Can Witcher 2 be played after playing Witcher 3?

+
Can Witcher 2 be played after playing Witcher 3?

I bought Witcher 2 on the 360 a long time ago but couldn't get use to how to play it so I never did. I was leary on buying Witcher 3but I did. I found Witcher 3 not as hard to play. So now I am wondering would I be able to go to Witcher 2 and play it? Will I find it easier to play? What differences would I find? Would I find some things in Witcher 2 better than Witcher 3? Will I find some things worse?

One example I can think of is like playing Oblivion/Skyrim and then going to play Morrowind. Morrowind seemed so slow compared to those 2 games. By that I mean movement speed. While Morrowind seemed more realistic Oblivion/Skyrim took out the tedium a bit out of movement. I find the Witcher 3 really good for movement and over encumberance.

So is it viable to play Witcher 2 after finishing Witcher 3?
 
May be just try it? I doubt others can answer this one for you. I don't find TW2 so hard to play that it can't be enjoyable, but I play it with mouse and keyboard, I don't like controllers for such games. May be it can make a difference for you too.
 
I finished TW2 playing with Keyboard and Mouse. I did enjoy it. In Witcher 3, I tried game pad and I love it.
 
I am playing W2 right now, and it's fine (I dont see a big difference in controlling Geralt), but a bit annoying that you can't jump and sometimes must go around even small rocks. Also, in W2 you can't fall off a cliff :) And of course W2 feel very small in comparison to W3, you can't wandering on long distances and go back to previous locations. Another very annoying thing - in W2 you can drink elixirs only during meditation. I think W2 is harder a bit, cause I've been already killed many times on lowest difficulty level.

But it has better sex scenes, and MUCH better looking armors for Geralt :D
 
I am playing witcher 2 for the first time. Just beat witcher 3. Witcher 2 has very closed off paths. I mean, you can't even walk across a river, the world is that closed. You have 5 feet of grass separating you and another road, you can't cross it to short cut.. The controls seem slower and more clunky. Graphically, there is no comparison. Witcher 3 is just so stunning.. All in all though, I am enjoying the witcher 2. I don't like it as much as 3, but I am beating it to get some background on w3 before I do my 2nd play through. It is definitely a bit harder than witcher 3 though..
 
I am playing witcher 2 for the first time. Just beat witcher 3. Witcher 2 has very closed off paths. I mean, you can't even walk across a river, the world is that closed. You have 5 feet of grass separating you and another road, you can't cross it to short cut.. The controls seem slower and more clunky. Graphically, there is no comparison. Witcher 3 is just so stunning.. All in all though, I am enjoying the witcher 2. I don't like it as much as 3, but I am beating it to get some background on w3 before I do my 2nd play through. It is definitely a bit harder than witcher 3 though..

I just think TW2's main quest is vastly superior to TW3, but that's the trade off between having an open world and a linear game such as TW2 was. Everything else, TW3 is an improvement.
 
Completely amazing game from start to finish.The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings is a great game.
 
To me, Witcher 2 has a much better story, specifically on one path. (Won't say which one to avoid spoiling it). The difference between the two to me is not just graphics or how Geralt is controlled, it's the general gameplay itself. Having to meditate to drink potions is kinda annoying and they don't last that long considering you have to meditate (timer does pause during convos so if you have a 10 minute convo with someone the potions have expired). Blade oils don't last very long either, although I don't feel they are really needed once you start upgrading to different silver swords.

All in all it is possible to go back and play it, I am right now, but if you aren't use to it play around a little on a lower difficulty until you get the feel of it.
 
Yeah I would. The main story is epic. I picked Iorvath, also. Its good to see the characters and why they're important in 3
 
I just bought TW2. Haven't finished the prologue yet. Thing is I dont have a clue about the first game. And game starts with names I dont know. Do I need to know what happened? Does that matter?
 
I just bought TW2. Haven't finished the prologue yet. Thing is I dont have a clue about the first game. And game starts with names I dont know. Do I need to know what happened? Does that matter?

That was actually the problem of the prologue in The Witcher 2. It needs some knowledge of the first game and of the books to be fully understandable.
But let me help you, what you need to know?
 
That was actually the problem of the prologue in The Witcher 2. It needs some knowledge of the first game and of the books to be fully understandable.
But let me help you, what you need to know?
So the game started with Geralt escaping then he faints and boom he's in a dungeon. Then Roche comes and starts questioning him. About assassination and king Foltest. I dont know who he is and more importantly why Geralt is protecting him. I thought Geralt wasn't into politics. So I'm guessing Temerians fighting against someone really bad to make him fight for King Foltest?
And then I had to choose whether the boy with emo hairs lives or not. I dont know if it's important later in the game. So I thought not killing him might be more cautious. So I'm kinda playing blindly without the background information.
 
So the game started with Geralt escaping then he faints and boom he's in a dungeon. Then Roche comes and starts questioning him. About assassination and king Foltest. I dont know who he is and more importantly why Geralt is protecting him. I thought Geralt wasn't into politics. So I'm guessing Temerians fighting against someone really bad to make him fight for King Foltest?
And then I had to choose whether the boy with emo hairs lives or not. I dont know if it's important later in the game. So I thought not killing him might be more cautious. So I'm kinda playing blindly without the background information.

