The witcher series is not a souls copy or anything like souls. I don't have much sympathy for people who enter a series on the third game either regarding liking reoccurring characters. So play it for what is, or go back to Bloodborne or wait for Dark Souls 3: More of the same edition.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
How I learned to love The Witcher 3
- Thread starter OrbitalBeard
- Start date
MightyKAC
Member
I'm right there with you OP.
After playing Witcher 1 and 2 and being underwhelmed by their combat I just couldn't bring myself to pick up the third.
I tried it at a friends house and it confirmed my suspicions.
I REALLY hope that the devs see all this criticism and take it to heart going into the production on Cyberpunk.....
After playing Witcher 1 and 2 and being underwhelmed by their combat I just couldn't bring myself to pick up the third.
I tried it at a friends house and it confirmed my suspicions.
I REALLY hope that the devs see all this criticism and take it to heart going into the production on Cyberpunk.....
Denton
Member
Again EC with the best post in the thread.
Gh0stlyMostly
Banned
Yet you like bloodborne? a game that only does one thing, and tricks you into thinking that your leveling matters and scales with you? and yet most kids are too stupid to realize it?
I love how people try to compare the ONE thing BloodBorne focuses on, and IGNORE everything The Witcher does that bloodborne doesn't. It's as if the majority of society values running around and hitting things rather than actually having a robust game. but that's not surprising.
If i had to give my cousins form compton a choice between the witcher 3 and Bloodbrone, they'd choose BB every time. which allows you to think less and hit more? bloodborne.
The combat isn't what should excite you about the Witcher 3.
Not that I'm conceding that it's shit, because it really isn't, But I've seen LOADS of these erm....""gamers"" that are terrible at controlling the game. I'm not surprised that everyone thinks the nice and simple mechanics of the souls series are dope lol.
I love how people try to compare the ONE thing BloodBorne focuses on, and IGNORE everything The Witcher does that bloodborne doesn't. It's as if the majority of society values running around and hitting things rather than actually having a robust game. but that's not surprising.
If i had to give my cousins form compton a choice between the witcher 3 and Bloodbrone, they'd choose BB every time. which allows you to think less and hit more? bloodborne.
The combat isn't what should excite you about the Witcher 3.
Not that I'm conceding that it's shit, because it really isn't, But I've seen LOADS of these erm....""gamers"" that are terrible at controlling the game. I'm not surprised that everyone thinks the nice and simple mechanics of the souls series are dope lol.
AntiFacebook
Member
Idon'tlikething.gif
skLaFarebear
Member
Where am I at too, except I was also just as underwhelmed by the writing of the second game especially. Witcher 2's saving grace was that it was only 20 hours, so the idea of playing something like that except 5 times as long has scared me away from every trying it. Especially when W2's "open world" just really sucked.
This for me as well, such an amazing game, and I can't wait to replay it in ng+, just waiting for the second expansion to hit and then I will play all three (vanilla + both expansions). Games as good as this don't come around very often, the next will probably be Cyberpunk (hopefully)
LookAtMeGo
Member
I really enjoyed it but by the end I was just wanting everybody to shut up and move along with the story I had pretty much lost all interest in, even though the writing was pretty good. I just started skipping the dialog. I wasnt a fan of the combat but it eventually clicked. The Bloody Baron quest line was the high point of the game for me.
Edit: I think I just got burnt out a bit. I took like 1000 screenshots and explored almost ever part of the world... I just reached the part where I just wanted it to be over. Kind of forcing myself to finish. The same happened with Skyrim, I never finished Skyrim and its still one of my all time favorite games. TW3 is still one of my top games in a while.
Edit: I think I just got burnt out a bit. I took like 1000 screenshots and explored almost ever part of the world... I just reached the part where I just wanted it to be over. Kind of forcing myself to finish. The same happened with Skyrim, I never finished Skyrim and its still one of my all time favorite games. TW3 is still one of my top games in a while.
I dont think you clicked on my spoiler.
