Admiral Woofington
Member
it's a game that at the end of the day lives is a beauty, has a decently strong narrative, fantastic characters, and the world is interesting as hell. Look at a day/night cycle. Breathtaking.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
How I learned to love The Witcher 3
- Thread starter OrbitalBeard
- Start date
it's a game that at the end of the day lives is a beauty, has a decently strong narrative, fantastic characters, and the world is interesting as hell. Look at a day/night cycle. Breathtaking.
OrbitalBeard
Member
This is my favorite aspect of the game, easily. Not just the day/night cycle but the weather system in general.
Here's what motivated me to keep playing: I stumbled onto a cave with a giant flying creature inside (I don't think it was a griffin but it was similar). I threw a bomb inside to draw it out. It escaped. I went outside and the sky had become overcast. Right as I caught up to the beast, it started raining. It was an incredible backdrop for an epic fight and it made me decide to keep going with this game.
You get the move after equipping the skill from skill tree, 3rd tier fast swordsmanship. Hold down Fast attack button to use it. It is not a random finisher
I want this!
My entire build will focus on doing this all the time, dem flying limbs and heads is glorious!!
Aye. Keep in mind you need to invest 20 points into sword skill tree in order to be able to invest into Whirl.
I don't like locked skill trees
That's the way I look at it. I picked it up on Black Friday and played a bunch over the weekend, and at first I was annoyed with the terrible controls (having also been playing Bloodborne a lot lately) and thought about quitting. But then I realized how much I loved the quests/characters, so I bumped it down to easy to minimize my time in combat and now I'm just focusing on enjoying the story.
How is this a problem? Everyone should be able to adjust his statements based on the mere fact that one game is all about combat while the other game provides so much more. Unless you're like 14 year old and can't comprehent that companies don't have unlimited money and resources and have to make a compromise.
Not to mention that I think the Souls style combat is terrible but that's just a side note.
Denton
Member
I'd actually say you cant. Sounds far more important than combat to me. Kinda important to the whole role playing thing in the genre name.
I don't think so, since I haven't changed any of the options except difficulty/auto save time. Does alternative moment help? (On ps4 if it matters)
Denton
Member
It helps immensely. I mean, personally I did not have much problem with default either, but the alternative makes Geralt significantly more responsive and I doubt you will still call controls terrible after you enable it
It helps immensely. I mean, personally I did not have much problem with default either, but the alternative makes Geralt significantly more responsive and I doubt you will still call controls terrible after you enable it
Cool, I'll give that a shot tonight and see how it goes
iconoclast
Member
Playing The Witcher 2 for a few hours was enough to make me never want to play The Witcher 3, which looks the same based on the short clips I've seen. It wasn't as bad as a Bethesda game, though.
He's probably talking about a modern RPG, i.e. streamlined action game with RPG/perk mechanics slapped on it.
How can you not love Flotsam which is one of the best video game forests ever made with an amazing OST and atmosphere, interesting characters and descisions you can make with one of the coolest decisions in video game history that actually affects your whole playthrough (Iorveth > Roche)? Did you expect Uncharted?
Witcher 3 is much more accessible than Witcher 2.
DirgeExtinction
Member
Just bought it during Black Friday and played a bit. Just got to the first town, but when I was first given control of Geralt, I immediately noticed how sluggish and unresponsive he feels. I may turn off the blur/motion blur since it feels so weird.
Turn on alternative movement.
RespectThySole
Member
Yeah Whirl is awesome. Rend is pretty great as well.
http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9U1Qs1yQiU
http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrIeQRD0f_k
Credit to our fellow Gaffer Exentryk on the second video.
Steve Youngblood
Member
I don't fault people for liking different things in their video games. But it's always so weird to me hearing people trash Witcher 2 and especially 3 for their combat when I've been a fan of the series since 1. Now if you want to talk about a game with bad combat, I'll readily concede that one, even though I do know that some enjoyed more emphasis on Witcher preparations like having to meditate for potions and oils and such that were more in line with how the books present witcher work. But 2 and 3 are such a major step up in gameplay for me that they seem great in comparison. And I still loved the first Witcher.
