While I overall liked the plot, I agree with this point. Witcher 2 really holds up incredibly well though. As a political conflict it's outstandingly good for the medium. Replays really highlight how involved and deeply woven the arcs and themes are.
I won't say I hated it but I certainly enjoyed it the least from the big 4 this year (BB, TW3, FO4, MGS:V). Going into it right after BB doesn't help you either OP. I'd say stick with the game if you have nothing else you REALLY want to play. The game improve later on and you may like it then.
I thought the quests were some of the best I've played in an RPG. I enjoyed the combat too, but I could see why some don't enjoy it. My personal GOTY and GOTG. Such a shame you aren't enjoying it. No point forcing yourself I guess.
Money was never an issue in this game for me. i don't even know where to spend it. I even repair junk items in my inventory that i'm about to sell anyway, just so i can feel like i'm spending some money. It's so easy to get money by selling junk that it shouldn't be an issue repairing your gear, even every few minutes. You also get repair tools in the wild pretty often too.
Well, that is one of my major complaints about the game. Graphics, writing, dialogues aside, the balancing of key-mechanics is totally off: You don't need the money, you don't need 90% of ingredients and crafting materials and all the loot, hell even the skill points/levelling-system - as I ran around for hours with 4-5 points not invested in the skill-tree on hardest difficulty.
The other thing: the world is totally unbelievable!!! There I said it, now come at me:
1. Monsters everywhere - it seems that every fucking inhabitant has a problem with one dangerous creature at least. Not counting the random mobs of Drowners, Nekkars and big monsters.
2. There is an army of 10.000 Nilfgardian men in a fort (which is bigger than the capital Novigrad) in the south-east and you don't witness one skirmish, troop movements and so on
3. Bandit camps everywhere
So, how is anyone supposed to live in this region??? How can three armies, hundreds of monsters and bandits co-exist with civillians and wild-life on 50 square miles? But I guess trees dancing in the wind makes up for that
That could explain it. I played it with an XBOX360 joypad on PC. And really, everyone who owns a gaming PC capable of running The Witcher 3 should own a good joypad. As awesome as mouse and keyboard are in many games, there's really nothing in The Witcher 3 that makes it suited for that.
Nah, if your mouse has two or more extra remappable buttons on it then KBM is a fine way to go. My mouse has like a billion buttons and needless to say I was able to pull off monster shit with ease while retaining camera and target control at all times.
Combat is much better them zelda which has zero challenge since lttp. on harder difficulty I found challenging and fun.
the game' world is the most beautiful and interesting I have ever played.
As an aside, I sincerely regret mentioning Bloodborne. I was just trying to give some perspective on where I was coming from, as it was the last game I played (and I played it a lot). I wasn't trying to directly compare the two, though I guess that was going to happen, just by me mentioning it.
You don't have to apologize.
You've the right to dislike clunky combat system.
Many people couldn't get into Witcher serie because of the combat aspect.
You're not alone
If you've found Bloodborn gameplay/controls better, it's your right.
Personally I dropped recently the Escapist, I hated the controls. They didn't felt natural at all.
Read OP again. "So I bought the game recently and after a hundred hours of Bloodborne,..." That's already one. Not a sentiment I disagree, but that's a subtle way of taking a dump on Witcher 3 to try and make themselves feel better about Bloodborne.
As an aside, I sincerely regret mentioning Bloodborne. I was just trying to give some perspective on where I was coming from, as it was the last game I played (and I played it a lot). I wasn't trying to directly compare the two, though I guess that was going to happen, just by me mentioning it.
You're playing Gwent wrong. You see, you are mistaken in assuming Witcher 3 is a narrative driven open world RPG. It's actually just a card game with an RPG mini-game. Look at it that way and you'll be ok. Oh, if you think combat sucks, turn up the difficulty.
While I overall liked the plot, I agree with this point. Witcher 2 really holds up incredibly well though. As a political conflict it's outstandingly good for the medium. Replays really highlight how involved and deeply woven the arcs and themes are.
Not only that, but from a pure pacing standpoint, Witcher 2 is propped up by some incredible villains across the whole game. Letho is fabulous, and by the time he is ready to transition out of that role, there are like three more shady characters to fill his spot.
