Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
Sorry, but do you really consider "los Premios ADSLZone " a clown site? Pffff.....
I have no idea how legit that site is, I just find the name hilarious
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
How I learned to love The Witcher 3
- Thread starter OrbitalBeard
- Start date
Sorry, but do you really consider "los Premios ADSLZone " a clown site? Pffff.....
Niflgaard's supply lines would come from the south, off the world map. There are conversations you can have in the camp that flesh this out, characters that you meet earlier in locations further south that travel up into the Nilfgaardian camp. You also see evidence of patrols going out in the region for security and foraging purposes, there are quests that deal with this very thing.
Just because you apparently didn't explore or talk to people doesn't mean the game doesn't contextualize their presence.
His Majesty
Banned
Both parties are fighting extremely close to home so it's safe to assume there is a supply line running between the Nilfgaardian camp and Nilfgaard. Same goes for Redania. Velen has often been described as a poor land with barren soil and mostly filled with swamps and monsters. Sending out a third of your army to go berry-picking would be idiotic if you already have a supply line established. Besides, why do the hard work yourself if you can simply requisition resources from the local villages, as is shown in the prologue.
The Nilfgaardian Army is probably well supplied but they lack troops to launch an all-out assault on the Redanian army. Emperor Emhyr cannot justify sending more Nilfgaardian troops to conquer the relatively poor Northern Kingdoms as he is having a lot of political trouble at home, people criticizing him for the invasion as a gigantic waste of resources. Which is why Emhyr is working on another plan behind the scenes which the player can choose to take part in near the end of the game. If you were the emperor, would you send your entire army through swampy Velen or kill one man to win the war? And I just want to mention the Redanian and Nilfgaardian patrols in the game often enough clash with local monsters or bandits. Not everything is scripted. There is also a Nilfgaardian supply convoy in the prologue which has been hijacked by Temerian guerillas.
I really have trouble seeing what you find so problematic about Redania and Nilfgaard coming to a standstill. Both are waiting for the perfect moment to strike and both are trying to recruit the Free City of Novigrad to their cause rather than go on another suicide assault in the swamps.
Zombie James
Banned
The combat is what completely turned me off on the game. It's so janky and felt so unresponsive. Coming not long after Bloodborne with it's fluid and responsive combat made it feel even worse than it probably is. I really wanted to like The Witcher 3 but you can't fuck up combat this badly in a game with so much of it.
Huevos de Oro
Member
Haven't played BB so I cannot speak regarding a direct comparison, although I don't think combat gameplay in BB is all that different from the ones in the bulk of the Souls games. I will say in my opinion combat in TW3 is far from bad. The fact you can mix oils, signs, parrying and dodging just like EC said (I have had demanding, exciting battles like that during my 60-hour ongoing playthrough), makes for very engaging battles, with enough variety to keep things interesting. Add up the fact that the thing you are fighting against might have a weakness (or not!), or even be stronger or weaker depending of the time of the day, and it certainly makes for a compelling system.
Surprusingly, I am not against weapon degradation. I see it as a part of roleplaying. Take care of your shit.
Surprusingly, I am not against weapon degradation. I see it as a part of roleplaying. Take care of your shit.
Admiral Woofington
Member
I fail to see the reason for the comparison with Bloodborne except that you played them both on the same year.
I don't go comparing every action RPG I've played to Souls or Dragon's Dogma. If those are your standards for what every combat system for every game needs to be then your standards are too fucking high.
The Witcher 3's combat needs work but if you put the effort in it it really isn't horrendous. It's just that most people don't put in the effort of coming up with strategies when they know what enemies they have to fight, especially in harder difficulties. If you know you gotta fight a specific creature, you gotta make potions/oils to deal with that creature. You can fight them straight up in normal and below though. But then it just becomes a game of spamming the shield spell right before attacking and retreating, with a couple of other spells in between if it's an enemy you have the luxury to do that with.
I'm heavily invested in the Witcher lore and universe as I've read all the novels and played all the games, so yeah I'm biased as fuck as Witcher 3 was my most anticipated game of the year, but I also love Souls game and because I love one it doesn't mean I have to hate the other.
