• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

How I learned to love The Witcher 3

spliced said:
Combat is the most important thing in a game like this, or at least it's a 1a/1b type thing. If I'm not enjoying my interaction with the game why the heck am I playing it. It makes me sad that games like this with weak combat can be so successful, I wish they'd tank.
Click to expand...

You're a wonderful person.
 
Markoman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah and the difference between Napoleon's invasion of Russia and Nilfgaard's invasion of the Northern Kingdoms is that Nilfgaard is fighting on its own doorstep and their supply line is coming from the south, an area you cannot access in the game. And the distance between the Nilfgaard camp and Novigrad isn't 3 miles, not by any margin. Don't make up stuff to prove your point. There's also a few quests involving Nilfgaardian patrols who went out scouting. If you really want to use real-life analogies: this war feels much more alike to World War 1. Huge casualties on both sides, both armies locked in a standstill and there is a wasteland between the two armies. It's no coincidence CDProjekt has labeled the area as No Man's Land.
 
Dictator93 said:
I actually enjoyed the combat in TW3, I played a light armour build so I had to focus on dodging to stay a live on Death March. One thing I wish though is that you could not take potions in combat, it makes it too easy at times, and also takes away the strategy of preparing for a fight.
Click to expand...

This. They should have kept the preparation element for sure. Unfortunately too many complained about this aspect in the previous games.

Still, they could have gone for a different solution rather than the most immediately obvious one.
 
Conkerkid11 said:
Did you call my opinion a meme? What?

And you talk about everything in that post except for the actual combat of the game. You're describing the skill trees, and the fact that there are the three main roles you usually have (in an MMO). But when it comes down to the actual combat, it's literally MMO combat.

I mean, you might find it enjoyable, but this thread is currently discussing actual action-based RPGs, not standing still hitting keys until the thing is dead. There's dodging, there's blocking, there's kiting, there's LoS. That's Souls combat, and as flawed as it is, that's The Witcher 3 combat. It's more movement based. It's more about learning your foe's attack patterns, and timing everything you do in accordance with that.
Click to expand...

I'm saying deducing something to "MMO combat" is the equivelency of shitposting- A baseless throw for the fences without any substance. MMORPG combat has that all those things like dodging, blocking, kiting and LoS. It's mainstream in most MMORPGs now.

Secondly, Inquisition has movement and dodging in the combat, as well as LoS, Kiting and DoTs. If you just stand still, then obviously you didn't play it enough.

You're right that Witcher 3 is more movement based, but it is being ignorant to deduce Inquisition as something lesser in the combat system, when the things that connect the combat- like the variation of how you can use the combat system, the categories, and the amount and breath to the skills are a part of the combat system.



Fantastapotamus said:
I can only repeat: Bloodborne and Witcher are just not comparable. Bloodborne is built around the combat system. Everything in the game is there to serve the combat. It's all about the encounters. There are no puzzles, quests, villages etc. Bloodborne (like all the souls games) is about the enemy design and the situations they put you in. It's not the combat that's great in Bloodborne, it's the encounters.
Witcher is not about that.



At the end of the books it is very heavily implied that Yen is actually a hunchback. They possibly reference this in the opening of the game
Click to expand...

GROSSSSSSS
 
Admiral Woofington said:
You could have just posted the second part you know? The entire bolded part of the post was entirely unnecessary condescending sarcasm. No need to be an ass when I was just responding to information you would have missed if you didn't get far into the game or aren't familiar with the property.

As to the game itself, do give it a try at one point. Some of the later missions do border on the side of fantastic writing for modern video games, particularly the Bloody Baron quest, and others introduced in the DLC.
Click to expand...

I apologize. It wasn't meant to be condescending, nor sarcastic in anyway. I was just trying to iterate that I have a black-and-white set of morals. That's not necessarily a good thing, nor speak ill of appreciating gray. And because of that game morality systems just haven't ever done it for me. But like I said, maybe Witcher 3 will surprise me. And I plan to play through it, when I can afford the time and be in a better position to appreciate it. I'm sure it's a great game, I just right now can't get over a certain aspect of it.
 