I felt like Witcher 3 was largely directionless, obviously somewhat caused by the "where is XXX" campaign that led to wandering. The Wild Hunt doesn't compare to Letho. They have almost no screen time for 90% of the campaign and I didn't even know who they were really besides evil horse dudes.
If you're gonna make a game, the gameplay needs to be top-notch.
If you want a story you can read a book or watch a movie. The whole point of a game is playing it, and it's paramount that that aspect is done well. Not saying story is never important, but if that's the main focus of a game developer he chose the wrong career.
.
In general i tend to agree with this but there are a few exceptions to this rule when the story and characterization is so insanely good that i'm willing to overlook obvious flaws in the gameplay.Examples like The Witchers series and the Yakuza series are the first that comes to mind.
Also both of these series made it clear since their first games came out that the main focus was going to be the story and characterization.In that regard what they have delivered ever since has been in that same context and the fans never felt "deceived" from a change of focus.They always make small improvements in gameplay but the story and characters are what these games are about first and foremost.
A slew of 10's and flawless appraisals for a game that largely plays like absolute ass - a fact that MANY of its biggest fans will concede - purely because the industry is seemingly obsessed with scope and open-world and quantity over quality to a silly degree.
I'm not saying TW3 is shit all over, but I've played enough to know that it's very undeserving of its acclaim given how it plays.
The Witcher series isn't for everyone, and it is not trying to be. That is what I like about thagt game most of all. It is a game made for the people who love the books, loved the first game and loved the seond game. It is unapologetically awesome in its own way
A slew of 10's and flawless appraisals for a game that largely plays like absolute ass - a fact that MANY of its biggest fans will concede - purely because the industry is seemingly obsessed with scope and open-world and quantity over quality to a silly degree.
I'm not saying TW3 is shit all over, but I've played enough to know that it's very undeserving of its acclaim given how it plays.
I scored it 5/5 because it's a 5/5 game to me. Turns out creative works are largely subjective and quality of creative work cannot be measured with mathematical accuracy.
A slew of 10's and flawless appraisals for a game that largely plays like absolute ass - a fact that MANY of its biggest fans will concede - purely because the industry is seemingly obsessed with scope and open-world and quantity over quality to a silly degree.
I'm not saying TW3 is shit all over, but I've played enough to know that it's very undeserving of its acclaim given how it plays.
I think there are several people who gave the game and the developer shit for several reasons, namely: downgrade scandal, ongoing bugs and glitches, tons of patches, no REDKit 2, combat system, horse traversal, and so on
And I'm one of the lunatics who really loves Roach
In the end, one man's garbage is another man's quality
Well, that is one of my major complaints about the game. Graphics, writing, dialogues aside, the balancing of key-mechanics is totally off: You don't need the money, you don't need 90% of ingredients and crafting materials and all the loot, hell even the skill points/levelling-system - as I ran around for hours with 4-5 points not invested in the skill-tree on hardest difficulty.
The other thing: the world is totally unbelievable!!! There I said it, now come at me:
1. Monsters everywhere - it seems that every fucking inhabitant has a problem with one dangerous creature at least. Not counting the random mobs of Drowners, Nekkars and big monsters.
2. There is an army of 10.000 Nilfgardian men in a fort (which is bigger than the capital Novigrad) in the south-east and you don't witness one skirmish, troop movements and so on
3. Bandit camps everywhere
So, how is anyone supposed to live in this region??? How can three armies, hundreds of monsters and bandits co-exist with civillians and wild-life on 50 square miles? But I guess trees dancing in the wind makes up for that
Nilfgaard and Redania clashed in the swamps of Velen a few days before the start of the game. That battle took a heavy toll upon both armies which both explains why they are licking their wounds and why there are so many monsters around. Emhyr is waiting for more troops from the south and at the same time is dealing with political trouble at the homefront. Radovid on the other hand is subsidizing the Temeria guerillas to fight Nilfgaard. The bandit camps are a logical effect from that: a lot of deserters on both sides and lowlifes trying to profit from the absence of law in the Velen region. The more north you go, the better the situation gets and you see a noticeable improvement in quality of life once you cross the Pontar.
