appiah4 wrote on 2022-02-02, 08:29:
That reminds me - I never bothered picking up and playing The Witcher III because I didn't get into the first two. But recently I heard the third part is not in any way connected to the first two.. Actually it is the only one that really takes place in the novel universe so it is mostly enjoyable as a game of its own? Any comments on this?
Yeah no real need to play the first two, though they do introduce some characters to you if you haven't read the books and couple new ones you'll meet in the third game. But the thing is that the characters, dialogue and the quests with them are what the game excels at, and they might leave you a bit cold if you don't know them from before. Though many have played only the third game without reading the books or playing the earlier games and clearly have liked the game, but I genuinely do think you'll get more out of the game especially if you have read the books.
Otherwise the game has some issues that you might not be too fond of or find outright infuriating. It's an open world game with billions of points of intrests that are pointless waste of time, the combat system has the most annoying autotarget I've ever seen (why in the *"^#! hell does it at times decide to swap to an enemy that isn't even close enough to hit instead of the nearly dead one right in front of you), who ever coded the AI for your horse should probably find another line of work because sheesh, the inventory sucks butt (enjoy finding the potion/oil you want from there) and so on.
I really like the game overall, when I played it the first time it honestly at times felt like the best game ever (being familiar with the books and the earlier games) but jesus does it frustrate me at times. Yet here I am currently playing for the third time, it's a love and hate relationship.