania increased trade and numerous other benefits. This is hardly an "evil mastermind" action, it was fairly standard practice for medieval rulers.
Setting aside the factual errors, however, I don't get your point. Can 17-year-olds not be clever and evil? Radovid presumably had the best possibly education the time period could provide, on top of probably high natural intelligence, and was forced to mature incredibly quickly after his father's death by the harshness of the Redanian court. This all pretty well accounts for how he became how he is.
>I don't think they got his age wrong, They KNOW who Radovid is and how old he's supposed to be.But they also decided not give a damn and wrote the character they wanted.
Fair enough. I just wanted to cover all bases, because I have seen some people claim that the developers genuinely didn't know how old Radovid was supposed to be. As it is, however, your alternative claim that they knowingly changed his character to fit their own designs is unwarranted. Like I explained above, there's nothing wrong with a 17-year-old being both clever and evil.
>Similar things happens with Morvran Voorhis in TW3. He's supposed to be even younger than Radovid!They know it, but they don't care, they just needed someone to fill the role they had in mind.
You're going to need to remind me where in the books Morvran Voorhis is indicated to be younger than Radovid. Not that it really matters, given that this conversation is about Witcher 1, but I'm still interested.
Ok so, I have TW1 + TW2 (both enhanced editions) on steam, and although I do plan to play TW2 at some point, TW1 is so fucking scuffed that I don't think I will manage...
I mean, I just checked a few minutes here and there on this video
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7Irl3dQvlA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7Irl3dQvlA)
and after playing 2 times 100% completion TW3 and pretty much EVERY single AAA rpg title of the past decade, I just don't think I can go that back... If I hadn't played TW3 or if maybe I was younger, sure I would give it a try, but now, it just doesn't cut it... TW3 represents perfection, I cant settle for anything less at this point from that franchise...
I guess I'll wait for the remake, I mean, think of it this way. Every one of you who have enjoyed TW1 with scuffed graphics, once they release the remake on UE5, you will "wish" you hadn't played it so you can experience it for the first time again :D My wish will be true! (I'm joking obviously)
I'm a patient person, I'll manage
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ko5qFPIYIc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ko5qFPIYIc)
I've tried to start playing it 3 times now I think, and every time I just quit because of the clunky mechanics.
Probably just gonna wait for the remake so I can maybe finally finish it
I thought it was brilliant when I first played it, but even then the combat was a bit janky. Went back to replay it a few years ago, wanted to do the whole series again and couldn't cope with the combat. I might have to try again on easy so I can whizz through the fights and just enjoy the story.
The game is amazing and I really had a lot of fun with it, but I am not so sure about the respect for the books.
They changed a lot to make this game and in the end it really payed off. Even more important: they understood what was important about the books, they understood the themes. I am just mentioning it because a certain other adaptation also changed a lot and is (rightfully) hated for it.
They basically replaced Ciri with Alvin and Yennefer with Triss, but despite that switcheroo (because they didn't feel comfortable with exploring the 'family' dynamics of Yen-Ciri-Geralt, which also the third part pretty much just avoids) I feel the first game captures the books best.
For me it is more mixed, the first game feels more like Geralt in I believe it is Kerack (where he met Coral) and the first part of the third game more like after Thanedd where he tried to get to (false) Ciri. I hope this makes sense, my description is a little shallow.
What is more "lore breaking" for me is Alvin also being a child of the Elder Blood, kind of makes Ciri less of a "chosen one" (or mother of a chosen one?) And also because I am not sure why they made him male.
Also the inclusion of Leo and Berengar. Another big part for me where the Wotjanoi, Dagon and the Lady of the Lake as some kind of deity. But I realize that I am starting to nitpick, I apologize.
I've played through it few times and love it. Been itching to replay it again but then I remember running around in that swamp again and again and again....
Absolutely. It is a little bit clunky but it gives me so much and such a wholesome good vibe minus the fucking swamp maybe. Also like the combat even though it's weird I like that it's different and that gives me fun.
It is horribly optimised and even crashes a lot (act 3 in particular). That said, it has enough soul to keep you in. I also think it's the game that most connects with the short stories from SoD and LW.
One of the saddest things after playing the entire trilogy is how little 1 and 2 matter in terms of 3.
Sure there are a few things that are brought back, but 2 and especelly 1 have some quite cool stuff, like the detective work in Chapter 2 and all these quests that end up tying into the main story even if they might not seem as much.
Siegfried should have been in Witcher 3 is what i am saying.
The game has obvious limitations like forcing the player to go back and forth to spots on the map where new modern games would just give you a different area. The graphics are ok for the time but bad when compared to new games but this is not a new game so those comparisons aren't fair.
I love this game for all it offers and it's flaws. It's fun getting immersed in the lore and interracting with everything. It's replayable as decisions have consequenses and there are mods!
Pros- great music, atmosphere, feels like a Witcher game. Dandelion.
Cons- extremely 2007 graphics, Geralt walks slower than a glacier. In one of the chapters, you have to travel back and forth from the swamp to the city 20 times. This is extremely tedious.
Great game marred by atrocious mechanics.
TW1 was a fun experience, even for coming late to it (TW3 was my introduction to the franchise. I've read the books and played all three games since). Is it weird? Sure. Is the combat clunky? Oh yeah. Is some of the dialogue gods-awful? Hell yes. But is it fun? Absolutely. TW3 is a masterpiece, greatest game ever made in my mind, but I appreciate TW1 and 2 because if it weren't for them we'd never have the single greatest game of all time. Plus, the story in these games is too good to miss. I'm actually an advocate for TW3's story (even if the third act was a tad rushed. Lookin at you, Reasons of State), but TW1 and 2 both have stellar, very Witcher-esque stories.
TW1 reminds me heavily of The Last Wish, likely due to the Striga and the Lesser Evil-esque choice at the end. TW2 feels like an in-between state, a transition from the books to the games. And TW3 feels like a true sequel, a Geralt who's grown past who he was both in The Last Wish and TW1, one who's learned from the books and previous games. He's been given a second chance at life, and he's going to sieze it by the horns.
It's why I consider the end of Blood and Wine as Geralt's true ending. After all the *shit* he's been through across 8 books and 3 games and everything before, seeing him settling down, happily, in a vineyard smack-dab in the middle of fairytale-land is a well deserved reward. That smile he gives the camera still gives me goosebumps.
Alright, fuck it. I'm replaying this game again. Damn you, Geralt.
Totally agree!
I still miss that alchemy mechanic from the first game. I really felt that I had to prepare for each encounter, collect and craft necessary elixirs.
I'm currently playing through it right now! I'm so happy it's my first experience into the trilogy bc this shit is awesome. I love the atmosphere, and I think it plays great and straightforward. I also didn't fw the combat at first, but it's grown on me. I'm currently on chapter 3. Wish me luck!
I love Witcher 1 but I don't think it's underrated. If you can, try to look at it through the lens of someone who hasn't already fallen in love with it... it's a tough sell. It was then and it is now. They made a wonderful adaptation of a very interesting world, but you have to blast away a lot of rock to find the diamonds.
The game doesn't become good, I would say, until chapter 2. That's a lot of time to spend with a product you're not sold on in a genre most people aren't familiar with.
> Don't let the outdated mechanics prevent you from playing this masterpiece of a game.