Philtastic
Member
I agree somewhat in that I'm pretty sure that Witcher 3 would have been a better game without its RPG stats, leveling, and most equipment. Basically, keep some kind of talent tree for a little bit of style customization but have Geralt just start off as the master witcher that he is and balance the enemies accordingly. This would prevent under/over leveling enemies while avoiding the pitfalls of a level-scaling system which would allow someone to just freely explore the world however they choose.
Basically, make it a character action game but with an exceptional RPG-quality world and story.
I disliked Witcher 1's combat on PC enough to not ever play Witcher 2. I pulled the trigger on Black Friday on PS4 Witcher 3 and have played about 2-3 hours so far. Control is a bit wonky, but I think I can deal with it. If I end up hating it though, luckily - can still trade it in for ten bucks and pretend it was a rental.
RespectThySole
Member
The alternate movement is snappy and responsive.
Agree. Heck, some RPG allow you to finish them without fighting ever.
This said, I don't find TW3 quest design particularly good either, the quest dialogue are entertaining, but ultimately it feels like the game play itself most of the time.
ScriptedReality
Member
This is exactly my thoughts
flaxknuckles
Member
That helps but Geralt is still pretty finicky to control. I can't quite explain what it is.
Anywho, the combat is feeling a lot better for me now that I've gotten used to it even though I still don't like how Geralt has to do a damn long-ass ballerina twirl everyone I press the attack button.
Or basically every other open world/decision making RPG. No one cares. Then there is Witcher 3 which actually lets you sidehop, lets you target enemies and circle-strafe them, lets you do iframe rolls, pinpoint parries and cinematic finishers with actually well balanced signs, suddenly everyone shits on it. It seems when developers aren't trying at all to provide a combat that's not totally shit or serviceable at best (Bethesda, for example), people don't care. Actually try and basically set a new standard in the combat department for this kind of games, everyone only cares about the combat, forgets it's an RPG and expects Kamiya.
iNvid02
Member
I'm trying to think what fits in those spaces aside from combat system, and even then I doubt the people saying its their GOTY really mean that "it sucks balls", because it'd be quite a feat to overcome that core system and name it their GOTY if it really does suck that much. Its a mediocre mechanic, far from the worst. Maybe its because the mediocrity stands out so much in comparison to the rest of the game that people feel the need to add some hyperbole onto the statement, or that there have been some games based entirely around their combat mechanics which really excel this year I dunno.
Denton
Member
and those thoughts are insane
You have a LONG road man.
I felt the first 5-6 hours were the best. The rest of the game for me was a huge drawn out 35hour fetch quest. I had to force my self to finish. Drop it and pick up FO4, you'll love it.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Yeah how dare they focus on stuff like combat and gameplay, instead of investing all their budget in stuff like lip animations on NPCs and maybe better chest hair physics!
The argument here is that Developers have different things to focus on. Lacking lip movement is pretty damn archaic, but they invest their time and money where they feel their strengths lie. The Witcher 3 is no different.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Gameplay should always be the #1 focus in a game. I can see why someone would prefer a focus on, say, story (not that video game stories are usually very impressive) or atmosphere, but I can't imagine anyone caring more about things like lip movement on NPCs over that. Come on.
Steve Youngblood
Member
I kind of don't like diving into this type of conversation because I'll note in advance that I don't think anyone's preferences are right or wrong. Having said that, I just feel like it's fine for different devs to prioritize different elements of design. Despite how we might deify or condemn some developers, it's impossible to be great at everything. Could Witcher 3 benefit from better combat mechanics? Sure. But at the same time, having loved its predecessors despite also not having the greatest combat in the world, I've come to expect that the combat system isn't really what draws me into these games.