I consider Witcher 2 as one of the top games in the annals of RPG writing. The plot, the character motivations, the political intrigues, so fucking good.
johnnydrama
Banned
Man, some of the comments in this thread. You'd think The Witcher 3 was some 70 Metacritic throwaway game. It's like I played a completely different game.
I started The Witcher 3 after putting 100+ hours into Bloodborne, and 60+ hours into Dark Souls, and still somehow managed to enjoy it enough for it to be my GOTY.
I started The Witcher 3 after putting 100+ hours into Bloodborne, and 60+ hours into Dark Souls, and still somehow managed to enjoy it enough for it to be my GOTY.
skLaFarebear
Member
Half that game (chapter 2) just felt like the biggest waste of time and I didn't care for a single thing happening during that entire chapter. I did enjoy some of chapter 1 and chapter 3 though. Unless I totally missed something in chapter 2, it felt more like filler between 1 and 3 that really didn't need to exist where nothing important towards the main quest happens besides Geralt getting more of his memory back.
I'm not one of those people who compare Souls to Witcher since they're nothing alike, but compared in general to just any action RPG, W2 was definitely some of the worst I've experienced.
My two buddies got me in Gwent, and that was the last holdout for me in terms of things I could say I didn't enjoy in the game. It's the complete fucking package, and I can't wait for Blood and Wine.
Also love Bloodborne and will be enjoying The Old Hunters very soon. The difference in combat doesn't scare me away. It definitely holds its own to me against BB versus Dragon's Dogma's complete shit stomping of Skyrim last gen.
Also love Bloodborne and will be enjoying The Old Hunters very soon. The difference in combat doesn't scare me away. It definitely holds its own to me against BB versus Dragon's Dogma's complete shit stomping of Skyrim last gen.
Aceofspades
Banned
Well, your problem is that you played BB before W3. Bloodborne can ruin any RPG played after it. combat is so much better its not even funny.
I'm kinda in the same boat but I managed to finish W3. Bloodborne is definitely the better game imo.
I'm kinda in the same boat but I managed to finish W3. Bloodborne is definitely the better game imo.
OrbitalBeard
Member
I'm only comparing the two because Bloodborne was literally the last game I played before starting The Witcher 3. I realize they're very different games.
Gh0stlyMostly
Banned
Explain why this much more robust game is worse than this simplistic game that utilizes much of the same tropes as the last 3 games? PLEASE explain it to me.
unless combat is all that matters to you in a game...
Bloodborne isn't even an RPG though lol it's an RPG Lite with level scaling and no story nor diversity.
essentially all you value is running around and hitting shit. Saying BB is "better" because of the combat is something a simple person would say. and you aren't simple are you? then know the values of each game. and if you don't value true RPG elements, quests, and storytelling then that will tell us all we need to know about you as a gamer
I really hope you're not the one of those people that think Dragon Age 2 had good writing let alone
I have never seen a game use realpolitik so well in such a setting before. It was handled so well and it's probably why I like Witcher 2's story more. All the factions, characters, and scheming going around is just so good.
They are not even remotely the same type of RPG. Bloodborne is damn awesome but you don't see me faulting it for not having quests, a dialogue system, etc. Seems unfair to hold an RPG where combat is just one aspect of it, to a game where the combat is literally the entire point of playing the game.
The Witcher's lore is one of the best realized in gaming today. However, I'm also on the same boat as the OP. As good as the story is, if I can't enjoy the gameplay then it's all for naught. I wouldn't mind a Witcher series adaptation at some point as I love the story that much.
HassanJamal
Member
I fail to see why TW3's combat is horrible where OP and others keep saying. I'm assuming people just dont change up between signs, trapping and dodging and probably just keep to slashing and dodging only.
Side quests I also found pretty engaging plus considering the end results of earlier sidequests and the choices actually effect things later on in the game unlike a few OW games I've played.
Weapon degradation wasn't a problem if you explored, looted repair tools, did quests and sold off weaker weapons and armors. There was one part where Fallout 4 excelled, that money was essential and rarely did I come into an issue where I had too much useless money unlike TW3.