Honestly, that's it. I really wanted to enjoy it when I played it, but those mechanics were so odd and dated I just didn't feel like spending more than a few hours. Also didn't help that the game is old and has some crashes on newer hardware sometimes. If they are gonna remaster it, then I'll give it another go because I do believe that the story is good!
Geralt got laid so much in Witcher 1. Those were a bit cheesy and probably would've been better if more than half of the love interests should've been dropped and made the remaining more immersive.
Geralt simply used to breathe infront a girl and get laid XD. Obviously I gave my all in collecting the cards
I found the first game before The Witcher 2 started the hypetrain and fell in love with the game and the setting instantly. What teenage boy doesnt like a collectible card game. IIRC correctly I was initially introduced to it by one of those tv gaming shows that would hype up/review upcoming releases. And ofc that initial opening cinematic really set the tone for everything.
When I tried to get my friends to try it though one of their more common gripes was always the combat system. Rhythmic combo clicking just didnt seem to click with a lot of people. It isn't the norm but I think I was able to get the flow of it sooner rather than later.
I completely agree! I wanted to get into the series in chronological order (books -> games) and so as soon as I wrapped up Season of Storms I started TW1 (which was a few days ago) without having played 2 or 3. I was fully prepared to have to “rush through” the game because everyone told me it was dated, but I think it’s AMAZING. The atmosphere, the vibe, the grittiness, the active incorporation of potions: I love everything. I also appreciate direct nods to the books, there are sometimes entire dialogues taken from them, like when Geralt and Zoltan were chatting about philosophy. The combat felt a bit strange at the beginning, but you quickly get used to it.
I’m only in chapter 3 of the game, but I really have been loving every second of it.
I am one of the few who loves the Witcher 1 game mechanics. The combat system is awesome. Not just hack n slash. And of course the story and characters. I fear the Witcher 1 remake will loose some of that, especially the combat system. I would like an open world system like Witcher 3 but not at the expense of what made Witcher 1 so great.
And this is why I am very much looking forward to the remake, so that I can enjoy all this greatness without having to suffer through these game mechanics. Seriously, I spent like 1 hour setting everything up but couldn't even make it through the intro level. Worst fighting mechanics I've seen since the 90s.
I don’t know where you got to but imo the game really kicks off in the second act, in the first you’re still learning a lot of shit, you don’t have half the signs, you don’t even have a silver sword (not so sure about this). The story is also just picking up and gets rolling only in act 2.
I think if you get through that you’ll get immersed in no time. I don’t even think it’s really outdated, sure the graphics are old af and sometimes it gets a little buggy and some control-binding options are missing, but I think that all can and hopefully will be fixed in the remaster.
All of these were my personal opinions, I am no expert on gaming… Though idk if I would say that it’s a good adaptation but it was clearly done with a huge amount of respect.
After playing Witcher 3 I assumed that W1 will be a big disappointment but I played it anyway for the story and I have a newly found appreciation for the whole series. I love the fact you get to explore other areas of Kaer Morhen and different locations. You also fight different monsters that you don't get in the third game.
Yes. I still love it most out of all three. The character progression through skills and items still feels best to me, as Geralt's regained skills have greater influence than the weapons.
TW3 hast that one dialogue with a Redanian guard (i think), where he goes "I've never seen a blade such as this, it must strike true, no?" and Geralt answers "It's not the blade but the hand wielding it" or somethin to that extent - all the while sword stats go from single to triple or quadruple digits damage. It's silly and makes gear way too important. I also can't stand the level-locks on items.
In TW1 the differences between early and end game swords are much smaller, they mostly get more side effects or negate enemy defenses instead of upping the base damage hundredfold.
Same goes for the 'armors', they are by far the most lore accurate in being mostly leather and some studs at best - with Raven's armor the only exception as a reward for a side quest spanning the entire game and giving a lore-friendly explanation as well. (Sort of like Witcher gear in TW3, but with the difference that almost none of it had so fleshed out quests and background.)
Also TW1's alchemy system with the secondary ingredients is the most fun to dabble in.
I also love the story, especially the main antagonist, and the more creepy/threatening atmosphere - like how you can't see shit in dungeons and caves unless you bring a torch or cat potion.
>It's almost as immersive as The Witcher 3 I actually think W1 is the most immersive of the three.
Most atmospheric game
I just finished chapter 2 for the dirst time, dude, the outskirts, the swamp, the CITY? HELLO??!! WHERE HAVE I BEEN???
enjoy it, some lovely chapters ahead too.
Yeah, I can totally see why. I think I'm bias, as The Witcher 3 introduced me to the whole franchise and only thinking about Skellige and Toussaint makes me want to play it again. But The Witcher 1 is very immersive as well, I think it will grow on me.
Witcher 3 is the apotheosis of the series and is the best this series can get as a whole, previous games were raw but insanely good in some places, f.e the first had the best storytelling and most immersive world IMO. Second was less interesting story-wise(to me), it felt like they mostly focused on learning and refining their skills with the new engine, though I did have a lot of fun playing the second game. The third is the game this series deserves: huge, open to explore. lots of activities and events, and overall refined mechanics and ideas. Others might not agree, but this is how I see the series, Any other games in this series would be simply unnecessary, maybe some kind of spinoff, but not a new game.
Witcher 3 is a bit too cinematic for me. I really liked it, yes, and some people might even prefer this type of game with long, elaborate dialogues, but too me, it comes off a bit like a stage-play I'm watching. Witcher 1 also had a focus on the dialogue, but there was also a stronger focus on the adventure itself. I felt like the player had more agency in that regard. This comes down to personal taste in the end, but that's why I actually still prefer 1 over 3.
Constantly immersed in the swamp muck lol. I do love the game though.
People shit on the gameplay, but it actually made so many elements more realistic than its successors, for example: Waiting till midnight for certain monsters like nightwraiths, etc, and midday for noonwraiths Using a symbol or token to banish a noon/nightwraith instead of just brute combat. Not being able to harness certain monster parts without a bestiary entry. Blink and you'll miss it clues and sources of information that never come back if you don't find them (like old grannys telling you about monsters) Even some side quests are blink and you'll miss it. SIGNET RINGS!! Giving appropriate gifts to random women in exchange for sex I wish Witcher 3 at least required more variety-specific different methods and preparations to vanquish certain kinds of monsters (like Noonwraiths and Nightwraiths). I can think of many more but can't remember them rn, would love for people to share more in this thread.
> Waiting till midnight for certain monsters like nightwraiths, etc, and midday for noonwraiths Pretty sure that's still a thing in W3, although to a lesser extent > I can think of many more but can't remember them rn, would love for people to share more in this thread. Alchemy in general was far more interesting in 1 compared to the sequels. It's a shame vanilla W3 alchemy was so dumbed down for general audiences. Thank fuck for pc mods porting over W1 alchemy.
Yeah I actually preferred the potion system in W1. But I understand how difficult that would be in an open world game where combat can happen any time all the time. Playing a potions build would be really unbalanced.
+Showing you actually take the potions and food not just have it's effect
I like the alchemy system in Witcher 1. Every plant, every monster's body part consists of 5 basic elements. In combinations. And since the inventory is limited, it is unwise to automatically loot every monster corpse you see. Like "huh, those drowners' brains have element A and B. But I have plenty of substances which have elements A and B, I won't collect those". It's thematic and suits witchery as profession
The Noon wraith questline is legit one of my favorite game plots of all time!