Again, this isn't me saying that I think it would be a mistake to try to improve it. I just think the series works in spite of not having fantastic combat. And these other aspects that you are mocking right now do -- in my mind -- add to the package. It's a series I love for its characters and worldbuilding and player choice primarily. Nice graphical tech and non-distracting dialogue delivery can go a long way to making long conversations more presentable in addition to top-notch (by video game standards) writing. I'm not even somebody who thinks of themselves as a fan of story in games most of the time now, but The Witcher is pretty much the only series in existence that makes me care about the plot and not just mash A to get through dialog and cutscenes.
The Witcher is probably my favorite series in gaming right now, and I'd never recommend it on the basis of being a cool monster killing game. I mean, yes, there's fighting. Yes, you're a witcher and you should be expected to fight monsters. But that's not the heart of the series to me. If other people venture in expecting stellar combat because to them a game with monster fighting better damn well make fighting monsters fun, then so be it.
Omotesando
Member
Witcher 3 conversation animations although quite impressive for an RPG is quite laughable as a whole, as a convincing art form, we would be laughing at this shit over 10 years. To be frank, why waste time over such trivial things.
If that were true, From would've toned down the eye candy and pushed 60fps and reduced input lag.
Also, this argument implies that Witcher 3's gameplay is utter trash, which is not, it's just flawed, but serviceable.
Beyond that, "gameplay" means more than just combat.
Witcher 3 has a lot more elements to play with than BB does, and of course it's gonna have to split focus among those elements, it's not a worse or better decision, just a different one.
Witcher contracts where you hunt monsters are quite fun, exactly because the world building is great, the bestiary is varied and detailed, and the combat is not that atrocious.
Again, people are making a huge deal, like W3 has the worst combat ever conceived.
Just like Souls' isn't the absolute best around.
I feel like hyperbole is what is fueling most of the discussion here.
Bloodborne is at the top of the pile when it comes to the bolded to without sacrificing mechanics. It is clear that there seems to be two major camps here -
1. Mechanics first , everything else comes later
2. Serviceable combat is okay but if the other parts like ( story, visuals etc.. ) are excellent then that is good enough to label the overall game as a masterpiece.
We fall under 1 but I understand those who prefer 2 as well. Neither is wrong the more I think about it.
Of course there are a few who think Witcher 3 has both excellent combat and excellent story so they fall in both camps.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
That's a performance/technical issue, not a mechanics/design issue.
Sure I understand that, a lot of people care about story, atmosphere, art direction (I do too! and I also enjoy games with serviceable gameplay that are strong in these other areas), I just thought that sneering at From for putting all their energy in having awesome gameplay mechanics but not having insignificant little details lip movement was just patently ridiculous. Especially when lip movement doesn't even add that much to storytelling or atmosphere. I mean like someone else said, it's not like the dialogue animations in games are even all that good, even when it's there it often still looks stupid as hell. I'd rather have the non-animations of From games over having lip movement but terribad animations like in, say, Deus Ex HR, that's why more distracting and silly looking. xD
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
What the hell people... Acting is not a useless addition to storytelling.
And no it is not crappy in TW3, and it is as important in this game as it is in Telltale titles, since they have the same interests. Genres conventions be dammed.
And no it is not crappy in TW3, and it is as important in this game as it is in Telltale titles, since they have the same interests. Genres conventions be dammed.
What does that even mean? They made a choice to prioritize other things over 60fps.
Dark Souls 2 runs at 60fps on ps4, it doesn't look as good as BB, sacrificing performance and responsiveness for eye candy was a conscious design decision that influenced (negatively) the gameplay.
I understand the choice, better graphics can help immerse you better, and are straight up more pleasing to look at, but it doesn't change the fact that they, too, prioritized other elements over just benefiting gameplay.
Same applies to Witcher 3.
They had X time and Y resources to "spend" and they split them over many system to create the best experience they could holistically speaking.
Sacrificing something here, they gained something there, this is just how reality works.
A game can be 30 fps and still focused on having good mechanics. It is clear FS focused a significant amount of time on mechanics irrespective of whether it is 30 or 60 fps. Even if a developer decides to go 30 fps other elements ( story , visuals etc.. ) should only be focused on once the core gameplay is satisfying enough. That is the point I think Morrigan Stark is trying to make.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Yup.
