Support NeoGAF

[UrbanRats]

Console or pc? It seems like a lot of the control complaints come from console players. I tried both schemes on ps4 and they are both terrible.

They are the same, console or PC.
I do play on PC at 60fps though, which is sure to reduce input lag.
If the console version is indeed sub 30 that can be part of the problem.

Even in alternative mode, controls still aren't responsive enough but again, my standards are obviously higher than some gaffers, since I'm always complaining about responsiveness and input lag in BB, which is instead fine for a lot of people here.

To me the time frame between button press and action on screen should be as small as possible, I shouldn't be able to press another button in between that time frame for example.
This a problem in W3, even at 60fps and alternative mode (which is a step in the right direction but still not ideal), it feels like you request a move, rather than directly prompt one.
This is also a problem in BB, where dodges and parries take forever to perform, after the button press, but in this case I blame it on the 30fps cap, because DarkSouls2 on PC (and I assume ps4 too) running at 60fps had no such problem, and was perfectly responsive (at 100+ agility, anyway) but shared BB's problem if you capped it at 30, Demon's Souls had this, too, and any other 30fps action ccombat game, likely.
This is why I'm so annoyed by their choice of framerate. BB is supposed to be a faster game, and it's sorely relying on dodges, yet it has slower response times, making it feel... Less than great.
Yet this doesn't seem to bother some people at all, for whatever reason (probably because they mainly play on console and aren't as used to 60fps as a standard, I don't know).

W3's problem is less tied to framerate (on PC) and more to how they animated Geralt, with too long winded animations, even for fast attacks, making it feel unresponsive.
Also a weird use of iframes makes the dodges feel inconsistent, especially compared to something like Souls (this also influenced but wonky hitboxes)

Ciri, who is a canonically faster character than Geralt, has faster animations and, case in point, doesn't feel as sluggish to use (though of course lacks all the extra abilities Geralt has, being a side character).
I'm confident a W4 starring her will play much better in that area, especially since they listen to the feedback a lot.

 

[Denton]

It took a while to click for me but when it did...i was captivated.

Just recently finished the main story in the last few days after getting on release. I just wanted to explore and role play walk the entire game because it's just stunning. I don't think another open world since World of Warcraft made me actively want to explore like this did. At points from halfway through to the end they could have ended the game and i would have been satisfied but it didn't, it went on and on and i was thankful for that. I was in awe at the sheer breadth of what had been made and put in the game. It's massive. Total new worlds just used once for a set piece, it's a behemoth of effort that has been put into it.

I immediately purchased the expansion pass and felt like i'd made a mistake as i'd have to start a whole new main quest again without the same attachment to the one i'd just completed but within a few minutes those fears were relieved. It drew me straight back in and I just cannot think of anything else i'd rather play.

The game can be played however you want and you can just take your time with it. It doesn't rush you and it rewards you with marvellous vistas and great dialogue.

The combat can be a little cheap at points but then it makes you read your bestiary and get clued up on enemies. There has been frustrating times where i get stuck on objects and pinned into corners but this are rather small shortcomings for me when the rest of the game is stellar.

GOTY for me and probably one of, if not the best game I've ever played.

Yep. Candidate for GOAT for sure.

Sure, you get used to it. But it's an example of how the combat in Witcher 3 is jank as fuck. And I say this as someone who loves Witcher 3.

Well I mean it's a design decision. I didn't find it janky, I learned it as a mechanic. What I would call janky are those hitboxes sometimes.

 

[thuGG_pl]

I honestly don't think the main story in The Witcher 3 ever really gets good, it's pretty forgettable imo. The characters and a lot of the side quest do though.

It has some low points but is rather on the good side as a whole, and certainly has some very high points (Blood Baron quest and the witches, also the whole DLC story). So I can't agree it's forgettable, some parts yes, but there are definitely very memorable ones.

 

[UrbanRats]

Length of attack usually depends on distance from the enemy. I had no problem adapting to this style.

I specifically tested this yesterday and while it is true(bad idea BTW, since makes attack patterns less predictable and responsive) Geralt still has long winded pirouette attacks, while you're in enemies' butts.
And this of course with the "fast" attack.
There is not enough significant difference between fast and slow attacks, which is also a problem.

 

[RespectThySole]

It took a while to click for me but when it did...i was captivated.

