What is he spending his money on? In the very first story hes saving a princess for the king for large reward. In another he is payed to attend a dinner party with a queen. Ive only read the first book but I dont understand why hes so poor if hes just constantly being hired by the most powerful people around.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
How I learned to love The Witcher 3
- Thread starter OrbitalBeard
- Start date
"I hate a 100+ hour game after having played 6 hours where I have seen less than 10% of what the game offers"
OP, sit yo ass down and think before making silly threads. Form a better opinion after playing the game for a longer time because otherwise you kinda look like an impatient fool.
OP, sit yo ass down and think before making silly threads. Form a better opinion after playing the game for a longer time because otherwise you kinda look like an impatient fool.
AlimNassor
Banned
People shutting. On side quests is there no example of good ones in a game? It doesn't matter how they dress it. All sides in any rpg boil down too "kill x" or "fetch y". I don't see why witchers 3 are supposedly mundane when they make sense in universe. What do you want them to be about? You got complex quests and you got regular contract jobs that feel meaningfull. Like skyrim you go kill a generic dragon, or go kill 5 bandits or collect x amount of irems. In witcher you get a contract to hunt a dangerous monster that's killed people.
You have to find it by searchING evidence. The monsters are usually big and dangerous boss fights. I fail to see how they aren't "goid", they're better and more meaningful then any modern day rpg at least.
You have to find it by searchING evidence. The monsters are usually big and dangerous boss fights. I fail to see how they aren't "goid", they're better and more meaningful then any modern day rpg at least.
Vire
Member
Mass Effect 2, where the side quests were better than the main story. All of the loyalty missions were my favorite part of the game because of the extensive character development.
I'll have to say though that Witcher 3's combat is miles better than Witcher 2. Now there's a game I could really not get into. Witcher 3's combat actually started off pretty good I thought, so it's clear they put a lot of effort into it. It just got repetitive, like the quest structures.
From what I sampled there were indeed quite a few good sidequest stories. Sadly as far as I encountered, none of them really tied into the main story, or meaningfully deepened your characters' bonds. As I don't have time to endlessly lose myself in a virtual world, I mostly focus on the main quest. Only when I find the main quest to go too fast do I indulge in a little bit of side quest activity. So as someone who quite quickly started focusing on the main quest, the main story goes something like this: You spend fifty hours doing things that don't amount to anything as you try to find Ciri. Then you spend ten hours backtracking all your previous steps. Then some really interesting intrigue with elves and shit happens, the end. It's a seventy hour campaign of which twenty at most feel well paced and meaningful. It's a huge shame I think because they obviously put in a lot of effort, except for (at least for me) where it should have counted. E.g. I really liked the stuff with Keira Metz, but then after you shagged her, her dialog doesn't change for the rest of the game (in fact her quests kind of just end there), safe for a bit at the very end. She feels like she should be a strong character by herself, but instead she's just of the many quest pez dispensers the game is littered with.
From what I sampled there were indeed quite a few good sidequest stories. Sadly as far as I encountered, none of them really tied into the main story, or meaningfully deepened your characters' bonds. As I don't have time to endlessly lose myself in a virtual world, I mostly focus on the main quest. Only when I find the main quest to go too fast do I indulge in a little bit of side quest activity. So as someone who quite quickly started focusing on the main quest, the main story goes something like this: You spend fifty hours doing things that don't amount to anything as you try to find Ciri. Then you spend ten hours backtracking all your previous steps. Then some really interesting intrigue with elves and shit happens, the end. It's a seventy hour campaign of which twenty at most feel well paced and meaningful. It's a huge shame I think because they obviously put in a lot of effort, except for (at least for me) where it should have counted. E.g. I really liked the stuff with Keira Metz, but then after you shagged her, her dialog doesn't change for the rest of the game (in fact her quests kind of just end there), safe for a bit at the very end. She feels like she should be a strong character by herself, but instead she's just of the many quest pez dispensers the game is littered with.
Denton
Member
As much as I love Mass Effect trilogy (yes even ME3) Witcher 3 has even more interesting sidequests than ME by a large margin.
Why would you play something you don't enjoy for that long?
Dre_G_Writer
Member
I didnt even think about getting 3 since I hated the combat style in two. And I heard it was pretty much the same with some tweeks.
But a friend did do a share session with me on PS4 and boy was I glad I did not buy into the hype and bought it, I would have been super pissed.
But a friend did do a share session with me on PS4 and boy was I glad I did not buy into the hype and bought it, I would have been super pissed.
How many of them are immediately important to the plot or principal characters?