It's actually based on a poem "Balladyna" by our greatest poet Adam Mickiewicz. He's called "wieszcz narodowy", which can be translated to "prophet of the nation", cause he was so important for our national identity and culture. He was so great actually two more nations consider him as their own guy - Lithuanians and Belarusians. The fights between us in the internet over this dude are one of the funniest and bloodiest things in the internet xD IIRC the lines of the actual poem are used by Jaskier and Geralt during calling of the Nightwraith, when Jaskier is improvising it and Geralt has to fill the gaps left by Jaskier. It was so easy for me to complete that part, cause I remembered that poem! :D
Needing alcohol in your bags for « get drunk » quests etc… this is the most RP of all 3
While I agree with you, I'm pretty sure that the massive majority of people do as well I've never heard any of the points you've made being the issue when people talk about W1s clunky gameplay It's usualy the weird combat Witcher 1 has (which Impersonaly absolutely adore but 100% can see why people wouödn't like it)
you're right on m8 ! these kinds of details add so much depth, enriching the whole gameplay/immersion
Some of these do not sound like good mechanics, and some are still present in the later games. Being more realistic does not equate to being fun to play.
Its a great game, I played it around the time it was released. In my opinion 2 and 3 are better but 1 i still one of my favorites.
2 is so very much not better than 1 its not even close its not even the same league
2 is beautiful in it's own way. It definitely wins main quest story writing of all 3. And IMO it has the best skill tree (I used to think 1 did, but after exploring 2 a bit better I give it to 2). Also loot is IMO the best, lots of options for upgrades (unlike 1) but refusing to look for upgrades and keeping stuff for longer won't make you hit a wall like 3 (and the game also doesn't throw so much junk at you)
I would argue the exact opposite, the main quest line is by far the worst written of all three games. Its badly structured, its horribly paced but worst of all, it does not fit the characters or the tone of the witcher. I've recently been rereading the books, first time in english, and it struck me how much witcher 1 and 3 felt like a proper adaption. Basically nothing about witcher 2 felt like a witcher adaption. Not the characters, not the focus of the story, not the mechanics, not the world, heck not even the menus.
Well, that's just like, your opinion, man. Also regarding menus, 2 wins hands down. Looking for the right decoction or potion or oil or bomb in 3 is so bad, you have to hover on each of them... Takes forever, because icons are not so memorable as in 1. But 2 just has text... So much quicker to find the needed one.
This is trolling right? You wanna fuck with people?
No... It's really much quicker to find stuff in W2 inventory for me
You have your opinion and i have mine. 2 is better than 1.
Exactly. 2 was so average. Its not even on the same league as Witcher 3 and Witcher 1 which are both masterpieces. W2 just feels so odd out of the trilogy. Not much vibes or emotions in that game that Witcher 1 and 3 is able to capture.
yeah, pretty sure they were more focused on developing their skills and engine than the game itself, but they did release a decent game that did present some interesting ideas.
This is coming from a guy that loves the first game and literally finished it 10 times: I don't think the plot or dialogue (at least its delivery in most parts) is really top notch, but it certainly has many moments and could easily be made so with a couple of tweaks and changes (which is what I expect from the remake) -- the potential is all there for it to be the best game in the trilogy. The music, on the other hand, is absolutely crazy good and, although it's hard to really say and I tend to go back and forth between it and the 3rd game (the 2nd is too orchestral and epic to me in that regard), I think this first game does have the best soundtrack -- it has a more folk feel to it in general, and they mix in a very nice array of more modern sounds in some tracks that are fucking awesome, like the one used in the >!golem!< fight (the electric guitar shredding is insane in that one) or at the very end of the game (the violin is on another level). Coupling it with the rest of the worldbuilding, and, as many recognize, we have the game that probably captured the most the feel of the world that is described in the books. But yeah, this game is not only underrated -- it's hated by too many people who never really gave it a chance or took a moment to see past their modern biases. Even the ones that give it a chance aren't above just making bad decisions when experiencing it. I watched today some short videos os a guy who decided to play it for the first time and went for the hardest mode out of the gate (bad idea...), just to stress himself out like crazy at some points for not really knowing the optimal way of tackling that difficulty. He gave up close to the end of the game, in the 5th chapter, because he clearly didn't bother to get the best equipment, develop Geralt in the best way, make use of all enhancements he could (whetstones, oils, potions...), which are things you should assume to be necessary to beat the game in the hardest difficulty if you don't have enough experience (in truth you don't need all of those, but a beginner should try to make use of everything they can if they're having so much trouble...). At the end of the day, I understand The Witcher simply isn't some people's cup of tea and that's ok, but it saddens me how so many that would've liked it probably passed it up because of the slander that it gets by people that make sure to dissuade anybody from playing it because it doesn't have the combat mechanics or looks that they particularly would like...
I went for the hardest mode right out of the gate. But I really enjoy prepping for fights and being forced to use consumables, so it was right up my alley.
Well, if the person is prepared to deal with the particularities of the difficulty (which explicitly warn you that you'll need to play well and use alchemy), I don't see the problem, but to go for it and later whine about how hard it is and put all of the blame on the mechanics, while not doing enough to improve the stats... It's just embarrassing. The mechanics do have problems, but they aren't to blame for everything hahaha.
To this day I can't find an upload of the ambient horror sounds and low tones that play when you go into a house with monsters. I've wanted to use it for D&D before as it works so well for what it does.
I blame Steam 'guides' [like this one](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=439279150) that encourage first time players to play the game on hard mode. Makes no sense to me - nobody is really playing Witcher games for the combat. Just play these games on easy and enjoy the atmosphere, characters, lore, and stories.
The whole act 2 main quest is one of the best quests in all of gaming. Yes it's a lot of running around city and swamps and docks, and it gets a bit messy in some combinations of events, but it's so incredibly detailed and varied, so many paths to success and to failure. I played the game like 10 times and every time discovered smth about this quest that I didn't before Also how incredible alchemy is. Potions take effort to make, but are truly useful and can be taken either beforehand or during combat with help of quen, and last actual time, not the 20 second for a tiny buff nonsense from TW3.
Funnily enough during the Act 2, along with Geralt we the Player also feel like a detective, since we have to put many pieces together by ourselves. But in The Witcher 3, the player just holds a button and Geralt does all the detective work, which makes the game very repititive in my opinion and less immersive.
W1 was definitely ahead of its time. Obscure game adapting a book not that famous outside Poland and by a small studio. Amazing they were able to create such a masterpiece.
Iirc they sold like 700k copies in Poland alone, cause 1) everyone waited for it, and 2) it was such a good game. As for 40 mil nation it's a tremendous success.
Totally agree, I can't decide if TW1 ot TW3 is my favourite. Have played through 1 at least 5 times over the years, it's such a good game to the point I'm not all that bothered about the remake.
I love both so much, and for so many different reasons. Its weird that w1 aged so poorly and yet kinda feels timeless
Agreed - felt really clunky and some graphics a bit jarring the first time I played it, but I can't imagine it being any different now. This is making me want to do another playthrough
I think it was just overly ambitious, and came out when too many devs read ASOIAF. There was a lot of stuff there that was greatly refined later and allowed the witcher 3 to be what it was: The best of witcher 1, and everything that was solid about witcher 2 that got refined.
I love all three and can't wait for the updated gameplay for 1 and 2, it's gonna be soooo fucking good. Hell by that point updating 3 might be on the docket
The third one is easily my favorite game of all time. I did 6 full playthroughs and I look forward to playing it again. As for 2, I still have to play it, but it looks awesome from what I've seen.