Just recently finished the main story in the last few days after getting on release. I just wanted to explore and role play walk the entire game because it's just stunning. I don't think another open world since World of Warcraft made me actively want to explore like this did.At points from halfway through to the end they could have ended the game and i would have been satisfied but it didn't, it went on and on and i was thankful for that. I was in awe at the sheer breadth of what had been made and put in the game. It's massive. Total new worlds just used once for a set piece, it's a behemoth of effort that has been put into it.

I immediately purchased the expansion pass and felt like i'd made a mistake as i'd have to start a whole new main quest again without the same attachment to the one i'd just completed but within a few minutes those fears were relieved. It drew me straight back in and I just cannot think of anything else i'd rather play.

The game can be played however you want and you can just take your time with it. It doesn't rush you and it rewards you with marvellous vistas and great dialogue.

The combat can be a little cheap at points but then it makes you read your bestiary and get clued up on enemies. There has been frustrating times where i get stuck on objects and pinned into corners but this are rather small shortcomings for me when the rest of the game is stellar.

GOTY for me and probably one of, if not the best game I've ever played.

Yes. The world is so compelling to explore and I never find myself wanting to use fast travel or get back to the chopper like I usually do in other open world games like Fallout 4/MGSV.

 

[Floody]

It has some low points but is rather on the good side as a whole, and certainly has some very high points (Blood Baron quest and the witches, also the whole DLC story). So I can't agree it's forgettable, some parts yes, but there are definitely very memorable ones.

I don't consider them part of the main story, which is find Ciri and stop the Hunt. They'd fall under side quest, or side stories I guess would be a better way to put it, the main story picks up in the middle, but I think the side stories massively outshines it.

 

[KOCMOHABT]

the only game i was legit appaled and stopped playing because of boring combat was unfortunately Dragon Age Inquisition.

This felt like an MMO without refinement. And I don't feel like beefing up difficulty because if there is something i hate it is enemies with endless health.
Really disappointing after only having played Dragon Age 1 and liking it (disclaimer: Baldur's Gate 2 is my favorite game of all time)

Now onto Witcher 3... I never felt like the combat was really bad. It was just there and I had fun with it most of the time (Yes yes come closer, oh i parried your attack? Get rekt scrub)

And I came straight from Dark Souls 2, so maybe my situation is comparable to OPs.

(Went onto Dark souls1 afterwards since i didn't finish that one before, am now close to seath the scaleless in this whole ice thingy and the game really does not motivate me to continue playing ...)


It didn't even occur to me to compare these two, but i guess it is legit to compare.


The combat in dark souls is obviously just better, more demanding, more precision, normal enemies are almost never supertanks but you aren't either, interesting attacks, transformations etc etc etc

The world in dark souls is really mysterious and interconnected but sometimes feels out of place and empty. But it is really diverse and always feels dangeous.

Witcher in contrast is more like one big recreation of a world, like a costume film, i don't know how to express that really. The world and its people just fit, everything is right. Especially Skellige is just so "nordish", i have rarely experienced a world so well realized. Skyrim is pale in comparison and i think the comparison is fair.

The combat is, like maybe the Batman games, a lot about flow for me. I obviously prefer something like Dark Souls or Darksiders, but I think the whole parry, dodge, attack, roll around thingy is good enough and fits the witcher style.

Though it would be interesting, i don't think Geralt is someone who rolls around the enemy until he can backstab them lol.

 

[ninjablade]

LOL. Zelda games have very smooth, responsive controls, and you feel like you're controlling a character with weight, not a clunky string puppet like in The Witcher.

Yea and no challenge, no need to prepare for a battle, you can button mash your way easily, and destroy your enemies, in witcher 3 I can get killed constantly on harder difficulty had to learn to use my signs, and learn enemy attack patterns, and Dodge them. Especially early in the game.

 

[AtomnayaKlubnika]

I loved the story, but I am having a hard time playing the game a second time because of this boring combat system. They maybe wanted something grounded, but damn...

 

[PuppetMaster]

I loved the story, but I am having a hard time playing the game a second time because of this boring combat system. They maybe wanted something grounded, but damn...

Play it on the hardest difficulty. The way it is meant to be played.

 

[Noray]

Play it on the hardest difficulty. The way it is meant to be played.