And the reason people like the Witcher series, particularly 3, wasn't because of the combat. In fact if people listed their reasons for liking the series combat likely wouldn't even be top 10. If you're going in blind into Witcher 3 you're not likely to appreciate many of the other aspects sure, because a lot of them involve investment in the series and characters.
I don't go comparing every action RPG I've played to Souls or Dragon's Dogma. If those are your standards for what every combat system for every game needs to be then your standards are too fucking high.
The Witcher 3's combat needs work but if you put the effort in it it really isn't horrendous. It's just that most people don't put in the effort of coming up with strategies when they know what enemies they have to fight, especially in harder difficulties. If you know you gotta fight a specific creature, you gotta make potions/oils to deal with that creature. You can fight them straight up in normal and below though. But then it just becomes a game of spamming the shield spell right before attacking and retreating, with a couple of other spells in between if it's an enemy you have the luxury to do that with.
I'm heavily invested in the Witcher lore and universe as I've read all the novels and played all the games, so yeah I'm biased as fuck as Witcher 3 was my most anticipated game of the year, but I also love Souls game and because I love one it doesn't mean I have to hate the other.
And the reason people like the Witcher series, particularly 3, wasn't because of the combat. In fact if people listed their reasons for liking the series combat likely wouldn't even be top 10. If you're going in blind into Witcher 3 you're not likely to appreciate many of the other aspects sure, because a lot of them involve investment in the series and characters.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
It's actually the characters and settings I find most bland. I don't quite understand the praise it gets for them.
The combat is extremely weird to me. I didn't play either TW1 or TW2, so I'm coming in fresh, and it immediately turned me off. I do want to give it another chance though, but something tells me it's going to be a hard sell. I don't like Bethesda games either. Not that they are the same, but those are another style of game I just can't get into.
I'd like to take the time to also say that The Witcher 3 has the best soundtrack of the year by far.
Merchants of Novigrad
Steel for Humans
Hunt or be Hunted
Fields of Ard Skellig
Hearts of Stone Theme
They're bland in comparison to what? What is your idea of interesting characters?
Merchants of Novigrad
Steel for Humans
Hunt or be Hunted
Fields of Ard Skellig
Hearts of Stone Theme
They're bland in comparison to what? What is your idea of interesting characters?
Basileus777
Member
The game has terrible character progression and itemization, especially with the way it handles level and item scaling. The Witcher 3 would have been a better game if they had just stripped out the shoddy leveling mechanics and become the open world action game it really wants to be.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
I don't actually know, to be honest. I just find gruff looking dude in fantasy land to be bland. I think I'm just worn out on the character and setting. I don't actually have anything to compare it too.
If you play The Witcher 3 expecting Bloodborne you're going to be disappointed.
I'm also sick of people on GAF playing 200 hour games for 6 hours and making threads about how awful those 6 hours were. Did you even beat the tutorial boss yet? Tell me you hate the game after you finish Velen.
The Witcher 3 is more story/character based than most games. Just turn off the combat difficulty and enjoy the ride.
I'm also sick of people on GAF playing 200 hour games for 6 hours and making threads about how awful those 6 hours were. Did you even beat the tutorial boss yet? Tell me you hate the game after you finish Velen.
The Witcher 3 is more story/character based than most games. Just turn off the combat difficulty and enjoy the ride.
Doesn't that say something more about your particular tastes, rather than the characterization of the people in the game? That particular description you have given isn't all that nuanced.
Golgo 13
The Man With The Golden Dong
I didn't read the 14 previous pages, and I'm pretty sure it's already been said but....
It's normal to hate games that have third person combat after you come off a Souls game. It's happened to me many times -- play something else to cleanse your palate for awhile and then return to The Witcher 3. You'll probably enjoy it a lot more.
It's normal to hate games that have third person combat after you come off a Souls game. It's happened to me many times -- play something else to cleanse your palate for awhile and then return to The Witcher 3. You'll probably enjoy it a lot more.
TheSpoiler
Member
It's silly to compare, since the design elements are so different and DD is attempting to achieve something that TW3 isn't.
That being said, it's just mindnumbingly boring to me. I've never been a fan of this sort of combat, and the spells really don't help at all.
