Now I don't consider branching quest systems and stats as mechanics. I slot them under level design and systems. By mechanics I talk about your interaction with the character. When I push the analogue stick how does the character move. Is it a joy to control the character. Is it awesome to swing a sword. Is the feedback good every time I hit an enemy etc.. The act of controlling the character is what I like to classify as mechanics or atleast mechanics that I feel should be most important in any game irrespective of the unique goal that each game may have. Skyrim failed at this . I am not saying Witcher 3 fails at it equally like Skyrim. Witcher is much better but it has still not prioritized the different elements that goes into a game appropriately in my opinion.
Well you have a different classification of what a "mechanic" is than i do, clearly, but call them what you will, my main point doesn't really change.
And i think this is a fundamental element of the discussion.
If you don't value elements like a dynamic and changing game world (outposts get repopulated depending on your actions, bandits responding to you differently, depending on how you interacted with them prior, to the point where hostile enemies in one play through, may become quest givers in another).
These are all elements that take dev time and resources, these are also all elements
fundamental to what makes Witcher 3 not only great, but also unique.
To the point where it's a better trade off to have all these systems (mechanics) with a serviceable combat, than an impeccable combat with none of these system.
Because you know what that game would be? Bloodborne, and that's never been what Witcher3 has been trying to be, and that's why it's great.
This is also why i've been repeating a lot now, how this comparison is completely inane, this really is like trying to argue which between salty foods or sweets tastes better, when they are different sort of foods, for different occasions.
I think we can agree on this.
I have zero qualms with whoever doesn't happen to like either Witcher's or Bloodborne's offering and philosophy (or neither), i get that.
I love both, for different reasons, and i only have a problem when people try to argue how one direction is clearly a better choice than another, when they are trying to get to wildly different places.
And in the post you quoted in particular, i was pointing out how everyone, FROM included, will be willing to sacrifice a bit of gameplay quality, when the trade off is good enough.
In that case is 30 fps and some input lag, in Witcher'3 case is a less than stellar combat system, what they gain may or may not interest you personally(some can argue that they'd take Dark Souls 2 graphics, to have the responsiveness of 60fps) but that's another story, compared to the "well they don't care about gameplay!" bollocks i was arguing against.
Regarding Skyrim, the same general princile applies to Bethesda games, the problem I have with those, is that the trade offs are often not there.
Graphics are bad, performance are bad, combat and mechanics are unresponsive and shallow, and even in world building, they're getting less and less compelling, compared to the competition, writing is also painfully lower in quality, compared to something like W3.
So in that case, the problem is more that you can't actually see where the trade off is balancing out, like you clearly can in W3.
-
Also, let me disagree with people saying that combat is
the major focus in W3, because although many of the systems circle around that, and you do fight a good deal in the game, i've played for around 20+ hours now, and i'd say 70% of my play time was spent exploring or talking.
The combat could use some work, but it's working well enough and has enough of its own identity to fill in that remaining 30% or so without screaming about how terrible it is.