Karl Hawk said:
WAS a hunchback. Her magic training made her look the way she is now
Click to expand...

Most of the sorceresses actually did use magic in some form or another to make themselves more glamorous. At least it is implied, where the only one to buck the trend is Triss, on account of her allergy.
 
Just dropping by to say I didn't enjoy it either.

I've only played 3 hours, but the story just doesn't resonate with me at all, and it's a big part of enjoying the world.

I just don't like the wonky-ness of the movement, even though it does look pretty impressive from a visual standpoint.

One more thing, I don't like when games fill over-worlds with too much plant life, it starts to feel cluttered and busy. Part of why I'm looking forward to the next Zelda game is the openness of the fields and the grass without a million different shrubs and bushes in the way.

Also since I only played 3 hours this might be a bad complaint but I always focused on the mini map when I was riding on my horse to play the game instead of enjoying the landscape because the mini map is what had all the relevant information and that's a pet peeve of mine.

It doesn't surprise me that the game is popular, it's massive and engaging and has an immersive story for those who enjoy it.
 
It's my GOTY, but it definitely has a lot of problems with combat variation and being overwhelmed. There is a lot of stuff to do in that game, so from my experience the main story questline felt fragmented
 
gaf laughs at the 'the one problem with gears of war is it's too good' picture but has the exact same mentality about the souls games
KuGsj.gif
 
NoblesseOblige said:
I apologize. It wasn't meant to be condescending, nor sarcastic in anyway. I was just trying to iterate that I have a black-and-white set of morals. That's not necessarily a good thing, nor speak ill of appreciating gray. And because of that game morality systems just haven't ever done it for me. But like I said, maybe Witcher 3 will surprise me. And I plan to play through it, when I can afford the time and be in a better position to appreciate it. I'm sure it's a great game, I just right now can't get over a certain aspect of it.
Click to expand...

If that's the case then I apologize on my behalf I just assumed you were being sarcastic. I'd ask what led you to a black and white set of morality, but that's probably a conversation for a separate thread.
 
Fantastapotamus said:
I can only repeat: Bloodborne and Witcher are just not comparable. Bloodborne is built around the combat system. Everything in the game is there to serve the combat. It's all about the encounters. There are no puzzles, quests, villages etc. Bloodborne (like all the souls games) is about the enemy design and the situations they put you in. It's not the combat that's great in Bloodborne, it's the encounters.
Witcher is not about that.

Vigilant Walrus said:
What creeps me out too is the fact that Yennifer is probably a old hag and looks horrific too. She has extended her life greatly, and basically used magic to give her crazy plastic surgery. Imagine Geralt having sex with one of those abominations.

I honestly wish I had read the Witcher books, as his relationship with Yennifer and rapist Triss (let's face- she is basically rapist, when you fuck someone with amnesia and tell their GF is dead, or whatever the backstory in the book was) is very complex and nuanced. Years of breakups and get-backtogethers. It's obviously not a romance on a level you hear a lot about in mainstream media.
Click to expand...



At the end of the books it is very heavily implied that Yen is actually a hunchback. They possibly reference this in the opening of the game
Click to expand...

Well said.

Also, there's a text file in the game which is Yen's history and how she started out as a sorceress. It confirms what you say in your spoiler. It's a
text file saying she was severely disabled but very highly attuned with magic. She got her way into the sorceress school and changed how she looked over time.

Data West said:
gaf laughs at the 'the one problem with gears of war is it's too good' picture but has the exact same mentality about the souls games
KuGsj.gif
Click to expand...

Haha, this is unnervingly close to the truth!

They are great games, though!
 
Also stoping in to say bleh.
I gave it 35 hours or so because I didn't have much else to play at the time. I enjoy my wrpg's but this one just didn't click.
 