That being said, it's just mindnumbingly boring to me. I've never been a fan of this sort of combat, and the spells really don't help at all.
if he wasn't enjoying himself for those 6 hours, why would he enjoy himself later on? Gamplay is still basically the same.
Geralt may be seen as gruff (He's more than that, IMO), but I prefer him that way than have look like a pretty boy.
For me, his look defines a world-weary, cynical swordsman who's been working his trade for almost a century. His deadpan sarcastic humor is always amusing (And its a good coping mechanism to the bullshit he gets from common people).
I'm not sure what to say except that that seems to be a very shallow interpretation of the character to call Geralt just a gruff dude in a fantasy land. It's fine if you're tired of fantasy in general but it doesn't seem fair to call a world and setting bland based on a personal fatigue with the genre rather than to judge it based on it's own merits.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Which is why I said I find the character and setting bland, not that they ARE bland. Maybe in a year when I get around to playing it I'll be less tired of those tropes and enjoy it. But for right not that is what is keeping me from really playing or enjoying the game.
There's just nothing particularly original, interesting or thought-provoking in it for me is all. Which is generally the case with almost all games for me. Only time I can say I really enjoy fantasy is when I get to build my own character because I enjoy role-playing it to my own 'story'.
Edit:
I don't think making him a pretty boy would help me either. I think I'm realizing I just don't like being shoehorned into an already created character. I like to create my own in fantasy.
I felt the same way going straight into Witcher 2 after beating Dark Souls. I gave it maybe 2 hours of my time before putting it to rest for good. I watched a few streams of Witcher 3 and the combat didn't look particularly improved, so CDProjekt's idea of combat just doesn't jive with me personally. Clearly, a lot of people don't have a problem with it, or at least find it tolerable enough to keep playing through.
It's a shame, because the characters are very compelling and everyone praises the game's writing. Maybe I'll find a trainer for W2 just for the sake of experiencing the story.
It's a shame, because the characters are very compelling and everyone praises the game's writing. Maybe I'll find a trainer for W2 just for the sake of experiencing the story.
Admiral Woofington
Member
Make it an open world action game though and you lose a lot of goodwill. I disagree on the character progression and making it an open world action game, because then you could just go wherever you wanted at any time and certain creatures in the land will just be harder than the rest. Knowing that you are too low a level to enter an area at that moment was what kept me in other areas exploring more and doing more quests.
What did you dislike particularly? I remember people complaining that killing creatures gave like no EXP and that you HAD to do sidequests, but after the initial hump in the starting area I found I was usually like 3-4 levels above the required level for missions I was doing.
Eh, Geralt is by no means the world's most original character as he's essentially the action mcgruff badass if you boil him down. But I appreciate the moral grey nature of the world and of Geralt for the most part. Not to mention that he's never the savior of the world, he's a very fucking adept killing machine but just a Witcher at the end of the day.
TheShocker
Member
Witcher 3 is easily one of my favorite games in recent years. I like it so much, I almost bought it again for my XB1, so I can play in next year when I'm out of the country and don't have my PS4.
N
Noray
Unconfirmed Member
This. The argument "it gets good after X hours" has always been bunk but especially for TW3, which shows its entire hand in the first few hours and doesn't evolve significantly from there, it's just more of that.
semiconscious
Member
this's what i feared would be the case, & what i found was the case. combined with having to play as a pre-defined character i wasn't all that crazy about, it's a game that, as gorgeous as it is, just failed to hold my attention. unlike, say, fallout 4 - yeah, it can be stupid, & quirky, but it's never really what i'd describe as 'dull'
...I mostly disagree with this except for the character progression.
Leveling up in The Witcher 3 is terrible.
The skills you get are for the most part completely benign and don't change how you play all that much (there are some rare exceptions). This coupled with terribly slow leveling and the gating of how many skills you can equip leaves leveling up overall feel uneventful. Lost track of how many times I sat on skill points.
Denton
Member
Geralt is the opposite of bland, but you're not going to know that after playing for 5 hours when there is 150 hours worth of content that flesh him out further. Especially when the most interesting character building happens after Kaer Morhen with Ciri, which is many dozens of hours into the game.