DamonForever
Member
I haven't touched the game since dropping it after ~30 hours. The focus on mediocre side questing and pretty mediocre main questing turned me off. The clunky movement and combat turned me off, especially the restrictive ability assignment. Levelling up was underwhelming because I was limited arbitrarily by the game. I could unlock 10 abilities, but only use 6 cause the game says so. Really? Pretty pathetic. Too much menu management too (wrt magic and potions)
Combat within buildings was worse, due to the camera and the clunky movement being even more annoying. Detective vision was crap, and you use it A LOT. Loot system is forgettable too. I ended up taking on higher ranked missions (like more than 10 the recommended level), got through some tough enemies, and got crap rewards. Deflated any sense of caring about anything.
I didn't really follow the game or watch many trailers, but
Really? The plot plodded along at a snails pace. They also destroyed Triss' looks. I properly enjoyed maybe 2-3 hours of that 30 hour romp, so ~10%. Meeting Triss being the highlight (even if I would've never left her had my choices actually mattered in the series).
The game pales hugely in comparison to Witcher 2. I did 1 run of TW2 at just under 45 hours and enjoyed close to 90% of my time with it. I sit here and want to scold myself for even considering retrying TW3. Wish I could refund it.
To OP, the combat doesn't get better. It is cool that certain enemies require certain tactics, but then you get relegated to a lot of menu management when switching between enemy types. And if you hate detective vision like I do...well, get use to that hate. Rewards never felt great either, and story is slow. So yea, your choice I guess.
Combat within buildings was worse, due to the camera and the clunky movement being even more annoying. Detective vision was crap, and you use it A LOT. Loot system is forgettable too. I ended up taking on higher ranked missions (like more than 10 the recommended level), got through some tough enemies, and got crap rewards. Deflated any sense of caring about anything.
I didn't really follow the game or watch many trailers, but
I knew you were chasing Ciri and would meet Yennefer. Half-way through the game, you're still chasing Ciri and have barely spoken to Yennefer.
The game pales hugely in comparison to Witcher 2. I did 1 run of TW2 at just under 45 hours and enjoyed close to 90% of my time with it. I sit here and want to scold myself for even considering retrying TW3. Wish I could refund it.
To OP, the combat doesn't get better. It is cool that certain enemies require certain tactics, but then you get relegated to a lot of menu management when switching between enemy types. And if you hate detective vision like I do...well, get use to that hate. Rewards never felt great either, and story is slow. So yea, your choice I guess.
Because apparently you can't judge a long tedious game until you've spent an arbitrary amount of time doing long tedious tasks.
Vire
Member
I'm just going to have to agree to disagree then. All of the loyalty missions included unique/interestkng environments versus trudging through the same old forest and wilderness over and over. There are meaningful character arcs and development, as well as the strengthening of relationships between characters versus I help this guy out and never see him again.
Depends. I read the books before playing the game. The way the story is handled, the sidequests with their well thought out context and dialog, the overall interlinking nature they provided and world building is awesome. It some of those aspects the game is the best I've ever experienced.
However actually playing said game was a never ending exercise in frustration and annoyance. Geralt moved like a lumbering mule. Everything was so sluggish and laboured. Sometimes if I was near but not directly in front of a doorway, simply trying to get him to go though it was like wrestling a bear. Geralt has absolutely no finesse. Instead of just going through the door, it was easier at times to move away from the door, course correct and line him up, and then go through it. Otherwise when trying to move a little he'd just lurch to the other side of the door.
This translated to the combat as well. You had variety and interesting aspects with signs, bombs and oils. At it's core the swordplay sounds fine with counters, dodges, parries and a z targeting system. However in execution all the aforementioned movement problems were present. It was unresponsive, slow and I rarely felt like I was in control of him. It wasn't hard by any means, in fact it grew too easy. But it was such a chore and unfun to play. It was so bad that with it's constant annoyance, it detracted from what should have been one of the best games I've ever played into merely a decent game.
And then there's all the busgs and glitches and random craziness. I don't even really care about the framerate. But when needing to repeat a important side quest for the 5th in order for it not to glitch out, it really demmoralises you. That's near the end of the game and I was even thinking off calling it quits there.
Because if you see praise from the vast majority while you think you "hate" it, then you must be doing something wrong. On the other hand, if you decide to put down a massive game where you barely have seen what it offers, your opinion about that game is pretty much meaningless and ignorant.
RespectThySole
Member
I love the Mass Effect series and and I replayed all three on PS3 in June after I completed TW3, but the sidequests in Mass Effect 2 are nowhere near as good as the ones in TW3.
Yeah, I'm just saying my tastes have changed away from games like The Witcher 1 and Dragon Age: Origins just over the last 5-7 years. If Witcher 3 came out in 2009, I would have been all about it. At this point, I struggled to put 25 hours into it and then moved on to other games that were more of my current tastes.