Side quests I also found pretty engaging plus considering the end results of earlier sidequests and the choices actually effect things later on in the game unlike a few OW games I've played.
Weapon degradation wasn't a problem if you explored, looted repair tools, did quests and sold off weaker weapons and armors. There was one part where Fallout 4 excelled, that money was essential and rarely did I come into an issue where I had too much useless money unlike TW3.
Do you though?
OrbitalBeard
Member
Great post man. Thanks. Think I'll stick with it for a bit longer.
skLaFarebear
Member
Never played a Dragon Age game before. I'm a gameplay first kind of guy which is why I've never cared to play most of these games, but I've heard great things about the Witcher and its story. I enjoyed the first game's story enough (though I'd be hard pressed to remember any specifics), but I was really disappointed in everything about The Witcher 2. I'm kind of shocked how an RPG that's less than 20 hours could waste so much of my time making me feel like I was doing pointless shit.
In that respect, I'd feel like I could enjoy 3 more as its much less linear than 2 and I could just drop anything that doesn't sound interesting, but considering how burned I was by 2, I don't think I really wanna sink more time into these games.
CybernatonEvolution
Member
The combat is really bad, but the game revolves around builds, set ups, strategies, positioning and exploits; it is that mechanically shit broken game that you like to get around its technical issues--at least on death march.
I really hated TW2's combat, but I started enjoying some of the convoluted methods and exploits that I came up with.
Regarding quests and money management, you are doing something wrong. You can use magic to kill wolves and other animals; sell their hides and then fix your weapons.
I really hated TW2's combat, but I started enjoying some of the convoluted methods and exploits that I came up with.
Regarding quests and money management, you are doing something wrong. You can use magic to kill wolves and other animals; sell their hides and then fix your weapons.
AzureFlame
Member
I feel the same here, the combat is below average.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
Yeah it is pretty surprising how even a game this long keeps getting better the more you play.
Magic Mushroom
Member
One thing? It does combat very well, it does level design very well (I'm more impressed by great level design and it certainly does lore very well, it's one of my favorite things about it really.
Gh0stlyMostly
Banned
people are biased, and the witcher 3 is a huge threat to bloodborne.
this is like comparing the quality of uncharted 2 to Modern Warfare 2...
people seem to like following the..bandwagon rather than loving impressive games.
Just put it on easy. The game still can't really sustain its own length with lots of filler running from one quest marker to the next, but there's definitely a lot to like in there, and the main characters grow on you. I'd definitely recommend trying to move on on a lower difficulty level. The people who say it's one of the best games ever just have a really high tolerance for bullshit imo, or don't care that an rpg has a weak story.
Psychoward
Banned
Punished_Snake
Member
I finished the Witcher 3 and its expansion Hearts of Stone, it's one of the best RPGs and maybe the best western RPG of all time. But the combat isn't great and the witcher senses ability is over used. The excellent dialogue and characters made me forgive or ignore the game's issues.
EatChildren already explained why so many people love the game in spite of its flaws (They're awfully flawed, yes, but still).
Regardless of how you think of it, I still cared about the story and Geralt's pursuit of his adopted daughter
And Yennefer.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
If you're still in White Orchard note that it's basically a giant tutorial. All the quests revolve around the basic game systems and introducing them to you. The stronger, weirder, more varied character and quest arcs pick up once you hit the mainland.
If you really like adventuring I also advise you go into options and turn Points of Interest off. That way you'll only uncover cool shit via your own exploration using visual cues (hey, that castle ruin looks interesting...) rather than the map being populated by question marks.