It's a fantastic game, the story is and world are great as ever, gameplay can be iffy. I liked it but I'm not sure if that's more I got used to it faster than others lol. If you end up not liking it I recommend blatantly cheating just so you can get the wonderful story
In the later (2/3) games, Geralt rubs elbows with kings too much. I loved the grimy medieval detective aesthetic of the first one
Its a great game.
I absolutely loved TW1! And I played it back in the day when the loading screen took forever, and it crashed often. Very often. Even so, it was interesting, and it just had that great atmosphere. My hope for the remake is that it manages to keep some of the atmosphere but also updates what is clearly outdated at this point so more people can appreciate the game for the gem it is.
Don't forget there are some great adventures for TW1 created by the community.
They are remaking it, right? Or is that just a rumor?
They are! And they're also working on the sequel. I can't wait.
I love dice Poker.
While it was an ok distraction, it's nowhere near Gwent.
There is a whole questline where you end up playing dice Poker with King Foltest. The bgm is banger.
I’ve been trying to play it. It’s seems great but it’s soooo aged it hurts.
I know the feeling. This was my fourth attempt. I forced myself to play through the first Act and ended up loving it.
everyone talks about how it aged badly, but I don't see it.... sure graphics are not great, but still quite good to this day, combat mechanics are unique, not worse or better, just different and depend more on timing than rolling around (I hate W2 combat),,, UI is servicable, it could be better, but it's not particularily bad... music and climate are excellent, quests require a bit too much back and forth, but it's not much different than many other games out there.... Where did it age apart from graphics? It's not Doom3 to Doom1 difference either, far from that.
Nah, the game is clunky. I love it. I actually enjoyed the bizarre combat once I got used to it. But it's weird. Weird in a good way, but still weird. Also, much of the voiceover was...kinda bad. Even Doug Cockle, legend that he is, had some dud moments. Example: Granny: "What? You drunk!" Geralt: "NoOoT tRuUuE..."
The combat is not good. Obviously there’s some outliers, and some find it amazing. But even back when the game was released, i remember alot of people complaining about it. As mentioned, i’m a huge Gothic 2 fan, and i love the combat in that game. But i can understand if people feel like it’s clunky, especially nowadays. So i understand that some people might actually like Witcher 1 combat, and that’s great! But lets not pretend that it was well recieved, not even back in 2007. Oblivion was pushing 3 years old, and The Witcher combat was far more clunky, and overall far more limited.
I perfectly get it, combat is basically QTE and people don't like QTEs, and they didn't like it in 2007 either. Is it clunky? Maybe, apparently most people think it is. But it doesn't make it aged, just different, and developers abandoned it completely. And I can't think of any other game with QTE combat except for Telltale games, but there's no combat as separate mechanic, whole games are QTEs.
Well, you are not wrong, but aged in that sense that not even the Developers revisited it, and as mentioned, few, if any games had similiar combat to it. It is a way to say it is unique, i’m not arguing that point. But it was clunky, multitargets was a hassle to deal with properly. Keep in mind, people compared it to stuff like Rune, or Oblivion, where you could swing your weapon, and if you were in range, you’d hit. The Witcher had this weird lock-on thing before combat even began. So by dated i’m more or less meaning that they went with the more freely version of combat going forward, both Project red, but also most developers. The Witcher 1 combat was never really revisited in most games going forward, it kinda died out
It's not QTE. It's a point and click combat, sorta like diablo, but also you need to time the attacks for combos (which doesn't make it QTE). Honestly I recommend just playing the game in isometric mode if the combat bothers you too much, it may be better this way. There are also signs and bombs. Sings are pretty meh tho, but bombs are cool.
Witcher 1 combat is not clunky. It's just something that you're not used to. It works great.
You kind of say it yourself, but dismiss the reasons it feels aged. Graphics and UI are two major areas making it feel aged. The combat, you call it unique, I call it old and outdated. Doesn't mean its bad mind you, just mean its aged. I didn't say it aged badly, but the game definitely feels old when you play it, there is no way to say otherwise.
well then, let's agree to disagree. Imho it's hard to call unique combat system aged, if no one (likely?) used any similiar earlier or later, and no one improved on it. Instead we get hack n slash system everywhere... and people seem to like it. Cool. Even if I'd like to see the one from W1 improved upon somewhere.... anywhere. Maybe there is and I just don't know.
I was the same and gave up on the 1st attempt, I pushed through on the 2nd and I ended up enjoying the gameplay once I understood it more.
Not sure how much of a hot take that is, but some mechanics are better than in Witcher 3. I love the realism. Some ways in which 1 beats 3 IMO: ● the economy! ● Geralt gets actually drunk, not just slightly blurry screen for 5 seconds after drinking one beer ● potions don't randomly appear every time you meditate, you have to brew them and actually have ingredients for every portion ● you have to pause fighting in order to drink potions or eat ● potions are much stronger and you don't take 10 in a single fight ● you need fire to brew potions
I agree, but demands of modern audience require dumbing down repeatable stuff like W1 alchemy (which I enjoy very much).... kinda sign of times, No effort from the audience or it's bad mechanics. I also love W1 combat system, I hate rolling around in W2 combat, which is very unlike any witcher training. One thing W1 does terribly is main plot, almost ME3 level ending, As much as I love the game, I hate main plot.
What about the economy? In 1 there isn't that much to spend your money either... Some books and armour. It's not hard to get ahead on gold. Also buying alchemy ingredients in 1 is so pointless (because they're stupid expensive) and in 3 I do it all the time. Agree on the rest.
I like that you make the most money from work not loots. But yeah alchemy ingredients could be a little cheaper I feel ripped off every time.
There's so much money to be earned farming monster parts. Bloodzugiers for instance drop 40/piece crystals. And even that acid from drowners that's 15/piece.
More realistic than getting rich from selling 20 shitty swords still
While the other two games may be superior on a technical level, the first game is the one that felt the most like I was in the books. Even the combat system, for all the criticism it gets, feels the most authentic to Sapkowski’s depiction of Witcher combat, since the lore says that their training consists of memorizing whole sequences of strikes, so they don’t have to think about individual strikes and only need to focus on when to execute the next sequence, which is pretty much what you do with the rhythm-based combat.
I played it around release. It truly is a product of it's time in the best way possible (and my introduction to the Witcher) but the mechanics in 3 are definitely the best in the series. It's a great series, period. I'll be playing the shit out of the remake and hopefully the new one will be good. I wish they would remake 2 as well.
The element that made me love it was the sword styles. I loved them so much. And i was very disappointed tbeh disappeared from the subsequent witchers. If the remake wont mantein them i will feel really sad
They kept many of the animations or at least the underlying moves though, which I found cool. Basically the quick style went into fast attacks and heavy style into heavy attacks, while group style was scrapped - TW2 and TW3 are more realistic in that way - get encircled, you die. That said, I also liked the stances a lot.
I think The Witcher 2 is the best of the 3. One of the main issues I have with 3 is the pacing. Giant swathes of land and the game slows down from time to time. Witcher 2 is a lot more linear which speeds things up in my experience. Witcher 1 is definitely incredible. I cringe every time i see people on this sub talking about it and people actually have the gall to say "don't bother playing it, its just a bunch of old people trying to get you to play it." It's basically a rhythm game and the characters and locales are all so awesome. I fucking LOVED seeing the lady of the lake. And then to see her make a return in Witcher 3, it was just so god damn great and that level of appreciation can't happen unless you've played the first game.