I won't quote you both, but please stop trying to explain the game's world by ingame logic.
Read about the 30 years war especially the conflicts in Germany.
Even groups of let's say 100 soldiers/mercanaries were able to turn huge areas into wastelands in no time. Or, if you want a more radical example: Napoleon's Russia campaign - the biggest non-motorized army ever: 500.000 men. This army needed at least the same amount of (wo)men for supply routes, craftsmen, prostitutes, clerics and so on. And when they were retreating with what was left of them (20.000 men after winter), areas as big as Eastern Russia/europe were not big enough to provide them with food. Along their retreat routes there wasn't a berry or apple left.
In a scenario like the one in W3, there's only place for two. You won't find a rabbit, packs of wolves and mobs of drowners on that map. The scale is totally off no matter how much you're trying to find explainations. There is something called the operational radius wich depends on the size of an army. There are maybe 3 miles between Nilfgaard base camp and Novigrad - in a realistic scenario you will have 100 scouts alone on each side, maybe more, collecting intel -truce or not- you won't find drowners and monsters in the space between the bases.
Read about the 30 years war especially the conflicts in Germany.
Even groups of let's say 100 soldiers/mercanaries were able to turn huge areas into wastelands in no time. Or, if you want a more radical example: Napoleon's Russia campaign - the biggest non-motorized army ever: 500.000 men. This army needed at least the same amount of (wo)men for supply routes, craftsmen, prostitutes, clerics and so on. And when they were retreating with what was left of them (20.000 men after winter), areas as big as Eastern Russia/europe were not big enough to provide them with food. Along their retreat routes there wasn't a berry or apple left.
In a scenario like the one in W3, there's only place for two. You won't find a rabbit, packs of wolves and mobs of drowners on that map. The scale is totally off no matter how much you're trying to find explainations. There is something called the operational radius wich depends on the size of an army. There are maybe 3 miles between Nilfgaard base camp and Novigrad - in a realistic scenario you will have 100 scouts alone on each side, maybe more, collecting intel -truce or not- you won't find drowners and monsters in the space between the bases.
boredofcanada
Member
Lol, we have to play the game for at least 20 hours before we can form an opinion right? I tried getting into the witcher 3 twice, both times hit around the 10 hour mark, and I found it incredibly boring. Is that enough time to form an opinion?
Fess
Member
Isn't judging something like Witcher for the combat like judging something like Street Fighter for the story? I never got the idea that the focus was the combat in Witcher, no more so than in Skyrim, I'm thinking it's more like Skyrim or Oblivion with functional third person perspective and maybe a bit darker setting. Not everybody's cup of tea obviously but the same can be said about any game no matter how many 10/10 it gets.
Admiral Woofington
Member
Yeah I wouldn't call the character bland, there's a lot of emotion to his character on everything surrounding Ciri and the other two main ladies in the game. The first time he finally meets
Ciri
malboroking
Banned
I don't know, that was a problem I always had with Geralt. It's like I couldn't pick a non sarcastic response for any dialog choice, he always had some "witty" remark.
One of my favorite quotes from Witcher 1:
''You have two options. Wait until I leave and then murder Abigail - but then I'll come back. I'll slay every lice-ridden peasant, anything that moves and can't climb a tree. Or you can try to lead honorable lives, clear your conscience, start again - like humans. The choice is yours.''
No, bad example, because in SF you will only do matches and story is not required, but in W3 in order to proceed you'll have to deal with the combat.
BizzyBum
Member
GAF hates every game, duh.
It's funny whenever a thread about "I think <insert popular game> is not that great" it slowly starts picking up momentum and by the end it seemingly turns into 90% hating on it and 10% trying to defend it regardless of the game.
I agree with you, though. I can't take anyone seriously if they put "worst" and "Witcher 3" in the same sentence. I know it's not a perfect game and there are some gripes here and there, but that's every game. For one I agree combat is not the greatest, but it gets the job done.
But there are people seriously shitting on the quests and the cast of characters in this game? I mean, really? Y'all played a different Witcher 3 from me, then. Either that or they stopped playing before even getting to Velen.