The game started showing Geralt escape from the Wild Hunt as Geralt's dream (which is the beginning scene of the Witcher 1)
The fact that you don't know who Roche is and why Geralt is in the dungeon is normal, those are things you discover in the prologue.
Geralt doesn't give a shit about politics. He is protecting Foltest, because his life was threatened by a Witcher assassin (the final scene of The Witcher 1)

Foltest is fighting La Valette soldiers, because they have betrayed Temeria. Foltest had a relationship with the baroness, and have two children from her. Foltest want them back to set put the boy on the throne, as his legit heir.

The boy you spared is the first son of baroness La Valette.
 
The game started showing Geralt escape from the Wild Hunt as Geralt's dream (which is the beginning scene of the Witcher 1)
The fact that you don't know who Roche is and why Geralt is in the dungeon is normal, those are things you discover in the prologue.
Geralt doesn't give a shit about politics. He is protecting Foltest, because his life was threatened by a Witcher assassin (the final scene of The Witcher 1)

Foltest is fighting La Valette soldiers, because they have betrayed Temeria. Foltest had a relationship with the baroness, and have two children from her. Foltest want them back to set put the boy on the throne, as his legit heir.

The boy you spared is the first son of baroness La Valette.
I see now. It gets clear after finishing the prologue. I know Roche but since the TW3 it seemed a little bit weird him questioning Geralt. I would ask more about Foltest but it's a big story I guess.
And it turned out that not killing the boy was a good thing he showed me a way out of prison :)
And why Geralt is with Triss? After prologue he asks Triss to tell everything about Yen and Triss seems a bit uncomfortable. Is she not the sweet lady from the third game?
And his amnesia started before the first game or during the first game? And one more thing, as I see from the posts in TW3 forum, I'm gonna have to choose between Roche and Iorveth. Is there anything I need to know about Scoia'tael from TW1?
 
Last edited:
I see now. It gets clear after finishing the prologue. I know Roche but since the TW3 it seemed a little bit weird him questioning Geralt. I would ask more about Foltest but it's a big story I guess.
And it turned out that not killing the boy was a good thing he showed me a way out of prison :)
And why Geralt is with Triss? After prologue he asks Triss to tell everything about Yen and Triss seems a bit uncomfortable. Is she not the sweet lady from the third game?
And his amnesia started before the first game or during the first game? And one more thing, as I see from the posts in TW3 forum, I'm gonna have to choose between Roche and Iorveth. Is there anything I need to know about Scoia'tael from TW1?

You will learn more about Roche.
Well, Triss...used Geralt and his amnesy in The Witcher 1. She told nothing about Yennefer and Ciri, her excuse was "I can't have any influence on your personality, you should start to remember on your own", but it was mostly because she is in love with Geralt and want to be with him. Geralt force her to talk about Yennefer and Ciri only after the prologue, because he was starting to remember. She even admit this in The Witcher 3.

His amnesia started in TW1, after Geralt escape from the Wild Hunt.

Scoia'tel are a guerrila force which fight humans, instigated by Nilfgaard in the books. After the second war with Nilfgaard, the Scoia'tael still fight for the free Elves.

Honestly, I think that the Iorveth path is the best in The Witcher 2, but I don't want to influence your choice. Anyway, you will learn more about Iorveth.
 
You will learn more about Roche.
Well, Triss...used Geralt and his amnesy in The Witcher 1. She told nothing about Yennefer and Ciri, her excuse was "I can't have any influence on your personality, you should start to remember on your own", but it was mostly because she is in love with Geralt and want to be with him. Geralt force her to talk about Yennefer and Ciri only after the prologue, because he was starting to remember. She even admit this in The Witcher 3.

His amnesia started in TW1, after Geralt escape from the Wild Hunt.

Scoia'tel are a guerrila force which fight humans, instigated by Nilfgaard in the books. After the second war with Nilfgaard, the Scoia'tael still fight for the free Elves.

Honestly, I think that the Iorveth path is the best in The Witcher 2, but I don't want to influence your choice. Anyway, you will learn more about Iorveth.

Okay now I can keep playing. I guess I got nothing else to ask. Thanks a lot :)
 
If you'll have any doubts in the future, just ask. ;)
It's me again. I dont know if it's okay to ask here for more information but I just started chapter 2.
Just after I released Iorveth I started playing as this Stennis guy. I dont know if I supposed to know anything about him or the Saskia girl. Then there were conversation with some other king(king I guess). I led conversation to a dead end and fight started. But after ten minutes or so it seemed a little bit there was no option to not fight with them. Am I wrong about that?
And now I have to go to the war council. These political things makes me tired and this game seems full of it. I dont know if I have to know everything... Would that make a big difference? I thought I should ask you before I go to that council. :)
 
It's me again. I dont know if it's okay to ask here for more information but I just started chapter 2.
In case you didn't start yet:
-The King was Henselt, king of Kaedwen. He wants to get Upper Aedirn - the area you are now in.
-Stennis is son od Demawend (king murdered in the intro cinematic, Saskia is leader of rebels defending the Upper Aedirn.
-The conversation with king always leads to fight.
-Iorverth's path is definitely less political than Roche's - dont worry
PS. read the character entry if you are not sure who is who, it usually helps a lot :)
 
Top Bottom