Nouveau Retro Gaming - Should I start 'The Witcher?'

Two years ago, I bought 'The Witcher Enhanced Edition' for my MacBook Pro.
I started this morning.

In the twenty fours months between purchase and play:
- I've read all of Andrzej Sapkowski's translated books.
- I've read countless praise for 'The Witcher II,' notably Mr. Barnes' opinion.
- I've read countless great reviews for 'The Witcher III.'
- I've downloaded 'The Witcher II' onto my XBOX 360 hard drive. It was either dirt cheap and/or free a few months ago (I can't remember).

My style: I limit myself to one RPG a calendar year. Mass Effect 1, 2, 3, occupying my 2010, 11, and 13. For something a little different, I spent 2014 playing XCOM: Enemy Unknown.

My concern: If I start, I'm gonna finish. I can do this for the long run, but I'm wavering. I wasn't crazy excited about the source material. I love fantasy, even derived fantasy. But I think I'm in the minority camp that can't shake the spite of Sapkowski's character being a subpar, gross rip-off of Michael Moorcock's Elric.

My question: Should I soldier on and begin my quest(s) as the White Wolf? Is the first game a must in the pantheon of CPU RPGs? My sixty minutes of play time today were fine. I can easily look over some of the game's 6-8 (?) year old warts if it's immersive enough. Especially so if it can surpass the source material. At this point; I figure I'm $40 invested between the books and the first game (maybe the II?). I'll cut my losses if F:ATties think I should play elsewhere.

Thanks in advance.

Before anyone tears me up for implying Moorcock superiority; I acknowledge that MM has become a bit of a hack too. However, MM was practically unstoppable in the 60s / early 70s and IMO has contributed a lot more to the Fantasy and New Weird genres than Sapkowski ever will.

Also, I double checked Moorcock's take on the Elric - Geralt similarities. He's on the record stating it's more of a "passing off" than copyright infringement. So what the hell do I know...

I never played one but in part two the character starts off with memory loss and they walk you through the story because of that. It's a cheap cliche really to do that kind of thing but it does let you learn the story reasonably organically as a result. It honestly felt like part 2 was intentionally done like this to entice new players who hadn't played part one.

Sorry, that's all I got for you.

Witcher 1 has a really rough interface system. It is a good story, but the combat, questing, and inventory systems are all very dated. I have been working on it on and off for a few years and am now making a concentrated effort to finish it out so I can continue on Witcher 2. There is alot of back and forth running for quests, a couple silly gimmick fights (unless you did everything possible before hand) , and several times where it is painfully an almost 10 year old game. That said, the story is awesome, and the twist it can take are just dynamite.

If you are not hooked by the time you get to the witch and the barghests (glowing dogs) - roughly 2 hours in, you can cut your losses and move to Witcher 2. If not, it will languish for the entire year (or in my case the last three - though I am finally on Act 4 now).

Skip it and go right to 2. When it came out, the state of Western RPGs was in sad shape. Oblivion was pretty much the only thing worth while back then, but even that adhered to the same "Wide-But-Shallow" crap that Bethesda is still cooking up today. The Witcher came along and offered things we hadn't really seen since Baldur's Gate II, that primarily being meaningful moral decisions that don't beat you over the head with what kind of outcome they'll have if you choose to go with them (as is the case in KOTOR). I think that people were so hungry for what it was doing that they were very willing to overlook the games numerous flaws, such as its clumsy interface, inane combat, piss-poor pacing, and an approach to sex and relationships so juvenile it makes what BioWare does seem 100% true to real life. Going back to it now (and I have tried at least a half dozen times), when we're enjoying a renaissance of the great Western RPG, those flaws are very hard to overlook. It does offer an above average story and the way that your choices often take their time to come back and bite you in the ass is really great, but the game is a total slog. Plus, the two things it does really well are things the second game does as well and does better.

I'm with Fastbilly, give it the introduction and the first village and if you're not in, drop it. You'll have only invested a few hours. For what it's worth, The Witcher is the only PC game I ever imported and the one that made me stop pirating games, which was richly ironic because the copy protection on the retail version made it crash, something the pirated copy never did. The second has some quality of life improvements but a lot of compromises because of the desire to port to consoles which made its interface, despite what Josh Look said, inferior for practical use. The third improved on the second, but there are still little things about it that bother the hell out of me that are only problems because consoles need them to be.

Thanks fellas! I'll soldier on to the glowing dogs and make a decision from there. Much appreciation to everyone.