Should I Read the Books First

[Vellicordial]

So the Witcher 3 was one of the games I picked up with the PS4 the other day and after watching a review (to get hyped lol) I heard remarks about the books and how it relates to the context of some parts of the story. With that being said is it fairly important to play the other games or read the books before I dive into this one? If not, why don't you think so?

[LoveInHell]

I don't think so. If you play the game, you'll get spoiled before reading the books. If you read the books first, you'll get spoiled before playing the game. The books contains a lot more spoilers and the game does not show everything that is written in the books. So it's entirely up to you. Personally I played The Witcher 3 first and plan on reading the books, I will discover more truth through the books.

 

So I think playing the game first and then read the books. Either way, you will get spoiled but the books contain more spoilers than the game.

[GravityQueeen]

Does the book give trophies? ?

 

Seriously: I'd recommend the game, you will love It.

Edited May 23, 2020 by GravityQueeen

[WorldsBestSpy]

I found the books boring, personally. I guess thats why the creator of the Witcher hates the game series so much, because its so much better than the books.

[xDevilizer]

7 minutes ago, WorldsBestSpy said:

I found the books boring, personally. I guess thats why the creator of the Witcher hates the game series so much, because its so much better than the books.

That’s totally not true. Mr. Sapkowski sold the rights to The Witcher for some amount. However, when he saw the series made by CD Project Red becoming one of the best selling, he demanded more money. Later on both sides settled for some undisclosed amount.

[RedDeadWitcher93]

I played Wild Hunt first cause it looked interesting and loved it so much I went back and read the books. Its really up to you, but I will say that there were one or two things in the books which would've been really nice plot twists but because I'd played the game I already knew about them so they didn't quite pack the punch they would've if I'd read them before playing.

 

Also after reading the books and playing the first two games, I understood the world, characters and politics a lot better when I did my second playthrough of Wild Hunt and the political storylines, and relationships between characters made a lot more sense. Also some of the game feels different when you know the history between some of the characters. 

 

If you do play Wild Hunt before everything else, just be aware that you're jumping straight into the 3rd game of a series, a series which is itself a set of pseudo-sequels to an eight book long franchise. That's what I did so totally not judging, just be prepared to be a bit confused as, even though its not Canon to the books, CDPR still wrote these games as sequels, so Wild Hunt acts like the 11th entry to a running story. 

Edited May 23, 2020 by RedDeadWitcher93
Silly iPad autocorrect

[KingGuy420]

You can get through and enjoy the game without that stuff, no problem.

 

There's a pretty great wiki that you can check if there's a term or a plot point that you feel like your missing out by not knowing.

 

It's a great game with or without though.

[Pirelli913]

On 5/22/2020 at 6:53 PM, WorldsBestSpy said:

I found the books boring, personally. I guess thats why the creator of the Witcher hates the game series so much, because its so much better than the books.

 

Not sure what you're smoking. The books are phenomenal. I will admit the first book in the five-part saga (Blood of Elves) is a bit slow, but all the rest are incredible.

 

As to OP's question, reading the books is really up to you. The Witcher 3 was the first time I delved into the series. I later got a decent enough PC to play the first two games and even read the books, all because of The Witcher 3. So while reading the books isn't necessary to understand the game, playing it may make you want to read the books anyway.

[wolvieware]

I’ve just finished the books series. I’ve been reading them over the course of the last year. I had already played game 2 and 3 before reading them, but coincided playing of the DLC of Wild Hunt with reading the books. By doing so it gave me such a big background to the characters that appeared in the DLC. 
 

I wouldn’t say not having read the books will affect enjoyment of the games at all, but it does provide added depth and history. I’d recommend doing both! 

[ShadowReplicant]

You don't have to read the books, but I would definitely recommend it. You'll have a much better understanding of the characters, lore and locations going into W3. It just adds a ton of depth. The way I did it was read all the books and then jump straight into W3. You can safely skip the first two games.

[da-Noob123]

I enjoyed the books but they are not mandatory to enjoy TW3. However, it helped explain who people were better than the in game description and brought understanding to a lot of things. I actually played the game first, read the books, then played again on Death March and found so many Easter eggs and references during that playthrough.