A slew of 10's and flawless appraisals for a game that largely plays like absolute ass - a fact that MANY of its biggest fans will concede - purely because the industry is seemingly obsessed with scope and open-world and quantity over quality to a silly degree.
I'm not saying TW3 is shit all over, but I've played enough to know that it's very undeserving of its acclaim given how it plays.
Funny enough, I actually find the Witcher 3 to be much better in this regard compared to most open world games. Almost all of the side quests are great, and there are very little filler quests IMO.One of the most impressive things about the witcher 3 to me is how so much of the content is of such a high quality when you take into account how much there is. Very impressive.
Combat blows compared to the masterpiece that is Bloodborne. But the story and characters are actually great. So if you really aren't liking the story so far it may not be for you.
Dropped that shit down to easy and got my power fantasy on. Enjoyed feeling like a bad ass, and let's face it Geralt is the centre of the world anyway.
Combat definitely isn't as sharp as Bloodborne but that's okay. Has other good assets.
Ignoring the combat which was rubbish. Another reason I didn't really like it so much was. You didn't have a companion. It was really lonely just wandering around with just a horse to keep you company.
Funny enough, I actually find the Witcher 3 to be much better in this regard compared to most open world games. Almost all of the side quests are great, and there are very little filler quests IMO.One of the most impressive things about the witcher 3 to me is how so much of the content is of such a high quality when you take into account how much there is. Very impressive.
I think there's no question it's far better than your average Just Cause-style game, which to me is a complete anathema (obviously people like those too). But the mechanics of the game are really oddly weak. I mean how many times have they patched Geralt's WALKING so he doesn't move like ass?
Ignoring the combat which was rubbish. Another reason I didn't really like it so much was. You didn't have a companion. It was really lonely just wandering around with just a horse to keep you company.
Think it worked really well with how Geralt works (He's mostly a loner despite having close friends)
In the short stories, Geralt was mostly traveling alone with his horse.
Speaking of which, I'd fucking love a road adventure with Geralt and Dandelion (As much of an annoying idiot he is) in Blood and Wine even if its highly unlikely.
A slew of 10's and flawless appraisals for a game that largely plays like absolute ass - a fact that MANY of its biggest fans will concede - purely because the industry is seemingly obsessed with scope and open-world and quantity over quality to a silly degree.
I'm not saying TW3 is shit all over, but I've played enough to know that it's very undeserving of its acclaim given how it plays.
Sorry but if you take "professional" reviews seriously then it's your problem. I always say to my friends to ignore reviews and awards and just make their own research and judgements.
If you can separate the fans from the fanboys you'll find that fans in forums can do the most analytical and critical reviews/opinions about a game.
When it comes to Witcher 3 i knew exactly what i was getting in and therefore i wasn't disappointed.Of course i ignored all the hype and reviews from the major sites as usual.
quick question about the difficulty: I had the moonwraith as my first quest and it took forever to kill it. was that just a challenging quest or should I switch to easy?
as for the combat, I had issues in witcher 2, but am warming up to them now. camera and horse controls can go die in a fire, though.
I'm in the same boat. It's an amazing world, characters ect but I just cannot get into it. It's the same with Skyrim and Oblivion. It's just the type of game it is. Fallout 4 comes out, boom I'm hooked. Guns are needed for me to enjoy an RPG these days I think, unless it's Souls. I'm sure I will love Cyberpunk from them.
A slew of 10's and flawless appraisals for a game that largely plays like absolute ass - a fact that MANY of its biggest fans will concede - purely because the industry is seemingly obsessed with scope and open-world and quantity over quality to a silly degree.
I'm not saying TW3 is shit all over, but I've played enough to know that it's very undeserving of its acclaim given how it plays.
Oh, also-- for all the talk about how the side quests are amazing, I think what people mean are that the quest givers have clear motivations and dialogue is well written. If I had to go to another fucking patch of shrubs and use witcher senses to follow a magic trail of stank one more time I was going to sell the game.
quick question about the difficulty: I had the moonwraith as my first quest and it took forever to kill it. was that just a challenging quest or should I switch to easy?
as for the combat, I had issues in witcher 2, but am warming up to them now. camera and horse controls can go die in a fire, though.