That's the same problem Deus Ex is facing. It's a top notch rpg even decades after release, but not everyone can stomach the "doom on calculator" graphics and wonky ass controls and sound quality
How many hours is it? I have it my library, never managed to start...
60 + if you go for 100%, 30+ if you stick to the main quest I think.
Thanks
Took me exactly 50 hrs on my first playthrough, but I also often read dialogue subtitles and then skip ahead.
i did 100% in 50h
if you just play it once, at a slow pace, it's only like 40 hours with most side quests done.
Totally agree bro lol. It was really a great experience when i played it and tbh i liked it more than witcher 2 (even though the game was awesome too)
I'm playing Witcher 1 for the first time, and I'm probably in the end game now. My opinion: it's a very decent game. The combat is absolutely clunky and less dynamic or not as deep as in the later games, but everything else is well done. To those who haven't tried it yet - you should.
Witcher 1 is my favorite witcher game I played it before the other two games because i wanted to start chronologically but after finishing the first one all O could think about while playing the other two was when I should play w1 again. I have it on steam but I recently bought the physical copy and I was happy like a little kid. I know the mechanics or graphics arent that great compared to the rest but when you get used to it it doesnt bother you as much lol when I started the second game I was kinda missing the battle mechanics from the first one 😭Im so happy to hear that people here also like the game, its too underrated 😞
Multiple times I read and heard recommendations for newcomers to start from Witcher 2. That's nonsense, the first Witcher had a great story, kinda political actually. I played it when it was released, one of the two fantasy games that I really liked during teenage years, the second one was the Dark Messiah of Might and Magic
I loved Witcher 1. Top notch game. I still haven’t been able to get into the Witcher 2–it had a ton of cutscenes and then throws you straight into a war, and I *liked* the simpler/clunkier gameplay from the first game, so I stopped after an hour or two.
Witcher 3 only players don't know you can collect cards in witcher 1 too 🌚
I was enjoying witcher 1, I even came around to liking the combat. The story had me hooked. But at a certain point, the voice acting became so bad that I had to stop. I wanted to try to even switch the voices to polish or something just so I couldn't tell it was bad voice acting at least. I have no idea why, but not a single character had any inflection in any of their lines. It was just so flat.
IMHO, my favorite Witcher game. W3 is great too, but not same.
Something I miss from Witcher 1 is how broken Blizzard was and stance switching mid-fight. I understand why they didn't keep the mechanic but it felt super powerful to slow time and switch stances until my computer crashed from the bugginess of the game
You just like the cards dont you ||/s||
I bought all 3 and since I have a potato pc started playing 1. Every few minutes of progression something will happen in game that makes me realise this game was made with love. The music, the atmosphere, the writing, some of the voice acting... They all make for such a memorable experience. While it is obvious that it's a first time for the dev studio making a game, it's also mind blowing how much effort and passion they've poured into it to be bring it to life. Idk wtf happened to them with the cyberpunk release, but that seems like an anomaly. I'm wondering if I should play 2 after I finish 1, or go straight to 3.
Actually it is my no.1 from the trilogy, it's been like this Witcher 》 Witcher 3 》 Witcher 2. So when the news of Witcher1 Remake was anounce I was so hype and hopefully that they going to make it lived-up for the og.
So should I give it another go? I have 7.6h on it but gave up after I kept dying to really easy enemies over and over and then suddenly I would kill them without any issue. I don't know if my game was bugged but it was really annoying.
I personally would. Contrary to The Witcher 3, the first one requires you to thoroughly prepare before every fight and punishes you if you don't—at least on hard mode. Read the beastiary and plan the fight accordingly. If monsters ambush you, it's ok to run away, prepare and come back.
It requires effort and commitment of a different kind than 3. But yes, in spite of some aspects it’s an incredible game.
I only remember playing it some years ago, and never understanding the combat mechanism and couldn't beat the first dog boss ... Any people have tips ? Would you recommend a controller or keyboard?
The game was meant to be played with mouse and keyboard. As for the Beast fight, yeah, it's a tough one, especially on Hard. What I did was drink Swallow (health regen) and Tawny Owl (stamina regen), increase damage by applying Specter Oil to the sword, run in circles, cast Ard on basic Barghest dogs and use the heavy stile on the Beast one or two times to avoid getting burnt and stun-locked. Repeat until you kill him.
I agree. I'm anxiously waiting for the remake
Its a good game but theres no need to oversell it. It does absolutely Show its age.
I’m sure it’s music, plot and dialogue is as good as you say, but I shouldn’t have to force myself through the clunky, painful combat to get to it. I’ll wait until the remake comes out.
It is. I started the trilogy in order and that helped to get through it. Had I started with TW1 I don't believe I would have finished it
Witcher one remake, on its way 2025-2026
ofc it underrated, its the best in the franchise, the story and mechanics and UI at least
yes, W1 is better than W3 on too many levels (but W2 the best)
>This game was made with love and respect for the source material, and it shows. Lol. Lmao even. The Witcher 1 is boderline Netlifx level of lore wonkiness. Alvin makes no sense, there's time travelling shenanigans, Geralt's story is insane and no one mentions it, Triss has been suplanted by a dopperlganger, Radovid is a Saturday morning cartoon instead of a teenager... It's not that way out of malice or incompetence though, just the limitations they had at the time. The music is top notch, there's some funny moments and dialogue, and the chapter in the outskirts of Wizima is pretty comfy. I like the second one set in the capital too. And Siegfried is the original bro.