I said in another thread a long time ago that I wasn't surprised that as more time passed more people would start expressing their dislike towards The Witcher 3. The same thing happened with Skyrim and Fallout 3 (and will probably happen with Fallout 4). What all these games have in common is that the core experience is that first playthrough, and they don't have much lasting appeal. The poor core gameplay cannot carry multiple playthroughs, and people in time figure out just how shallow these games are. They bank on interesting scenarios, big tweests and revelations, but on every subsequent replaying of the game, the impact of those is diminished and the core combat is left to carry the entire weight. But the combat is poor to average, and one realizes how much these games are built on aspects that are not conducive to a game that can even hope to be considered a classic down the line, when most good games age like wine but these theme park ones just sour the good memory of the first playthrough if anything, if they are ever attempted to be replayed. The Witcher 3 will share a fate similar to Skyrim's, where it will be heavily criticised by the lack of care put into the gameplay design. This is already happening.

For example, the Witcher Sense most of the time only serves as something to get you to the next awesome, excellently written scenario or a cool set peice, but the poor Witcher Sense itself is badly overused and this is the perfect example where we can see what areas of the game CDPR gave priority to. The story and writing is king. Relegate gameplay to a repetitive slog if you have to, no need to innovate on that front. A good game designer would realize the Sense would get boring after a while, and try to find new, interesting ideas to getting us to a new piece of content. CDPR just didn't give a rats ass, as their priorities lie elsewhere.

Personally, I consider these types of games beneath games whose core strengths are it's gameplay, and in turn massive replayability. Bloodborne, the Souls series, Spelunky HD and The Binding of Isaac are such series.

Of course not everyone agrees with me. I don't think anyone who gives this game a perfect score and thinks its the best game ever made is in the wrong. CDPR had a vision and they realized it well. It's one of the best written games in history, and with it's great characters and authentic writing puts similar games like DA Inquisition to shame. For me, The Witcher 3 could never hope to enter the echelon of truly great games. Time strips every game bare, and while some are revealed to be pretty underneath the clothes, The Witcher 3 for me is a slightly overweight man with a pretty face and gyno.
 
It must be weird for the dozen or so people left that don't pick a side with their games. Games must be hated for being total shit or adored for being the greatest of all time. Anything different is the enemy. All games should be like, "______________."

I skipped playing DA:I because I was told it was really terrible. Many hours in I haven't even considered buying the Bloodborne DLC yet despite my platinum on that. I'm really enjoying DA:I, but dreading the point where I have to pick a side and declare one or the other a total shit waste of time.
 
SomewhatGroovy said:
What a silly drive by.

Gameplay , specifically mechanics, alone does not make for an experience to remember. Sum Of parts and all that. Witcher has some of the best writing, locations and heart found in any game in recent years. To miss out on that because the combat is bad is on you. This is not a combat game. People who keep bitching about the combat are being narrow minded.
Click to expand...

I didn't quote the posts cause they were right above me but I was specifically talking in reference to the people saying "it doesn't matter that the gameplay is bad you play for the story etc etc", but when the driving force of the game is fighting/combat and you have people telling others to live with it and making weird ass comparisons to games that arnt even attempting the things they are trying to draw comparisons to. E.g the post that a user made that it's like complaining about story driven narrative in the soulborne games. It becomes very annoying.

but that's not what they do or are attempting. The witcher 3 however does put emphasis on its combat, you can't finish the game without fighting which is why i find it annoying really.

I mean I'm fine with bad combat. I love quite a few games which many people consider to have terrible combat
ni no kuni
:P. So it's not like I'm out to crucify people for liking the witcher 3 or its combat cause overall I do like it.

So yeah it's not that I care that you don't care. It's telling other people to not care especially when it's so focused upon.
 
I'll join the camp that the combat is serviceable and going in blind without expectations as to what the combat should be would be the best option. If you're struggling play on easy and increase the difficulty later if necessary. But if I judged top tier rpg games based on their combat systems I would have never played Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines, one of my favorite titles of forever.
 
Yeah I got burned out on it after 70 hours or so. Quantity over quality for me. Way too many icons and random stuff on the map. The bloody baron quest I also did in the wrong order and it wasn't as "complete" as the preferred order.

Still though I do remember liking the story quite a bit although not being blown away with it but I can respect the amount of work gone into it. May go back to complete over the hols.

So not a hatred for me (unlike 2) but just had enough.
 