A slew of 10's and flawless appraisals for a game that largely plays like absolute ass - a fact that MANY of its biggest fans will concede - purely because the industry is seemingly obsessed with scope and open-world and quantity over quality to a silly degree.
I'm not saying TW3 is shit all over, but I've played enough to know that it's very undeserving of its acclaim given how it plays.
For me it's one of my all time favourite games. I played the heck out of Bloodborne (another of my favourite games), yet I still enjoyed the combat in Witcher 3. It's just different. This notion that it only got appraisal because of scope and quantity is just plain bullshit. The story and quests combined with the open-world and gameplay is why it deserved all of its acclaim.
I think there's no question it's far better than your average Just Cause-style game, which to me is a complete anathema (obviously people like those too). But the mechanics of the game are really oddly weak. I mean how many times have they patched Geralt's WALKING so he doesn't move like ass?
I guess that is a pretty subjective thing. I found the walking to be a problem for the first 2 hours or so, but after I got used to it it didn't bother me that much.
quick question about the difficulty: I had the moonwraith as my first quest and it took forever to kill it. was that just a challenging quest or should I switch to easy?
as for the combat, I had issues in witcher 2, but am warming up to them now. camera and horse controls can go die in a fire, though.
Did you read the entry about moonwraiths in the bestiary and used it's weakness? It takes very little damage unless you use specific spells/oils/bombs/potions.
Oh, also-- for all the talk about how the side quests are amazing, I think what people mean are that the quest givers have clear motivations and dialogue is well written. If I had to go to another fucking patch of shrubs and use witcher senses to follow a magic trail of stank one more time I was going to sell the game.
I think when people say how the side-quests are amazing, they meant quests like The Fyke Isle's tower quest, Novigrad's serial killer quest, and King's Gambit (Where you can decide who will sit on the ruling throne of Skellige)
Wow, OP, I came directly from Bloodborne to the Witcher 3 as well, and I also hated it for the first 5/6 hours as well. I even made a post in the OT asking for help enjoying it.
That post is here. We really were in the same boat.
Guess what? It clicked for me in the end, and eventually I came to utterly love the game. I never, ever learned to love the combat, but the rest of it was just too good to pass up. I'd stick with it a while longer. Once your money and repair issues dry up a lot of the annoyance of the game goes away. They key thing, though, is to switch from the basic Geralt controls to the alternative. Geralt's basic running controls were utterly hideous, to the extent that manoeuvring him through a door or turning 180 were massive trials in and of themselves. Switching to alt mode fixes all that.
In case you still have problems with money for repairs OP, there is a sign in the opening village that the herbalist is looking for honeycombs and will pay top coins. Helped me quite a bit in the beginning.
Did you read the entry about moonwraiths in the bestiary and used it's weakness? It takes very little damage unless you use specific spells/oils/bombs/potions.
In case you still have problems with money for repairs OP, there is a sign in the opening village that the herbalist is looking for honeycombs and will pay top coins. Helped me quite a bit in the beginning.
I had the same situation with The Witcher 2, although my problem was less with the gameplay and more with the character design. Geralt is just such an insufferable self-insert that I can't stand him; his voice, his appearance, it all makes my skin crawl. It's hard to enjoy a game where you don't like the character you're playing, so I kinda just gave up half way through. This is also keeping me from trying Witcher 3 despite its rave reviews. I dunno if I can stomach it... but perhaps next year when this torrent of awesome games dries up a bit, I'll try.
Oh, also-- for all the talk about how the side quests are amazing, I think what people mean are that the quest givers have clear motivations and dialogue is well written. If I had to go to another fucking patch of shrubs and use witcher senses to follow a magic trail of stank one more time I was going to sell the game.
For me, its how almost every quest has some kind of twist or interesting background lore. If you are asked to collect something for example, you can bet your ass that it isn't as simple as go to spot, pick up object, return. There will almost always be more to it than that, and I loved that a lot.
Controls weren't as precise as they should've been, and the plot lost some momentum after the halfway point... but it's still one of the better ARPGs I've played these past few years.