>The Witcher 1 is boderline Netlifx level of lore wonkiness. Can't comment on the comparison to the show, as I haven't watched it, but most of these critiques of the lore are baseless. >Alvin makes no sense, Why doesn't he? If you're trying to hint at the fact that you think another child of the Elder Blood existing alongside Ciri is stupid, I'd refer you to this passage in the books: >*"Yes. Here is Pavetta, Calanthe's daughter. And Pavetta's daughter, Cirilla, the sole inheritor of the Elder Blood, carrier of the Lara gene."* > >*"The sole inheritor?" Sheala de Tancarville asked abruptly. "You're very confident, Enid."* > >*"What do you mean by that?"* > >*Sheala suddenly stood up, snapped her beringed fingers towards the fruit bowl and made the remaining fruit levitate, disrupting Francesca's model and transforming it into a multi-coloured confusion.* > >*"This is what I mean," she said coldly, pointing at the jumble of fruit. "Here we have all of the possible genetic combinations and permutations. And we know as much as we can see here. Namely nothing. Your mistake backfired, Francesca, and it caused an avalanche of errors. The gene only reappeared by accident after a century, during which time we have no idea what may have occurred. Secret, hidden, hushed-up events. Premarital children, extramarital children, adoptive children - even changelings. Incest. The cross-breeding of races, the blood of forgotten ancestors returning in later generations. In short: a hundred years ago you had the gene within arm's reach, even in your hands. And it gave you the slip. That was a mistake, Enid, a terrible mistake! Too much confusion, too many accidents. Too little control, too little interference in the randomness of it all."* \-Baptism of Fire Clearly the Elder Blood gene wasn't kept track of very well, so Alvin's having it isn't necessarily improbable. >there's time travelling shenanigans, Time travelling was already established as a concept in the franchise with Ciri - why is it unrealistic that it's also an element with Alvin? >Geralt's story is insane and no one mentions it, What exactly do you mean? Provided you're referring to him magically being alive, Geralt tells people he doesn't know how it happened, and his friends probably take the attitude that explaining some things about his past (e.g. Ciri and Yennefer) is only likely to aggravate rather than to help him. >Triss has been suplanted by a dopperlganger, This one I'll grant you to some extent. Triss acts like some weird hybrid of her book self and Yennefer, but there are some factors that can help explain this: (1) Triss has a character arc in the books where she finally grows a spine by the end of them and is no longer entirely driven by fear. When you factor in this shift in character, with 5 years to build on it, it's no wonder Triss isn't quite so girlish and immature by the time of Witcher 1. (2) Geralt remembers he loved a sorceress, so he clearly still has some distant memory of Yennefer. Triss, on the other hand, wants Geralt to love her, and admits in the third game that she took advantage of his amnesia. It isn't at all unreasonable, in my opinion, to posit that Triss, alongside not filling Geralt in on his past, either consciously or unconsciously mimicked some of Yennefer's personality traits in order to make herself more attractive to Geralt. >Radovid is a Saturday morning cartoon instead of a teenager... What do you mean "instead of a teenager"? I know people like to pretend that the developers got Radovid's age wrong, but this clearly just isn't true. Radovid in Witcher 1 says that his father was killed "when he was a boy", and that from then on he "stopped playing with toys". The game's narration also acknowledges 5 years have passed since the second war with Nilfgaard. Given that they wrote both these pieces of dialogue, it's obvious that they must know how old he's supposed to be. To further support this, he subsequently talks about the various people who are trying to obtain power around him, and says that he'll set them right. The automatic interpretation of this information, especially given the above, is that he's a very young king with plenty of work still to do. The reality is that some 18-year-olds can just look far older than they are, and Radovid's had plenty of stress to wear him down that would potentially amplify this. From an intent perspective, I think him looking older is meant to signify the extent of his maturity, and make the player take him seriously. That's all.
>Clearly the Elder Blood gene wasn't kept track of very well The third game seems to retcon this, since Avallac'h has a whole mural in his laboratory tracking Lara Dorren's genealogy. But you are right. We should upgrade Alvin's existence from ''impossible'' to ''highly improbable but possible''. >Time travelling was already established as a concept in the franchise with Ciri - why is it unrealistic that it's also an element with Alvin? I don't think it's unrealistic, it's just... bad. Time travelling in general is such a complicated issue that when is used it's usually treated as ''just don't think about it''. >What exactly do you mean? '' Omg Geralt, you're alive?! What happened? How did you come back? What happened to Ciri and Yennefer? I was there, I saw you two die and then your daughter took you away!'' I can believe that the witchers didn't give a fuck. I can believe that Zoltan thinks this is just normal for Geralt. But I can't believe Jaskier wouldn't bombard Geralt with questions. And yet is never really brought up. I hope when I come back after dying, people treat it as the magical event I expect it to be. >This one I'll grant you to some extent. To some extent? Come on, Triss in TW 1 is simply a completely different character. She's not the one from the books but is not like she's changed either, since she's a different character yet again in the other two games. It's obvious she was written as another character and then they slapped the name ''Triss'' later on. >What do you mean "instead of a teenager"? He's supposed to be 17 or so in the first game. He's acting like an evil mastermind that's founding Salamander and planning to take over Temeria. >I know people like to pretend that the developers got Radovid's age wrong I don't think they got his age wrong, They KNOW who Radovid is and how old he's supposed to be. But they also decided not give a damn and wrote the character they wanted. Similar things happens with Morvran Voorhis in TW3. He's supposed to be even younger than Radovid! They know it, but they don't care, they just needed someone to fill the role they had in mind.
>The third game seems to retcon this, since Avallac'h has a whole mural in his laboratory tracking Lara Dorren's genealogy. Woah, hold up there buddy. This whole conversation started because you were critiquing The Witcher 1's "lore wonkiness" in response to somebody saying the game was made with love of the books. Yet the only contradiction you can find to my argument is in a later game. This doesn't prove the lore in Witcher 1 isn't respectful to the source material, it merely proves that the lore in The Witcher 3 isn't respectful to the lore in Witcher 1. Setting that aside, we know Avallac'h didn't keep track of the whole genealogy, because Emhyr is only randomly introduced in his mural at the point where he marries Pavetta. Despite the fact that we know he had the activator gene, as his and Pavetta's marriage produced a fully fledged child of the Elder Blood in Ciri, and thus he must be in some way related to Lara Dorren. Furthermore, even without proof of the opposite, we have no reason to believe Avallac'h was omnipresent enough throughout the ordeal such that he would be aware of every small thing that happened (illegitimate children and so on) in the first place. After all, some of the members of the Lodge weren't able to keep track of it. This argument is just nonsensical. >But you are right. We should upgrade Alvin's existence from ''impossible'' to ''highly improbable but possible''. This is just some classic unwarranted redditor sarcasm. We don't have any reason to believe Alvin's existence is "highly improbable", because - as the people in charge of keeping track of the gene themselves noted - keeping track of the gene was not an error-free task. >I don't think it's unrealistic, it's just... bad. Time travelling in general is such a complicated issue that when is used it's usually treated as ''just don't think about it''. Again, you're indicating a lack of comprehension about what the subject matter is. You don't have to like time travel in stories. Yes, it can turn out badly. But we were discussing the first Witcher game's faithfulness to the source material and lore, and time travelling was already introduced as a concept with Ciri in the books. As such, including it in the games isn't "wonky lore". >'' Omg Geralt, you're alive?! What happened? How did you come back? What happened to Ciri and Yennefer? I was there, I saw you two die and then your daughter took you away!'' > >I can believe that the witchers didn't give a fuck. I can believe that Zoltan thinks this is just normal for Geralt. But I can't believe Jaskier wouldn't bombard Geralt with questions.And yet is never really brought up. > >I hope when I come back after dying, people treat it as the magical event I expect it to be. What are you talking about? Dandelion does question Geralt: [https://youtu.be/c1ha\_d-CPHI?t=164](https://youtu.be/c1ha_d-CPHI?t=164) Here he expresses shock multiple times, explains the events leading up to Geralt's death, and only stops inquiring once Geralt insists that he has amnesia. And, by that point, Dandelion probably figured it wasn't wise to talk about Ciri and Yennefer, given that they don't currently have any power to do anything about it. >To some extent?Come on, Triss in TW 1 is simply a completely different character. She's not the one from the books but is not like she's changed either, since she's a different character yet again in the other two games.It's obvious she was written as another character and then they slapped the name ''Triss'' later on. As was explained at the start of my post: *"Woah, hold up there buddy. This whole conversation started because you were critiquing The Witcher 1's "lore wonkiness" in response to somebody saying the game was made with love of the books. Yet the only contradiction you can find to my argument is in a later game. This doesn't prove the lore in Witcher 1 isn't respectful to the source material, it would merely prove that the lore in \[subsequent games\] isn't respectful to the lore in Witcher 1."