Admiral Woofington said:
If that's the case then I apologize on my behalf I just assumed you were being sarcastic. I'd ask what led you to a black and white set of morality, but that's probably a conversation for a separate thread.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't really know how to answer other than I appreciate consistency and shades of grey muddle that. That said, I do enjoy role-playing a gambit of morally, from bankrupt to saint. It's just mostly those are moralities I create myself for my character. Which is why I like more traditional tabletop inspired RPGs. I like when I have the choice to play as a charismatic playboy or a lunatic mass murder. If a game forces me to kill at any point then I feel like it loses what I'm looking for in an RPG. And I get that feeling from Witcher. In the end I have to think of it more as a narrative action game opposed to an RPG.
 
In order to give The Witcher 3 (or any game for that matter) a fair shake, I believe we must begin by NOT juxtaposing the game to other video games with completely different goals. Bloodborne and The Witcher 3 are not reaching for the same thing, and it is completely OK to like one and not the other. Using one's heights as a slight against the other, however, is not okay because the games we are discussing have opposite goals.

So what are The Witcher 3's goals? What does this game set out to do? I believe (and correct me if I am wrong) that CD Projekt Red wanted to create a video game with an inviting, immersive world containing an "epic" (for lack of a better word) adventure. If that is in fact the case, then I think that The Witcher 3 accomplishes everything it sets out to do. I don't believe it makes its point without flaw, but it does do it quite eloquently.

The combat isn't perfect, but I truly think that your enjoyment with the combat (and this game) is contingent on the difficulty in which you play. For example, Easy and even Normal allow the player to use only their sword(s) to defeat every single monster. Higher difficulties force the player to utilize potions, signs, oils, etc. to defeat various monsters--and that's when some depth to the combat is introduced. With that being said, the game still doesn't feel GREAT to play. It has that subtle input lag (pressing a button, watching your player carry out an action) that has been popularized recently by other AAA titles a la Assassin's Creed. I hate that shit. However, I still found that fights were rewarding, because it was necessary that I research my enemy, find out what I have to use against them, and properly execute. I played on the third highest difficulty (Blood and Bones, I believe).

And where the combat lacks, you are left with the rest of the game: The lovingly-crafted world, the intricate lore, and of course the FANTASTIC dialogue. The writing in this game isn't "good for a video game," it's just plain good. It's a testament to CD Projekt's world-building that I spent 80+ hours with this game and still wanted to jump back in for more. The game might not be for you OP, and I've seen that you intend on giving it more time. I suggest that you (and anyone else on the edge) do so, because it takes a while to open itself up to you. I'm not promising that it will 100% without a doubt unlock itself for you, but the very chance that you might fall in love with it is certainly worth your time, imo.
 
boredofcanada said:
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?
Click to expand...
Do you form an opinion of a movie after 10 minutes?
Hopefully not.

But I still get what you're saying. I can usually form an opinion after 30 minutes of any game, it may not be an opinion worth listening to but it is very useful for myself, I know what I like and if my interest hasn't peaked in any way during that time then I won't bother playing it again and it really doesn't matter if it gets better later on, it's just not a game for me. But I like open world RPGs, so in a game like this I can judge the game quickly by the controls, graphics, setting, introduction of the story etc and think it's - This sneak peek I kind of like + the open world RPG awesomeness I already know I'll love.

That said, the boring-at-first-but-it-gets-better-when-you're-at-level-30-games never gets my money though, it shouldn't take that long for a game to get started, I rather play other games I know I'll love than possibly wasting 20 hours of my life playing something bad just because I might like it more later on.
 
Man, this thread really blew up while I was asleep.

I think I'm going to give the game another chance in a few days. I really appreciate everyone's opinions and perspectives, especially those who were in the same boat as me, but were able to to appreciate the game after some time. Your posts have encouraged me to not give up just yet.

Thanks everyone for the extremely interesting discussions!
 
NoblesseOblige said:
I wouldn't really know how to answer other than I appreciate consistency and shades of grey muddle that. That said, I do enjoy role-playing a gambit of morally, from bankrupt to saint. It's just mostly those are moralities I create myself for my character. Which is why I like more traditional tabletop inspired RPGs. I like when I have the choice to play as a charismatic playboy or a lunatic mass murder. If a game forces me to kill at any point then I feel like it loses what I'm looking for in an RPG. And I get that feeling from Witcher. In the end I have to think of it more as a narrative action game opposed to an RPG.
Click to expand...