Otherwise yeah. If you can't get into the quest arcs and character stories you probably wont enjoy it much as a whole, as that's the backbone of the adventure. Similar for the combat and other core gameplay components. You'll end up finding no enjoyment in the questing, and no enjoyment in the exploring, and that leads to a game you wont enjoy
.EDIT: And for those RE combat; I played through on Blood & Broken bones. Definitely had many moments of hitbox bullshit frustration. Definitely needs work. But I'd be lying if I said I never "got" the combat and had no exciting, methodical encounters. It's rough, but it works plenty fine, especially when you find a difficulty sweet spot, be patient with your moves and attacks, and exploit your signs, potions, and oils. The game does a rough job of teaching you what you can and cannot block, and which signs are most useful, so some experimentation is wise. Also check the beastery, which'll give decent pointers on which oils and signs are useful for encounters. Thumb rule: if it moves fast and has claws, ESPECIALLY if it's a mob, exploit Yrden to slow them down and Quen to give you a shield buffer and do more dodging than blocking. If it's a human with a sword, block parry your way to an easy win. I fucking adore the Souls series and it's clearly superior in combat, but if I can get through Wild Hunt on the second hardest difficult with a feeling of control and satisfaction in combat and encounter design then clearly something under there is working, even if it does not meet the subjective standards of others. I know a dude who's the biggest Souls fan I know and stupid talented at games, his first Wild Hunt playthrough was on Death March, and he was more than happy with how the combat turned out.
I get why people don't like it for sure. I get that it has issues (AGAIN THOSE FUCKING HITBOXES). But when people call it outright bad as some kind of objective statement I just can't help but wonder if they suck ass at it, or their standards are so high (and hey, to each their own) that a massive, diverse game like Wild Hunt was never going to reach them.
I dont agree with that. There are a lot of really great stories in Witcher 3.
Earthpainting
Member
I played The Witcher 3 until a more anticipated game got released, and haven't picked it back up since. I dropped the difficulty down to Easy after a few hours so I could basically cruise control through the combat. It helped me play 30 more hours, which got my money's worth out of it. I far from hated the game, and I get why people like it, but it was hard for me to get invested in. I didn't finish The Witcher 1 and skipped the second one, so a lot of the call-backs the characters reference ring hollow. The writing also makes the world feel a lot smaller than it is too, due to how it attempts to weave stories together.
Life is too short to play stuff you hate either way, OP. You gave it a shot for a few hours and sampled what it had to offer. Put it away and find something else.
Life is too short to play stuff you hate either way, OP. You gave it a shot for a few hours and sampled what it had to offer. Put it away and find something else.
Shin Kojima
Banned
I traded for the game but I kind of regret it. The world looks nice but it feels like shit to play to me. Maybe it would be better with mouse/kb but I don't swing that way.
@Bolded: I don't see how that's a bad thing, really
And the call-back and references makes sense since the games themselves are based on the novels, but I can see how it would confuse newcomers
OverturePT
Member
Unfortunate. Personally, it's the game of the year, I can understand being underwhelmed by the combat but really can't understand the bit about the quests being horrible though, not one bit.
Gh0stlyMostly
Banned
you're more impressed with a level design system that recycles alot of resources and utilizes alot of backtracking to give the illusion of scale? and do you like RPG's? then how do you feel about someone grinding to level 170 and someone being about level 85 and the game being about the same difficulty for both people? that's bloodborne. that's NOT an RPG.
if you DO like RPG's , then how in the flyng FUCK do you not appreciate the first game in for fucking ever that truly does not level scale? an open world in which loot is actually various, and enemies and quests can be much higher level than you, and those quests are also lovingly crafted and not procedural generated? how can a true RPG fan ignore that in favor of bloodborne, or even COMPARE it?
It took me 30 hours before the combat clicked for me
Which is to long for any game
You don't really get the right tool at the beginning to learn to handle situations,that is a damn shame.
Potions make and break combat
The messed up progression structure is the most annoying thing about the game
Pretty sad
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
I have to echo the sentiment that the comparison to Bloodborne is always fair, but kind of as useful as it would be to measure Life is Strange overall quality by the metric of how good its puzzles are in the tradition of clever point and click adventure games like Day of the Tentacle (in which it wouldn't score too well) rather than in the narrative area that is the emphasis.