*wank motion gif*

Playing it on a harder setting doesn't magically make it good.

Also I cheesed the last boss into a corner with whirl and the scripting broke for a while and it wouldn't progress to phase 2.

Wow what great combat.

 

[Ratrat]

They are the same, console or PC.
I do play on PC at 60fps though, which is sure to reduce input lag.
If the console version is indeed sub 30 that can be part of the problem.

Even in alternative mode, controls still aren't responsive enough but again, my standards are obviously higher than some gaffers, since I'm always complaining about responsiveness and input lag in BB, which is instead fine for a lot of people here.

To me the time frame between button press and action on screen should be as small as possible, I shouldn't be able to press another button in between that time frame for example.
This a problem in W3, even at 60fps and alternative mode (which is a step in the right direction but still not ideal), it feels like you request a move, rather than directly prompt one.
This is also a problem in BB, where dodges and parries take forever to perform, after the button press, but in this case I blame it on the 30fps cap, because DarkSouls2 on PC (and I assume ps4 too) running at 60fps had no such problem, and was perfectly responsive (at 100+ agility, anyway) but shared BB's problem if you capped it at 30, Demon's Souls had this, too, and any other 30fps action ccombat game, likely.
This is why I'm so annoyed by their choice of framerate. BB is supposed to be a faster game, and it's sorely relying on dodges, yet it has slower response times, making it feel... Less than great.
Yet this doesn't seem to bother some people at all, for whatever reason (probably because they mainly play on console and aren't as used to 60fps as a standard, I don't know).

W3's problem is less tied to framerate (on PC) and more to how they animated Geralt, with too long winded animations, even for fast attacks, making it feel unresponsive.
Also a weird use of iframes makes the dodges feel inconsistent, especially compared to something like Souls (this also influenced but wonky hitboxes)

Ciri, who is a canonically faster character than Geralt, has faster animations and, case in point, doesn't feel as sluggish to use (though of course lacks all the extra abilities Geralt has, being a side character).
I'm confident a W4 starring her will play much better in that area, especially since they listen to the feedback a lot.

Agree with everything. I had a ton of complaints with Bloodborne after spending a lot of time with that one game with 60fps and amazing controls. Bloodborne didnt feel as responsive either.
And I did find Ciri significantly better to control, but I REALLY dont like that 'canon' excuse since imo it hurts the gameplay significantly. So, Geralts controls could have been a little better but they sacrificed that just to make another character look good. And hell, I'm hearing that the main quest isnt even that great, finding Ciri, the Wild Hunt etc. They might as well have made Ciri the protagonist...

 

[MoogleWizard]

Yea and no challenge, no need to prepare for a battle, you can button mash your way easily, and destroy your enemies, in witcher 3 I can get killed constantly on harder difficulty had to learn to use my signs, and learn enemy attack patterns, and Dodge them. Especially early in the game.

You are confusing mechanics and controls with difficulty. Games with bad combat and unresponsive controls can be more difficult than games with good combat and responsive controls. That doesn't make the bad combat and the unresponsive controls any better.

 

[SomTervo]

A masterpiece, to me, indicates that something excels on all the fronts that it set out to achieve. I don't know how something can be considered a 'masterpiece' if it contains elements that are purely serviceable.

Sometimes a game is greater than the sum of its parts. The Witcher 3 has problems, but the overall impact, the overall way the game is elevates it hugely for me. I can load it up for 30-60 minutes a few nights a week and every minute of that time is quality gaming.

3 hours to reach an interesting part of the story isnt OK for everyone. 3 hours just to finish a tutorial and "barely" experience any story is not OK for everyone.

That's totally NOT ok for everyone.

I cant speak for him (as I went a lot further than he did) but that is what made me also dislike the game.

Heck, I found the story engaging and interesting from 15 mins in, after the dream sequence. That travel into White Orchard. So fucking great. It was immediately deep, immediately high-quality. Over the following 15 hours, there were dips - the bit in Vizema, and when you run out of stuff to do in Novigrad (so tedious) but aside from that it's been wall-to-wall quality for me. Ah, add to that list two particularly badly designed combat encounters.

So in about 70 hours of playtime that is 4 bad memories of the game. Hundreds of good ones. From the word 'go'.

Hundreds.