I see your issue with the game then. Yeah this is definitely a game that while you have some wiggle room with characterization of Geralt, at the end of the day he's a well established character with a backstory and relationship with all of these characters. It's especially confusing if you haven't played the other titles because so much of the game revolves around two female characters he's extremely close with but the game only does a serviceable job at telling you why, it loses a lot of its power if you haven't read the novels or played the previous titles.

The closest you can do to a non-violent confrontation a lot of time where normally you'd be expected to fight is what essentially boils down to a jedi mind trick, which is a power you must invest on in the skill tree.

If you ever want to give the game a try, I'd probably recommend familiarizing yourself with the world and characters. It doesn't give me the freedom something like older rpgs or like Elder Scroll titles do, but it's an rpg built entirely on the story.
 
OrbitalBeard said:
I really thought I would enjoy this game. I'm honestly a bit shocked at how much I dislike it. Going by all the rave reviews and impressions, I'm just baffled at how much I disagree, at least after the first half dozen hours. What the hell am I missing? I feel like the world and atmosphere are great but the actual gameplay is really, really bland.
Click to expand...

I felt the exact same way of Witcher 2. The game is gorgeous with a well realized setting and interesting characters, but after eight hours it hadn't hooked me, and some parts just annoyed me. It's really contrasting. Some aspects of the game they nailed completely and others are oddly half baked, obtuse, or cumbersome. Not really worth stressing over, I gave it a fair shake and couldn't hold on.

I'm definitely on board for checking out their Cyberpunk game, through. I'll sit through any manner of odd game design to play through a likely gorgeous sci-fi setting from this developer.
 
Does gameplay and combat even matter anymore? I was at my friends trying the new assassins creed the other day and I was in amazement at how badly these games still controlled.

It's obvious that most people just want interactive stories with a beautiful open world they can look at and that's fine. It just seems odd that people wont admit it.
 
Its the type of game that takes a lot of energy to get through quest and shit. It also does not feel rewarding and chest usually have meaningless Junk to sell or help you craft.

The game is text heavy and requires dedication, it becomes in my opinion, too tedious et uninteresting... the king, the witches, the kids, the murder, the curse...there is just so much shit going on in this world and nothing good, feels like a doomed land of despair and this feel takes on the player nerve. At least on mine. Its just like Geralt was the only capable guy around.

Then the item degradation. Yep, a real pain. I preferably do not use fast travel for exploration purpose and immersion. But in the Witcher 3, item degradation means lot of freaking back travel then you will have that feeling of deja vuonce youve seen the same damn creek or road to get to town a or b.

And then, the game goes on forever like this :,( it never ends.
 
skLaFarebear said:
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.
Click to expand...

yeah i doggedly trudged through the witcher 2 cause i loved the witcher 1 and overarching themes, but by the time i was done, i realized that it was a really bad game

but the witcher 3 is fucking amazing
 
kobu said:
Does gameplay and combat even matter anymore? I was at my friends trying the new assassins creed the other day and I was in amazement at how badly these games still controlled.

It's obvious that most people just want interactive stories with a beautiful open world they can look at and that's fine. It just seems odd that people wont admit it.
Click to expand...

I could ask the same question. Are writing, world building and storytelling still important? It's why I gave up on MGS V after a while. Is it really so strange that not everyone sees mediocre combat as a dealbreaker? Hell, most of my favourite games (Bloodlines, Gothic 2, Witcher 1) don't have particularly exciting combat. It's the sum of it parts that elevates those games to greatness.
 
NHarmonic. said:
What i'm getting from this thread is that everything should be bloodborne/souls.
Click to expand...

Yeah, pretty much. I enjoy diversity in my games, so I don't mind if The Witcher 3 stays The Witcher 3, and doesn't become Bloodborne. It's a 10/10 game for me as it is. So is Bloodborne.