Witcher 3 won't be on my game of the year list, but I fully recognize that it is one of the best games of the year and one of the best, if not THE best, open-worlds ever designed.
A lot of them certainly are, to the point of affecting outcomes.
Witcher 3 is one of the best games of all time. You'll have a tough time when game of the year season starts.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
This is such a dumb line of thinking. Not everyone likes the same things. If OP hates basic things like combat and playing for 20 more hours isn't going to fundimentally change how things like the combat function then it's perfectly reasonable to quit before you waste too much time playing something you already don't like.
Canis lupus
Member
Or Dragon's Dogma.
It doesn't help that Dark Souls came out just weeks before Skyrim, Bloodborne just before Witcher 3.
Thats good. I wish Geralt would spend more time with those characters, but Im still not that far in the game.
It is amazing that somebody has an opinion like this. This way of thinking is rare, most often you get comments from people that don't like the game, exclaiming their puzzlement of why so many people like game X or game Y. No matter how many times people explain what they like about the game those people still claim to be baffled.
toastyToast
Member
Let's be real. Without the recruitment + loyalty missions ME2 would have been 3 hours long. That was the game.
6 hours is plenty enough to know if the basic gameplay is for you or not, imo. Unless they're some new mechanics that will unlock (like in Platinium games).
Also for people who say the combat is what it is because he's a Witcher, then you're wrong. Read the books and tell me how often he uses a sign when fighting. Sure they existed, but it was repeatedly stated Witcher's were awful at even basic magic. They were added and enhanced purely for game purposes
Tony Redgrave
Member
I have played the ME trilogy multiple times and there's no way any of the individual games can be said to have better side missions than TW3, not even ME2 which has the best of the series.
Almost every character in TW3 (down to kind of minor ones like Eskel and Lambert) have their very own quest in which they get character development or insight into their background, not to mention the main ones (Yennefer, Ciri and Triss specially) which are as good or better than any of the loyalty missions in ME. Add to that the lot of other cool , quality sidequests that are spreaded to the game.
Almost every character in TW3 (down to kind of minor ones like Eskel and Lambert) have their very own quest in which they get character development or insight into their background, not to mention the main ones (Yennefer, Ciri and Triss specially) which are as good or better than any of the loyalty missions in ME. Add to that the lot of other cool , quality sidequests that are spreaded to the game.
Good of you for ignoring the second part of my post. Nobody gives a crap if OP doesn't like the combat and therefore "hates" the overall game, but his opinion is meaningless considering he hasn't seen anything else about what the game offers. Hearing that he dislikes the quests is suspicious as well since that's something people shower Witcher 3 with praise.
Being turned of by a game because of poor combat mechanics is perfectly viable
That is a big part of the game
Typically the more important side quests interweave with the main narrative. But there are also a metric ton of quests that are their own little vignettes, which are often just as interesting.
The thing about the witcher 3 is that there no real pattern to a good quest. You'll find good quests that are a few minutes long or a few hours long.
Nope, not for a 100 hour RPG.
I really wish I got GAF's boner for souls games. I played a good amount of Demon's Souls back near when that came out and it was ok. A solid game but really nothing that much more. Tried to play Bloodborne this year and didn't particularly get into it.
Witcher 3 however is probably one of my top games of all time. I can't say the combat is top of all time, but I really enjoyed that, too. I think my old substantive complaint on combat was that archers were a bit too powerful and annoying.
Witcher 3 however is probably one of my top games of all time. I can't say the combat is top of all time, but I really enjoyed that, too. I think my old substantive complaint on combat was that archers were a bit too powerful and annoying.
His Majesty
Banned
Certainly. I myself have a high tolerance for poor combat (and I actually liked the combat in The Witcher 3) and less so for poor writing, worldbuilding and storytelling. Which is also why I didn't manage to get very far in Fallout 4 and MGS V.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
I ignored it because it doesn't matter.
Just like you thinking that someone is "suspicious" and their opinion is "meaningless" for disliking something a lot of people like is a pretty dumb line of thinking. God forbid someone have an opinion that differs from other peoples. Good for you for just totally discounting someone's opinion because they didn't fit your arbitrary limit for how long someone must play a game before their opinion matters.
Combat is like, the main part of an RPG. If you don't like doing that you're probably not going to put up with it for hours upon hours just to see what else you might find enjoyable about the game.
Newtype-001
Member
No it was clarified, you jumped to conclusions.
In 2004, Ninja Gaiden on Xbox spoiled me.
I can't really stand any sword-based combat game, since then.
Seriously: TW3 combat has alot of flaws.
Big inconsistencies in AI and collisions, lack of variety in attacks.