Also, your argument about 'three hours to get into a game' being ridiculous is a bit ridiculous, because that's not how art/entertainment works. Sometimes you'll hate a book for three chapters, but by the end it will be one of your favourite books of all time. Same goes for games/any entertainment. Some experiences/fictions need to mature over time, and if something is critically acclaimed, there's probably a reason for that, and it's probably worth pressing ahead to let the experience mature. There's a living example right on the page of your post:

It took a while to click for me but when it did...i was captivated.

Just recently finished the main story in the last few days after getting on release. I just wanted to explore and role play walk the entire game because it's just stunning. I don't think another open world since World of Warcraft made me actively want to explore like this did. At points from halfway through to the end they could have ended the game and i would have been satisfied but it didn't, it went on and on and i was thankful for that. I was in awe at the sheer breadth of what had been made and put in the game. It's massive. Total new worlds just used once for a set piece, it's a behemoth of effort that has been put into it.

GOTY for me and probably one of, if not the best game I've ever played.

Surely this guy's experience shows why it's worth playing a game for a couple of hours to get to the meat of it? He probably found the slow start a bit offputting too, hence how it didn't 'click'.

Your matured experience might negate any boring/slow initial investment. (Of course it's a risk though, and if someone doesn't like it, they don't like it.)

 

[Coll1der]

The story in a Souls game is of a piece with the gameplay: it depends entirely on player agency and ingenuity, without which it doesn't exist.

Sorry, but are you sure? It doesn't seem that well to player actions you know. It's pretty linear. The fact that they write lore in item descriptions doesn't make it somehow dependant on player agency and ingenuity. Same with numerous gaps. Or what do you mean by a piece with the gameplay? Environmental storytelling?

 

[RespectThySole]

I loved the story, but I am having a hard time playing the game a second time because of this boring combat system. They maybe wanted something grounded, but damn...

If you're finding it trivial up the difficulty and try to experiment with some of the options that the game provides (i.e. It's immensely more satisfying to engage in combat like a Witcher and utilize a variety of tools rather than strictly swordplay/dodge, experiment with different builds than your first playthrough, etc.)

 

[AtomnayaKlubnika]

Play it on the hardest difficulty. The way it is meant to be played.

If you're finding it trivial up the difficulty and try to experiment with some of the options that the game provides (i.e. It's immensely more satisfying to engage in combat like a Witcher and utilize a variety of tools rather than strictly swordplay/dodge, experiment with different builds than your first playthrough, etc.)

I'll try then, thanks.

 

[Denton]

Sometimes a game is greater than the sum of its parts. The Witcher 3 has problems, but the overall impact, the overall way the game is elevates it hugely for me. I can load it up for 30-60 minutes a few nights a week and every minute of that time is quality gaming.



Heck, I found the story engaging and interesting from 15 mins in, after the dream sequence. That travel into White Orchard. So fucking great. It was immediately deep, immediately high-quality. Over the following 15 hours, there were dips - the bit in Vizema, and when you run out of stuff to do in Novigrad (so tedious) but aside from that it's been wall-to-wall quality for me. Ah, add to that list two particularly badly designed combat encounters.

So in about 70 hours of playtime that is 4 bad memories of the game. Hundreds of good ones. From the word 'go'.

Hundreds.

Also, your argument about 'three hours to get into a game' being ridiculous is a bit ridiculous, because that's not how art/entertainment works. Sometimes you'll hate a book for three chapters, but by the end it will be one of your favourite books of all time. Same goes for games/any entertainment. Some experiences/fictions need to mature over time, and if something is critically acclaimed, there's probably a reason for that, and it's probably worth pressing ahead to let the experience mature. There's a living example right on the page of your post:



Surely this guy's experience shows why it's worth playing a game for a couple of hours to get to the meat of it? He probably found the slow start a bit offputting too, hence how it didn't 'click'.

Your matured experience might negate any boring/slow initial investment. (Of course it's a risk though, and if someone doesn't like it, they don't like it.)

I remember how brutally I hated, loathed TV show The 100, in the first 3 hours (episodes). Then it got steadily better..by the end of second season I consider it one of the best shows on TV right now.

But yeah, in Witcher's case specifically, I was deep in it from the first second of that incredible intro movie that started even before the game's menu.