Also, holy shit at that GOTY discussion a few pages ago. Utterly immature.
 
I'm hesitant to post in these threads because my attitude toward The Witcher 3 is somewhere between toleration and scorn. I don't like the combat, for much the same reasons many people don't like the combat. I don't like the character-building because it touches almost nothing outside combat (one ability gives new dialogue options), which is one of the game's least interesting aspects. But worst of all, I don't like the quests. Nearly all of them reduce to "follow the yellow dots until you find red splotches." Maybe there's a binary choice at the end. Mostly there isn't. In any case, I felt about the quests pretty much the same way I feel about grinding levels in a badly balanced JRPG: I did it only to fill meters/knock icons off the map. Many people clearly feel differently about them. I'd love to know what they found so compelling about the quests, except it's clear at this point we saw something completely different. Where they found moving interactions with NPCs who drew them deeper into the world, I traded my witcher sense for XP/cash in a shallow, endlessly repeated transaction. I'll just have to leave the game to them.
 
Dictator93 said:
I actually enjoyed the combat in TW3, I played a light armour build so I had to focus on dodging to stay a live on Death March. One thing I wish though is that you could not take potions in combat, it makes it too easy at times, and also takes away the strategy of preparing for a fight.
Click to expand...
I agree with both of these things. Not taking potions would be a much better design choice. I had to force myself to stop eventually because it was dumbing down the game so much.

As to the light combat, that's the same way I went and I had a pretty good time as well. Combo attacks and such were pretty fun to chain together. I don't think the combat was sublime or anything, but it was better than many people are making it out to be.
 
It's a great game.

But it has some big flaws imo. I thought exploring the world was pretty boring, stumpling across dozens of random chests, bandit camps and monster nests were not interesting or rewarding in the least. And diving for treasure in skellige was fucking trash, holy smokes.

The thing where you clear an abandoned village of bandits or monsters and have people return to the village was also a very strange and pointless side activity. There was virtually zero point or fun to be had doing that. It's especially weird how pointless it is, because I specificaly remember it being mentioned in their pr campaign prior to the release of the game, as if it was something notable in the game.

Also, monster hunts or whatever they were called. Fun and interesting at first, but there's a limit to how many times I can find the fun in going to a location, using detective vision and following footprints or blood to a monsters location.
 
Lmao, never even occurred to me to compare a Souls game to a Witcher game. Like, they share almost nothing and are two different games. Also Witcher 3 is amazing, and Souls games are amazing. This goes against the gaf us-vs-them mentality but i guess im just a special snowflake.
 
kobu said:
Does gameplay and combat even matter anymore? I was at my friends trying the new assassins creed the other day and I was in amazement at how badly these games still controlled.

It's obvious that most people just want interactive stories with a beautiful open world they can look at and that's fine. It just seems odd that people wont admit it.
Click to expand...

Assassin's Creed gameplay, despite all of its shortcomings) is a work of art compared to Witcher 3... It's responsive, creative and ambitious. W3 is sluggish and boring.
 
Data West said:
gaf laughs at the 'the one problem with gears of war is it's too good' picture but has the exact same mentality about the souls games
KuGsj.gif
Click to expand...

Souls Gaf is the worst Gaf. The amount of shit posts the games inspire is virtually unmatched. "What if Mario added more Souls like elements so it's actually good?!" "Tetris should have souls combat instead of all that stupid block rotating!" This thread is now 8 pages long and some people still refuse to even consider the fact that not everyone thinks Witcher 3 has terrible combat. The GOTY discussions are going to be fucking miserable when people start praising Witcher more than Bloodborne.

NHarmonic. said:
What i'm getting from this thread is that everything should be bloodborne/souls.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Basically
 
Im not going to bother comparing TW3's combat to another game, but I have to agree and say that its pretty terrible. I didn't enjoy the fighting at all, and its keeping me from ever finishing the game. I got caught into the hype, and bought it day 1 digitally. All the reviews/people saying that the combat was betterTW2, really boosted my enthusiasm for the game..I think the combat is just as "boring" as 2 imo..
 