Also I elaborated on the "sacrifices" thing in the same post. Not all "sacrifices" are equal.
And judging by the thread, plenty think the gameplay is downright awful including controls of basic movement. Id be a lot cooler with W3 if I felt it was servicable, but I dont yet.
The other elements may be amazing, but it just feels like a very flawed experience in the vein of Bioshock Infinite.
A good framerate is a fundamental element of responsiveness, which is a fundamental element in good action gameplay and, lack of which, is one of the key elements people criticize about W3's combat.
FS design's choice of prioritizing eye candy over performance and responsiveness, was a design decision in spite of better potential gameplay (and tighter mechanics) due to increased performance.
Just like CDP's decision to not focus on other things over just combat, was a decision in spite of potentially tighter combat mechanics.
Meanwhile games like Bayonetta prioritized reaching 60fps to have more responsive combat, when they could've pushed graphics substantially more, at 30, but for a lesser gameplay experience.
There is no clear right and wrong way, but they're all design conscious decisions.
It's pretty obvious, really.
Yeah, that also doesn't make much sense.
Facial animation aren't crucial in BB because there is barely any spoken dialogue, and story is recounted mostly through text.
Also the camera is so far away from NPCs, that facial animations you wouldn't be able to see anyway.
In W3 you're up the character's faces 90% of the time, so of course it has a bigger priority.
Find me a better game with better facial animation, with the same scope of The Witcher 3, i'll wait.
You could not just slap BB's combat on W3, doing that would take time and resources away from things that, for W3, are more important (when the combat is serviceable and good enough as it is, needing only a bunch of tweaks).
And this is why this discussion is so idiotic, honestly, comparing two games trying to achieve so different goals, while pretending that one is more noble than the other.
Next we'll compare Planescape Torment to Street Fighter, see how that discussion fares.
"judging by the thread", people are being absolutely hyperbolic regarding how W3 plays.
it is perfectly serviceable.
It is better than shit like Shadow of Mordor, which didn't get as much shit, for example.
Bayonetta 2 more often than not did not touch 60 fps but that is another story. The question is do you think a developer irrespective of whether they choose 30fps or 60 fps should have their game mechanically sound or are other elements more important ?
Your argument assumes that just because a developer chose 30 fps for adding eye candy they have forsaken having good core mechanics. Gears and Order for example both are 30 fps. Would you say the design focus on mechanics is the same for both? Did both developers give the same attention to mechanics?
Same argument for Witcher and BB. Both games have chosen to be 30 fps. Do you think their focus on mechanics are the same? If not do you think it should be? Is it okay for mechanics to be sub par if other elements are exemplary. In my case it is a resounding no. I can understand if others feel differently.
Arguing all 30 fps games have inherently prioritized visuals over gameplay and hence both Order 1886 and Bloodborne have equal focus on mechanics is an absurd argument.
Your dealing in absolutes is why you're evidently not grasping what i'm saying here.
You don't "forsake" anything.
It's all about trade offs and sacrifices.
You give something here, to gain something there, as i said.
Choosing 30fps doesn't mean you give up on having "good mechanics" (whatever that means) it's not a switch you turn on and off.
It's a trade off made of shades of gray, not a black and white scenario.
Again, choosing 30fps means they sacrificed "some" gameplay quality for other things.
Similarly, CDP sacrificed "some" gameplay quality (in terms of combat) to focus on other aspects.
Also you seem to think that "mechanics" is only "combat system" which i found baffing, dialogue wheel is a mechanic, alchemy is a mechanic, branching quest system, is a mechanic, a live and evolving dynamic open world, is also a mechanic.
This is all stuff that takes budget and developing time to.. well, develop, something BB chose not to have to focus on mainly one thing (combat) which is perfectly fine, but BB itself also had to deal with other trade offs, and sacrifice other things, case in point, running at 30fps to not look like shit.