 

[ninjablade]

You are confusing mechanics and controls with difficulty. Games with bad combat and unresponsive controls can be more difficult than games with good combat and responsive controls. That doesn't make the bad combat and the unresponsive controls any better.

i think they go hand in hand, whats the point of having good controls in combat if you never feel engaged or challenged, i'll take witcher 3 controls any day over being bored and not challenged in combat like in zelda.

 

[t0rment]

i just started this game and i feel that i'm fighting the controls everytime i want to move my character. it just moves so weird, has a huge input lag and i never feel i have control over it. i can do nothing but laugh when people laud a game as a GOAT when it doesn't even get the most basic function right.

 

[Denton]

i just started this game and i feel that i'm fighting the controls everytime i want to move my character. it just moves so weird, has a huge input lag and i never feel i have control over it. i can do nothing but laugh when people laud a game as a GOAT when it doesn't even get the most basic function right.

Let me guess... you didn't try alternative movement response in options. It has only been mentioned about twenty times in this thread

 

[Gunmonkey36]

I felt similar to the OP whenever I attempted to play Witcher 3.

I have a plethora of friends who love the witcher series which is good and I'm happy for them. They, however, believe I'm a heathen for not actively playing the games through and through.

I attempted to play Witcher 2(after the major updates) and realized that the controls were really poorly tuned/combat felt pretty awful and I couldn't continue. When 3 happened I played that through steam share of one of my friends libraries for ~6 hours. I stopped when I realized I was having the most fun playing Gwent, and didn't care to continue playing the game. Controls in 3 are greatly improved but combat still ends up feeling very meh to me.

I came to the conclusion I just can't do the witcher series. I can't get past the controls and I don't care about the story enough to overlook them.

 

[Vex_]

Sometimes a game is greater than the sum of its parts. The Witcher 3 has problems, but the overall impact, the overall way the game is elevates it hugely for me. I can load it up for 30-60 minutes a few nights a week and every minute of that time is quality gaming.



Heck, I found the story engaging and interesting from 15 mins in, after the dream sequence. That travel into White Orchard. So fucking great. It was immediately deep, immediately high-quality. Over the following 15 hours, there were dips - the bit in Vizema, and when you run out of stuff to do in Novigrad (so tedious) but aside from that it's been wall-to-wall quality for me. Ah, add to that list two particularly badly designed combat encounters.

So in about 70 hours of playtime that is 4 bad memories of the game. Hundreds of good ones. From the word 'go'.

Hundreds.

Also, your argument about 'three hours to get into a game' being ridiculous is a bit ridiculous, because that's not how art/entertainment works. Sometimes you'll hate a book for three chapters, but by the end it will be one of your favourite books of all time. Same goes for games/any entertainment. Some experiences/fictions need to mature over time, and if something is critically acclaimed, there's probably a reason for that, and it's probably worth pressing ahead to let the experience mature. There's a living example right on the page of your post:



Surely this guy's experience shows why it's worth playing a game for a couple of hours to get to the meat of it? He probably found the slow start a bit offputting too, hence how it didn't 'click'.

Your matured experience might negate any boring/slow initial investment. (Of course it's a risk though, and if someone doesn't like it, they don't like it.)

I agree with everything BUT the bolded.

That's exactly how entertainment works. I value my time. 3 hours is probably all I have to play a night (on weekdays)... probably. So devoting 3 hours to a tutorial and...

...barely...

...any story ain't cool for me and the guy I was speaking up for in this thread.

That's how entertainment works.

 

[thuGG_pl]

I agree with everything BUT the bolded.

That's exactly how entertainment works. I value my time. 3 hours is probably all I have to play a night (on weekdays)... probably. So devoting 3 hours to a tutorial and...

...any story ain't cool for me and the guy I was speaking up for in this thread.

That's how entertainment works.

If you have such constrains then obviously it's your problem not the game. You can't expect every game to have the pace suited for you, and if it's otherwise then it's bad.

If you had 10 minutes to watch a movie, it's not movie's fault you can't see it.

 

[SomTervo]

I agree with everything BUT the bolded.

That's exactly how entertainment works. I value my time. 3 hours is probably all I have to play a night (on weekdays)... probably. So devoting 3 hours to a tutorial and...