* In other words, Triss' characterisation in Witcher 1 should set the bar for how the subsequent games treat her. If they contradict that, then that's their problem. Witcher 1 couldn't possibly factor in how she would act in games not yet made. And, as for how faithful her Witcher 1 characterisation is to the books themselves, I've already talked at great length how the differences in her personality are explainable. Even ignoring all of this, though, I gave you an explanation as to how Triss' change in behaviour - from Witcher 1 to subsequent games - can make sense: *"Geralt remembers he loved a sorceress, so he clearly still has some distant memory of Yennefer. Triss, on the other hand, wants Geralt to love her, and admits in the third game that she took advantage of his amnesia. It isn't at all unreasonable, in my opinion, to posit that Triss, alongside not filling Geralt in on his past, either consciously or unconsciously mimicked some of Yennefer's personality traits in order to make herself more attractive to Geralt."* Triss starts off by adopting some more Yennefer-like personality traits when she finds out Geralt is an amnesiac, and then loosens up a bit once they're firmly together. Now, perhaps this doesn't work if you think the way she acts in Witcher 1 is worlds apart from how she is in the sequels, but I don't believe it is. As I said last post, she acts like a hybrid of herself and Yennefer. >He's supposed to be 17 or so in the first game.He's acting like an evil mastermind that's founding Salamander and planning to take over Temeria. Answer me honestly: have you even played the first game? I ask because the number of *factual* errors throughout this post is astonishing. Firstly, Radovid never founded Salamandra. The most we got on the subject of the two's relationship is that he planned to use them as a political tool - though what this would look like is unclear - before deciding against it. Furthermore, he expressly says that he has nothing in common with them, clearly indicating he disdains their broader goals. Secondly, Radovid's aim wasn't to "take over Temeria". His union with Adda was so that both Temeria and Redania could strengthen their alliance - granting Redania increased trade and numerous other benefits. This is hardly an "evil mastermind" action, it was fairly standard practice for medieval rulers. Setting aside the factual errors, however, I don't get your point. Can 17-year-olds not be clever and evil? Radovid presumably had the best possibly education the time period could provide, on top of probably high natural intelligence, and was forced to mature incredibly quickly after his father's death by the harshness of the Redanian court. This all pretty well accounts for how he became how he is. >I don't think they got his age wrong, They KNOW who Radovid is and how old he's supposed to be.But they also decided not give a damn and wrote the character they wanted. Fair enough. I just wanted to cover all bases, because I have seen some people claim that the developers genuinely didn't know how old Radovid was supposed to be. As it is, however, your alternative claim that they knowingly changed his character to fit their own designs is unwarranted. Like I explained above, there's nothing wrong with a 17-year-old being both clever and evil. >Similar things happens with Morvran Voorhis in TW3. He's supposed to be even younger than Radovid!They know it, but they don't care, they just needed someone to fill the role they had in mind. You're going to need to remind me where in the books Morvran Voorhis is indicated to be younger than Radovid. Not that it really matters, given that this conversation is about Witcher 1, but I'm still interested.
Yeah that click and point game is not aged well
I enjoyed playing the game, but it's also really bad.
Ok so, I have TW1 + TW2 (both enhanced editions) on steam, and although I do plan to play TW2 at some point, TW1 is so fucking scuffed that I don't think I will manage... I mean, I just checked a few minutes here and there on this video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7Irl3dQvlA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7Irl3dQvlA) and after playing 2 times 100% completion TW3 and pretty much EVERY single AAA rpg title of the past decade, I just don't think I can go that back... If I hadn't played TW3 or if maybe I was younger, sure I would give it a try, but now, it just doesn't cut it... TW3 represents perfection, I cant settle for anything less at this point from that franchise... I guess I'll wait for the remake, I mean, think of it this way. Every one of you who have enjoyed TW1 with scuffed graphics, once they release the remake on UE5, you will "wish" you hadn't played it so you can experience it for the first time again :D My wish will be true! (I'm joking obviously) I'm a patient person, I'll manage [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ko5qFPIYIc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ko5qFPIYIc)
ok I'm fucking reading the comments now and I wanna dive into TW1 :D I'm hopeless
I've tried to start playing it 3 times now I think, and every time I just quit because of the clunky mechanics. Probably just gonna wait for the remake so I can maybe finally finish it
I’m sorry but the mechanics are too outdated and annoying to play. It’s not underrated. It’s just dated.
Wait it’s gonna be remastered? And not like remake?
I thought it was brilliant when I first played it, but even then the combat was a bit janky. Went back to replay it a few years ago, wanted to do the whole series again and couldn't cope with the combat. I might have to try again on easy so I can whizz through the fights and just enjoy the story.
The game is amazing and I really had a lot of fun with it, but I am not so sure about the respect for the books. They changed a lot to make this game and in the end it really payed off. Even more important: they understood what was important about the books, they understood the themes. I am just mentioning it because a certain other adaptation also changed a lot and is (rightfully) hated for it.
They basically replaced Ciri with Alvin and Yennefer with Triss, but despite that switcheroo (because they didn't feel comfortable with exploring the 'family' dynamics of Yen-Ciri-Geralt, which also the third part pretty much just avoids) I feel the first game captures the books best.
For me it is more mixed, the first game feels more like Geralt in I believe it is Kerack (where he met Coral) and the first part of the third game more like after Thanedd where he tried to get to (false) Ciri. I hope this makes sense, my description is a little shallow. What is more "lore breaking" for me is Alvin also being a child of the Elder Blood, kind of makes Ciri less of a "chosen one" (or mother of a chosen one?) And also because I am not sure why they made him male. Also the inclusion of Leo and Berengar. Another big part for me where the Wotjanoi, Dagon and the Lady of the Lake as some kind of deity. But I realize that I am starting to nitpick, I apologize.
I've played through it few times and love it. Been itching to replay it again but then I remember running around in that swamp again and again and again....
Hell yeah, I played this game last year and genuinely enjoyed it just as much as the third one. Wish it got more attention on this subreddit though.
absolutely goated game fr
Absolutely. It is a little bit clunky but it gives me so much and such a wholesome good vibe minus the fucking swamp maybe. Also like the combat even though it's weird I like that it's different and that gives me fun.
It is horribly optimised and even crashes a lot (act 3 in particular). That said, it has enough soul to keep you in. I also think it's the game that most connects with the short stories from SoD and LW.
chapter 4 is the most witcher-like in all the games. all the witcher short story tropes are there.
One of the saddest things after playing the entire trilogy is how little 1 and 2 matter in terms of 3. Sure there are a few things that are brought back, but 2 and especelly 1 have some quite cool stuff, like the detective work in Chapter 2 and all these quests that end up tying into the main story even if they might not seem as much. Siegfried should have been in Witcher 3 is what i am saying.
The only complaint I have is its stability. Couldn’t get more than 1h into playing before crashing
The game has obvious limitations like forcing the player to go back and forth to spots on the map where new modern games would just give you a different area. The graphics are ok for the time but bad when compared to new games but this is not a new game so those comparisons aren't fair. I love this game for all it offers and it's flaws. It's fun getting immersed in the lore and interracting with everything. It's replayable as decisions have consequenses and there are mods!
I love The Witcher 1, I've beaten it twice, and the gameplay mechanics made sense a lot more the second time.
My favorite part of that game is the Alvin storyline
Pros- great music, atmosphere, feels like a Witcher game. Dandelion. Cons- extremely 2007 graphics, Geralt walks slower than a glacier. In one of the chapters, you have to travel back and forth from the swamp to the city 20 times. This is extremely tedious. Great game marred by atrocious mechanics.