I think everyone should learn how to temper their gameplay expectations after any Souls game.
For me, its how almost every quest has some kind of twist or interesting background lore. If you are asked to collect something for example, you can bet your ass that it isn't as simple as go to spot, pick up object, return. There will almost always be more to it than that, and I loved that a lot.
If you explore some more you should find Moon Dust and/or Dimeritium Bombs. If you also used Yrden to bind it to the physical plane it really don't take much, I was playing on Death March and I don't recall it taking more than 8-10 hits maybe ? (Been a few months)
Well, the entry also says it was weak to the Yrden sign, and you have that from the start. When the wraith is in the slowing area, it will take like 10x damage.
These threads.... Everyone acting like "the other" game is the worst of all time.
Bloodborne and Souls have great combat. They are literally focused only on combat, it is what you do 99% of the time in the game and many people love it.
Fallout / TES are about freedom and exploration. They have bad combat and some (FO3/4/Skyrim) have often bad writing, but the sandbox and exploration make up for that and many people love it.
Witcher 1/2/3 is first and foremost about narrative and quest design. They have better quests than pretty much any AAA RPG of the last decade. In Witcher 3 and its expansion, I:
- hunted for a Giant on a remote island
- participated in a hilarious theater play
- investigated serial murders
- took part in large gwent tournament with surprise at the end
- interacted with adoptive daughter and ensured she got enough confidence to take on large responsibilities
- experienced an authetic, amazingly funny wedding
- took part in deciding who is going to be crowned next king of entire Isle nation
- slayed many epic monsters, usually with interesting narrative around them
- got drunk with my fellow witchers
and then crossdressed and drunk dialed religious figure who was taking a shit at that moment
- traveled through
different worlds
- participated in a heist
- and many many more memorable things
Can any other game offer me all this, while being consistently well written and beautifully immersive ? No. But that does not mean I must act like other games are "trash" and "worst".
Witcher could have better combat, sure. But it is good enough at what it wants to do, namely simulate Witcher-like combat style.
I like all kinds of games. I have 200 hours across Dark Souls 1/2, I have 180 hours in Skyrim, I have 230 hours in Witcher 3 and I have 80 hours in Fallout 4 and I fucking love the fact that there are all these amazing games, that are different from each other and attempt to do different things.
Now, would I want Witcher to have even better combat ? Sure
Would I want Bloodborne to have shorter loadings, no framepacing issues and more varied gameplay ? Sure
Would I want Fallout 4 to be better written and have more interesting sidequests ? Sure
Does not mean I cannot enjoy all these games anyway. I do and I am glad they exist.
I had the same situation with The Witcher 2, although my problem was less with the gameplay and more with the character design. Geralt is just such an insufferable self-insert that I can't stand him; his voice, his appearance, it all makes my skin crawl. It's hard to enjoy a game where you don't like the character you're playing, so I kinda just gave up half way through. This is also keeping me from trying Witcher 3 despite its rave reviews. I dunno if I can stomach it... but perhaps next year when this torrent of awesome games dries up a bit, I'll try.
One of the few times I've seen someone who can't stand Geralt (I believe I've read from someone in twitter that Geralt is a misogynist a few months ago. Hint: He's absolutely not)
His design really conveys how much people call him a freak and a mutant. Of course, to some people, he looks like a supermodel in Witcher 3 which can be remedied with this mod or this mod as well if you are on PC, of course:
Well, the entry also says it was weak to the Yrden sign, and you have that from the start. When the wraith is in the slowing area, it will take like 10x damage.
If you explore some more you should find Moon Dust and/or Dimeritium Bombs. If you also used Yrden to bind it to the physical plane it really don't take much, I was playing on Death March and I don't recall it taking more than 8-10 hits maybe ? (Been a few months)
I had some of the same frustrations as the OP when I first started Witcher 3, but I found that they ironed themselves out rather quickly. One thing I definitely disagree with is the combat. I think it was great.
I never got into Bloodborne to any significant degree, but I have to say comparing these two games really is apples to oranges.
but I could only craft the oil. is there something I need to farm before doing more quests or something?