I 100% empathise with your point - the counter-argument is that if you played for the following 3 hours (so 6 in total) you'd get triple the enjoyment you'd get if the developers squeezed thrills into the first 3 hours to hook you. So every following 3 hours, rolling on until end-game, would give more and more enjoyment that would make up for the first slow 3 hours in abundance. Ie the game gets exponentially more immersive/interesting/fun as you continue playing - it's got a slow initial 'fun' curve, but the longer you play the more and more fun you unlock. The payoff is more than worth it.

I'm mainly playing Devil's Advocate here. Of course the point of entertainment is to entertain you. And if it gives you an initial session of boredom, that's not great. Naturally, in an ideal world - and no doubt what CDPR wish they could have had - is an opening couple of hours just as phenomenal as the following 50+ hours.

However, this does bring up the mathematical argument - play a game which is fun from hour 1, but by hour 15 or 30 it will probably be finished. Or you can play a game which only gets fun in hour 3-4, but by hour 100 you'll still be going and having fun. It's about expanding returns rather than diminishing returns.

Anyway. I appreciate your point and I absolutely see the validity in it it depends on what you have patience for at a particular time in your life. If I had played The Witcher 3 four years ago I would have dropped it like a bad habit in the first two hours. Just didn't have time. But it fits me perfectly right now.

 

[chifanpoe]

I must be playing a different Witcher 3 than the OP. I just hit level 33 and am what looks to be the final leg of the main story.

Love the game, great story, great acting, and amazing side quests. Looking forward to finishing it and playing the 1st expansion.

Witcher 3 is one of my favorite games of the year by far (have not finished MGV or BloodBorne yet)

While putting in close to 80 hours of gameplay with this, I need to wrap it up before Xenoblade Chronicles comes out this week!

 

[RespectThySole]

I must be playing a different Witcher 3 than the OP. I just hit level 33 and am what looks to be the final leg of the main story.

Love the game, great story, great acting, and amazing side quests. Looking forward to finishing it and playing the 1st expansion.

Witcher 3 is one of my favorite games of the year by far (have not finished MGV or BloodBorne yet)

While putting in close to 80 hours of gameplay with this, I need to wrap it up before Xenoblade Chronicles comes out this week!

The expansion is brilliant. The content there easily rivals anything from the main game.

 

[lordfuzzybutt]

The expansion is brilliant. The content there easily rivals anything from the main game.

I say it surpasses the majority.

Such atmosphere.

 

[ninjablade]

The expansion is brilliant. The content there easily rivals anything from the main game.

is that new content more challenging?

 

[shinobi602]

After getting into Souls, all western action RPGs will suck in comparison. It's a fact of life

I know posts like this aren't truly meant to be 100% serious but they still really fucking piss me off. And I say that as a big fan of Bloodborne.

 

[Doran902]

is that new content more challenging?

I found it challenging doing it at level 38 after the main story.

I agree with OP about the combat. I also had to re buy the game for pc after I got a video card because i can't stand how bad it runs on consoles, espcially the UI / menus.

 

[TerryLee81]

I found it challenging doing it at level 38 after the main story.

I agree with OP about the combat. I also had to re buy the game for pc after I got a video card because i can't stand how bad it runs on consoles, espcially the UI / menus.

I also have it on PS4 and PC, and this is the one game I can't play on consoles because of how much better it looks (and runs) on PC.

I usually don't care if a game looks slightly worse on console, but here the difference is huge. It looks so good on PC and this kind of adds a lot to the atmosphere of the world.

 

[RespectThySole]

is that new content more challenging?

It's significantly more challenging. CDPR listened to complaints about the difficulty scaling in the back end of the game.

I say it surpasses the majority.
Such atmosphere.

I agree.

 

[Altairre]

I remember how brutally I hated, loathed TV show The 100, in the first 3 hours (episodes). Then it got steadily better..by the end of second season I consider it one of the best shows on TV right now.

But yeah, in Witcher's case specifically, I was deep in it from the first second of that incredible intro movie that started even before the game's menu.

I'm curious, have you read the books? I feel like I enjoyed the main story a lot more because I knew who a lot of the characters are going into the game. The game does its best to establish the context of these relationships (including a rather clunky information dump in the Novigrad Dreaming quest) but ultimately you're going after somebody that is important to the main character but not necessarily to the player. There are so many small character interactions between Geralt, Ciri and Yen I thought were extremely well done and it's hard for me to tell if they would've had the same impact (probably not). It's also hard to look at the main story without the context of the side stories because the game does such a good job of providing a smooth transition between them while also providing smaller self contained narratives in the Witcher contracts. It just all felt natural to me.