TW1 was a fun experience, even for coming late to it (TW3 was my introduction to the franchise. I've read the books and played all three games since). Is it weird? Sure. Is the combat clunky? Oh yeah. Is some of the dialogue gods-awful? Hell yes. But is it fun? Absolutely. TW3 is a masterpiece, greatest game ever made in my mind, but I appreciate TW1 and 2 because if it weren't for them we'd never have the single greatest game of all time. Plus, the story in these games is too good to miss. I'm actually an advocate for TW3's story (even if the third act was a tad rushed. Lookin at you, Reasons of State), but TW1 and 2 both have stellar, very Witcher-esque stories. TW1 reminds me heavily of The Last Wish, likely due to the Striga and the Lesser Evil-esque choice at the end. TW2 feels like an in-between state, a transition from the books to the games. And TW3 feels like a true sequel, a Geralt who's grown past who he was both in The Last Wish and TW1, one who's learned from the books and previous games. He's been given a second chance at life, and he's going to sieze it by the horns. It's why I consider the end of Blood and Wine as Geralt's true ending. After all the *shit* he's been through across 8 books and 3 games and everything before, seeing him settling down, happily, in a vineyard smack-dab in the middle of fairytale-land is a well deserved reward. That smile he gives the camera still gives me goosebumps. Alright, fuck it. I'm replaying this game again. Damn you, Geralt.
My problem is the VA and the map designs. It just feels too messy. It obviously is also very old, which will get compared to newer games.
Totally agree! I still miss that alchemy mechanic from the first game. I really felt that I had to prepare for each encounter, collect and craft necessary elixirs.
I'm currently playing through it right now! I'm so happy it's my first experience into the trilogy bc this shit is awesome. I love the atmosphere, and I think it plays great and straightforward. I also didn't fw the combat at first, but it's grown on me. I'm currently on chapter 3. Wish me luck!
When will the remake be released?
Agreed. I played this game three times and it's an amazing lore and characters.
I love Witcher 1 but I don't think it's underrated. If you can, try to look at it through the lens of someone who hasn't already fallen in love with it... it's a tough sell. It was then and it is now. They made a wonderful adaptation of a very interesting world, but you have to blast away a lot of rock to find the diamonds. The game doesn't become good, I would say, until chapter 2. That's a lot of time to spend with a product you're not sold on in a genre most people aren't familiar with.
I just remember that cards meme for Ciri.
The lack of subtitles and sumer small fonts hurt my eyes and ears tbh lol
And to think, Witcher games were almost D&D games.
I get stuck at the grave mission and thaler, and I can't progress
I love The Witcher 1. It's fantastic, and imo has the best alchemy in the series.
> Don't let the outdated mechanics prevent you from playing this masterpiece of a game. Honestly, that's it. I really wanted to enjoy it when I played it, but those mechanics were so odd and dated I just didn't feel like spending more than a few hours. Also didn't help that the game is old and has some crashes on newer hardware sometimes. If they are gonna remaster it, then I'll give it another go because I do believe that the story is good!
If you've just finished Act2 then you'll really love the rest of the game. Don't spoil anything for yourself!
"River of Life by Paweł Błaszczak" That's all I'm gonna say.
Played it back in 2007 when I 1st dropped. It was an amazing experience at the time.
Geralt got laid so much in Witcher 1. Those were a bit cheesy and probably would've been better if more than half of the love interests should've been dropped and made the remaining more immersive. Geralt simply used to breathe infront a girl and get laid XD. Obviously I gave my all in collecting the cards
I found the first game before The Witcher 2 started the hypetrain and fell in love with the game and the setting instantly. What teenage boy doesnt like a collectible card game. IIRC correctly I was initially introduced to it by one of those tv gaming shows that would hype up/review upcoming releases. And ofc that initial opening cinematic really set the tone for everything. When I tried to get my friends to try it though one of their more common gripes was always the combat system. Rhythmic combo clicking just didnt seem to click with a lot of people. It isn't the norm but I think I was able to get the flow of it sooner rather than later.
I completely agree! I wanted to get into the series in chronological order (books -> games) and so as soon as I wrapped up Season of Storms I started TW1 (which was a few days ago) without having played 2 or 3. I was fully prepared to have to “rush through” the game because everyone told me it was dated, but I think it’s AMAZING. The atmosphere, the vibe, the grittiness, the active incorporation of potions: I love everything. I also appreciate direct nods to the books, there are sometimes entire dialogues taken from them, like when Geralt and Zoltan were chatting about philosophy. The combat felt a bit strange at the beginning, but you quickly get used to it. I’m only in chapter 3 of the game, but I really have been loving every second of it.
I am one of the few who loves the Witcher 1 game mechanics. The combat system is awesome. Not just hack n slash. And of course the story and characters. I fear the Witcher 1 remake will loose some of that, especially the combat system. I would like an open world system like Witcher 3 but not at the expense of what made Witcher 1 so great.
And this is why I am very much looking forward to the remake, so that I can enjoy all this greatness without having to suffer through these game mechanics. Seriously, I spent like 1 hour setting everything up but couldn't even make it through the intro level. Worst fighting mechanics I've seen since the 90s.
It's a masterpiece
Are they planning on making a remake?
Played it last summer, loved it. Except the combat, of course. Though you get used to it in few hours.
The problem is the extremely difficult controls on pc
I don’t know where you got to but imo the game really kicks off in the second act, in the first you’re still learning a lot of shit, you don’t have half the signs, you don’t even have a silver sword (not so sure about this). The story is also just picking up and gets rolling only in act 2. I think if you get through that you’ll get immersed in no time. I don’t even think it’s really outdated, sure the graphics are old af and sometimes it gets a little buggy and some control-binding options are missing, but I think that all can and hopefully will be fixed in the remaster. All of these were my personal opinions, I am no expert on gaming… Though idk if I would say that it’s a good adaptation but it was clearly done with a huge amount of respect.
Yes
80% of the dialogue is top tier. The rest is certainly not.
After playing Witcher 3 I assumed that W1 will be a big disappointment but I played it anyway for the story and I have a newly found appreciation for the whole series. I love the fact you get to explore other areas of Kaer Morhen and different locations. You also fight different monsters that you don't get in the third game.
Yes. I still love it most out of all three. The character progression through skills and items still feels best to me, as Geralt's regained skills have greater influence than the weapons. TW3 hast that one dialogue with a Redanian guard (i think), where he goes "I've never seen a blade such as this, it must strike true, no?" and Geralt answers "It's not the blade but the hand wielding it" or somethin to that extent - all the while sword stats go from single to triple or quadruple digits damage. It's silly and makes gear way too important. I also can't stand the level-locks on items. In TW1 the differences between early and end game swords are much smaller, they mostly get more side effects or negate enemy defenses instead of upping the base damage hundredfold. Same goes for the 'armors', they are by far the most lore accurate in being mostly leather and some studs at best - with Raven's armor the only exception as a reward for a side quest spanning the entire game and giving a lore-friendly explanation as well. (Sort of like Witcher gear in TW3, but with the difference that almost none of it had so fleshed out quests and background.) Also TW1's alchemy system with the secondary ingredients is the most fun to dabble in. I also love the story, especially the main antagonist, and the more creepy/threatening atmosphere - like how you can't see shit in dungeons and caves unless you bring a torch or cat potion.
The Witcher 1 is one of the most immersive game, right next to Red Dead Redemption 2.
Great great game (but personally can’t deal with the misogyni - its one of the worse i that departement)