Tatsumi Oga
Banned
Sure the combat could need some more variety i guess, but i have no problem with it. I actually am having plenty of fun with it....well...had, cause i've been living in Fallout 4's Commonwealth since November 10th, haha. If i have to compare it to other games , Dragon Age Inquisition for example, this is SO much better and more fun.
If someone hasn't done so already, i recommend you finish White Orchard and when you get to Velen, go for the quest for the Baron. Amazing fucking amazing quest. My complaints about Witcher 3 would be that some crucial RPG elements are lacking. Loot isn't very rewarding. When i find a new armor or weaponry...it just doesn't make me go ''oh helllll yeah'', it's just another armor, just another sword. What it does amazingly well though is atmosphere, believeable characters and stories.
If someone hasn't done so already, i recommend you finish White Orchard and when you get to Velen, go for the quest for the Baron. Amazing fucking amazing quest. My complaints about Witcher 3 would be that some crucial RPG elements are lacking. Loot isn't very rewarding. When i find a new armor or weaponry...it just doesn't make me go ''oh helllll yeah'', it's just another armor, just another sword. What it does amazingly well though is atmosphere, believeable characters and stories.
Conkerkid11
Member
But the combat is a large portion of what you get when you play The Witcher 3. You can't just avoid combat altogether and still get from the start to the end. And when a game's story sucks, it doesn't legitimately prevent you from completing the game like terrible combat does.
Maybe people saying you can't make the comparison between Bloodborne and The Witcher 3 don't understand? It's not about having fast paced combat or whatever, it's about having responsive combat. FromSoftware has always put responsive combat over everything else, and it's worked out for them extremely well. If the only way to progress through The Witcher 3 is to pop Quen every chance you get, there's an issue.
Don't get me wrong, this game is unmatched in many other areas, but the terrible combat and overall movement is enough to prevent me from enjoying the rest of the game as much as I should be able to.
RespectThySole
Member
I adore the soundtrack. Hearing "Fields of Ard Skellig" when you first get to the Isles was amazing. Priscilla's song "The Wolven Storm" is great as well.
joecanada
Member
It's not a 200 hour game and the combat never gets better just easier as you unlock skills which are pretty bland too.. That cone of fire looks like a 2 dollar Roman candle lol. If he doesn't like the combat after 6 hours he won't
To the OP, your first mistake was looking at initial threads proclaiming it GOTY, every single game ever released gets those including dragons age, always wait for the more measured impressions that come a month or so later.
Solid game, 7/10 , terrible combat, world is pretty good, framerate is shit on ps4... Horse is Sooo bad, glitches are risky save often...
NoblesseOblige
Banned
I doubt I'll appreciate the morality the same way you did. I studied philosophy and have adopted a very strict black-and-white set of ideals, so there's not much gray for me to play in. A game has never made me question it or racked me with guilt due to the consequences of my actions. But who knows, maybe Witcher 3 does. I'll get around to playing through it eventually, I just can't afford the time right now and clearly I'm fatigued by fantasy which would just cloud my enjoyment. It's a LTTP title for me.
_/¯
Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
Turn subtitles on and get further into the game. I hate it when people don't see early progression. An example is Fable where he starts off as a kid. He works his way into the adventure.
You aren't going to be amazingly over powered at level 1, but you're going to be able to do most quests. You're going to basically start from scratch and quest to the point of becoming more powerful.
Forget about being poor or lack there of. That's the reason to his nomad approach. He gains by doing jobs. Think about all these problems later on. The combat is basically action and you can do medium or high powered attacks. It's not necessarily the KOTOR engine either.
People only want to see what they think is there. It doesn't move like a slug. You just can't hit it with constant criticism and expect to do a quest incredibly fast.
You aren't going to be amazingly over powered at level 1, but you're going to be able to do most quests. You're going to basically start from scratch and quest to the point of becoming more powerful.
Forget about being poor or lack there of. That's the reason to his nomad approach. He gains by doing jobs. Think about all these problems later on. The combat is basically action and you can do medium or high powered attacks. It's not necessarily the KOTOR engine either.
People only want to see what they think is there. It doesn't move like a slug. You just can't hit it with constant criticism and expect to do a quest incredibly fast.