Kuro-Law said:
I didn't quote the posts cause they were right above me but I was specifically talking in reference to the people saying "it doesn't matter that the gameplay is bad you play for the story etc etc", but when the driving force of the game is fighting/combat and you have people telling others to live with it and making weird ass comparisons to games that arnt even attempting the things they are trying to draw comparisons to. E.g the post that a user made that it's like complaining about story driven narrative in the soulborne games. It becomes very annoying.

but that's not what they do or are attempting. The witcher 3 however does put emphasis on its combat, you can't finish the game without fighting which is why i find it annoying really.
Click to expand...

I sort of feel like you're more replying to some strawman though. It's not like the bulk of fans are living in a fantasy world where they refuse to concede any problems and are trying to hand wave some sort of Jedi mind trick wherein they convince you that these aren't the droids you're looking for and that Witcher 3's combat is fantastic. Most concede that at a bare minimum it's rough around the edges.

The bulk of the praise is two-fold:

A.) While not the greatest, fans think the combat is serviceable.

B.) Even with concerns about the combat, fans feel the rest of the game more than makes up for it.

That's it. Nobody is saying "well, the gameplay is terrible but never mind that because I like the non-game stuff." Some are just arguing that the combat isn't THAT bad and that there's more to the gameplay than just fighting monsters. If someone came to me and said "I want awesome monster-fighting combat and I don't give a shit about characters, story, or the world itself," I probably wouldn't recommend Witcher 3 to them even though it's my favorite game of 2015.
 
Dunno man I love bloodborne and began witcher 3 right after it.

I do admit I had a hard time adjusting and while I don't think every game should be bloodborne I do think it and the souls games do have one of the best and finely tuned combat systems. But then that's what they set out to do and they do it well.

That said I cannot see eye to eye with all the people decrying witcher 3 combat as the worst thing ever. I think it's decent, it does its job and on the highest difficulty it actually gets varied enough to be moderately fun. I've played games with far faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar worse combat. And honestly for a game that doesn't even sets out to have the best combat ever it's more than competent.

At the end of the day I guess I love both for every different reasons, but then I'm also the type of person that kind of likes most games, but I feel like I'm also better than most about choosing games fitting my mood. Well at least that's the impression I get from observing friends flip flopping a lot on games they dropped only to have me convince them to pick them up again when they're in a differed mood.
 
Steve Youngblood said:
I sort of feel like you're more replying to some strawman though. It's not like the bulk of fans are living in a fantasy world where they refuse to concede any problems and are trying to hand wave some sort of Jedi mind trick wherein they convince you that these aren't the droids you're looking for and that Witcher 3's combat is fantastic. Most concede that at a bare minimum it's rough around the edges.

The bulk of the praise is two-fold:

A.) While not the greatest, fans think the combat is serviceable.

B.) Even with concerns about the combat, fans feel the rest of the game more than makes up for it.

That's it. Nobody is saying "well, the gameplay is terrible but never mind that because I like the non-game stuff." Some are just arguing that the combat isn't THAT bad and that there's more to the gameplay than just fighting monsters. If someone came to me and said "I want awesome monster-fighting combat and I don't give a shit about characters, story, or the world itself," I probably wouldn't recommend Witcher 3 to them even though it's my favorite game of 2015.
Click to expand...

This is kinda it.

If combat is the most important thing in an RPG to you then you might not like Witcher 3 all that much.

Sometimes I feel like the people who make games like this, with well-written worlds that are beautifully crafted, should be able to just write adventure games or something, but you just can't make a game with a big budget without somehow working a combat system into it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

i believe the witcher 3 dlc will be a introduction to witcher 4
47
657
flying_sq replied
The Witcher 3 Online Mod
2
106
The Cockatrice replied
The Witcher 3 Is Reportedly Set To Receive New DLC
Rumor  2 3 4 5
201
2K
JohnnyFootball replied
The Witcher 3 but it's AI slop - Reimagined by AI
2
80
2K
Dampf replied
Analyst Estimates $800 Million Budget For The Witcher 4, 10x Higher Than Cost of The Witcher 3
Rumor Game Dev 
49
399
DownLikeBCPowder replied
Top Bottom