Geralt on the other hand has never been a problem for me. Said it alot of times: played on PC, 60 FPS almost all the time, K+M [pad always felt lagged to me] and avoiding noob lock-on. Geralt responsiveness and level of control over him were great 90% of the time.
I can't really stand any sword-based combat game, since then.
Seriously: TW3 combat has alot of flaws.
Big inconsistencies in AI and collisions, lack of variety in attacks.
Geralt on the other hand has never been a problem for me. Said it alot of times: played on PC, 60 FPS almost all the time, K+M [pad always felt lagged to me] and avoiding noob lock-on. Geralt responsiveness and level of control over him were great 90% of the time.
Denton
Member
Many are, but that qualifications is not important at all for me when it comes to quality. That's actually great thing about TW3, even sidequests for some peasant on the other side of the world is interesting and fun to do for its own sake, rather than for some stupid XP points or fucking loot.
Needs to spend 94 more hours with the bad combat before he can say he doesn't like it, or it doesn't count.
It is no more ridiculous that this statement:
Given the amount of people stating why they like it, it shouldn't be a cause for confusion by this point.
It's as ridiculous as walking out of a movie after 10 minutes, or judging a CD after 2 songs. Sure, you are entitled to your thoughts, but you can't seriously have any opinion on the subject, because you look fucking ridiculous.
And once again, judging massive RPG mechanics after a couple hours is lol-worthy. I didn't like Dark Souls combat the first hours, and that didn't make me run to my phone to write threads on forums saying "it sucks!.....I'm at the Gargoyle Tower".
Did anyone eventually point out that Bloodborne absolutely does not do any level scaling for enemy encounters? Because early in this thread Gh0stly keeps bringing this up as if it's a fact when it's complete bullshit; the DLC OT is full of pages of people trying to figure out minimum levels for the new content because of how hard it is if you're underleveled.
I can only imagine he's confused by the fact that despite it not scaling enemies, you can still beat the game at minimum soul level if you're good enough at the mechanics.
Sorry to dredge this up but the first half of this thread is basically unreadable because of the hyperbolic misinformation.
His Majesty
Banned
There's a difference between not enjoying and calling them horrible. Which means OP must have some unrealistically high standards about what a good quest should be. I'm genuinely curious.
Denton
Member
And this is a good point. Those quests were not really sidequests, because not only would the game be super short without them, but it also kills your crew if you ignore them.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
No it's not. Those things are not based around fundamental control of what you're doing. You have no idea where a CD will go after two songs, and you have no idea where the plot of a movie will go after 10 minutes.
You do however, probably understand how a game is going to control after six hours of playing it. So like I said, unless something fundimentally changes how the combat works in Witcher 3 then putting it down after six hours and never wanting to play it again is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Bloodborne is my GOTY, but if someone doesn't like the combat after playing for six hours I would totally advise them to quit playing, because that's basically how the combat works for the whole game, and that person probably isn't going to randomly start enjoying the combat because they played it for twenty more hours.
Newtype-001
Member
Also why tf are peoples inflating the witcher 3s playtime, you can finish the main quest in under 20 hours, I did in 16.
RespectThySole
Member
There are new mechanics that unlock(Whirl, Rend, Alternate Signs) Honestly, OP isn't even far enough in the game to have a fully formed opinion on the combat. It's fine if he thinks it won't ever click, but he's still in the tutorial area where you barely have any skills/upgrades/potions/bombs, etc.
He hasn't even seen any interesting enemies at that point. It's very possible that he'll still dislike it after leaving that area, but to say you hate it after 6 hours is just silly. It's not a 12 hour action game.
Allowing people to be killed should have been a valid way of allowing that game to be played. It is inherently treated by the game as a failing condition. It would have been neat to get perks from actually not bringing a certain character on board, or doing something to get them to leave.
I sort of enjoyed Witcher 3 but then I never played it through again, not sure what that says about my opinion. The ending was way too long, I started doing the bare minimum for all the mainline quests by the time I got to Skragg Isle or whatever it was.
Fallout 4 on the other hand I expect I will play a bazillion times just like I did Fallout 3. I'm never really bored in it. I also played Inquisition a bunch of times and that doesn't exactly have great combat. I mean, people play Skyrim over and over and that doesn't have good combat either...
I think I really prefer to make my own character, however W3's combat and combat movement did really grate on me so maybe it's that too.
Fallout 4 on the other hand I expect I will play a bazillion times just like I did Fallout 3. I'm never really bored in it. I also played Inquisition a bunch of times and that doesn't exactly have great combat. I mean, people play Skyrim over and over and that doesn't have good combat either...
I think I really prefer to make my own character, however W3's combat and combat movement did really grate on me so maybe it's that too.