As far as the combat goes, I'm playing through the game a second time right now and I'm having a really good time with it. The hitboxes are a bit fucked up at times and the fights against monsters, especially the larger ones don't feel as climactic as they should but especially against human sized enemies the variability really shines. There are a lot of viable ways to tackle these fights and I enjoy switching between, spells, bombs and melee techniques. It's definitely the game's weakest aspect considering how great the rest of it is but to me it's not the huge problem that it seems to be for a lot of other people.

 

[Denton]

I'm curious, have you read the books? I feel like I enjoyed the main story a lot more because I knew who a lot of the characters are going into the game. The game does its best to establish the context of these relationships (including a rather clunky information dump in the Novigrad Dreaming quest) but ultimately you're going after somebody that is important to the main character but not necessarily to the player. There are so many small character interactions between Geralt, Ciri and Yen I thought were extremely well done and it's hard for me to tell if they would've had the same impact (probably not). It's also hard to look at the main story without the context of the side stories because the game does such a good job of providing a smooth transition between them while also providing smaller self contained narratives in the Witcher contracts. It just all felt natural to me.

As far as the combat goes, I'm playing through the game a second time right now and I'm having a really good time with it. The hitboxes are a bit fucked up at times and the fights against monsters, especially the larger ones don't feel as climactic as they should but especially against human sized enemies the variability really shines. There are a lot of viable ways to tackle these fights and I enjoy switching between, spells, bombs and melee techniques. It's definitely the game's weakest aspect considering how great the rest of it is but to me it's not the huge problem that it seems to be for a lot of other people.

Yes, I read the books in 1999 for the first time and two more times over the years since then, it is my favourite book saga ever. So yeah, that does have something to do with my enjoyment

I always say to people who play TW3 and like it and never read them - go read the books now, then replay TW3 again and get your mind blown all over again since you will now understand all the references and know so many of the characters..

And yeah I enjoy the combat, against humans especially. It feels like it is described in the books, almost dance like, fast and fluid.

 

[criesofthepast]

is that new content more challenging?

Wasn't really for me. Though I was level 35-38 by the time I finished Hearts of Stone. I felt a bit overpowered through it all.

I'd say it is way more cutscene and dialogue heavy than the main game quests. I mean overall that may be my only complaint with the Witcher 3 - there is soooo much dialogue and cutscenes during quests compared to moments actually controlling Garalt and killing/doing things.

Also a lot of quests follow the same theme: use witcher sense and follow trail until you get to bad guy or find treasure etc. Got a bit stale.

I have very little big complaints about the experience. After 150+ hours and basically completing it 100% I started playing around with the console commands which were also a ton of fun to fool around with. Some really neat stuff in there.

 

[Ralemont]

Yes, I read the books in 1999 for the first time and two more times over the years since then, it is my favourite book saga ever. So yeah, that does have something to do with my enjoyment

I always say to people who play TW3 and like it and never read them - go read the books now, then replay TW3 again and get your mind blown all over again since you will now understand all the references and know so many of the characters..

And yeah I enjoy the combat, against humans especially. It feels like it is described in the books, almost dance like, fast and fluid.

Which books would you say are the closest to essential for Witcher 3?

 

[Denton]

Which books would you say are the closest to essential for Witcher 3?

I mean...TW3 is basically direct sequel from the last book of the saga. It actually finishes the plotline that was left unresolved and abandoned in the books by Sapkowski. It is strange since the ending Sapkowski did was very satisfying to me, but yeah...he left the whole Wild Hunt storyline unfinished and CDP decided to finish it for him.
So the last book...but if you read that, you also need to read the ones before it...which means essentially I would recommend starting at the beginning with Last Wish, then Sword of Destiny (my personal favourite, it also introduces Ciri for the first time), then follows the main Saga - Blood of Elves, Time of Contempt, Baptism by Fire, Swallow's Tower and last one, Lady of the Lake.

There is also new book that came out two years ago, Season of Storms, which is great, but mostly standalone (takes place between Last Wish and Sword of Destiny). Witcher 3 already does contain few references even to this new book though

 

[megabytecr]

Here I was, looking at the flash sale on PSN on what to get with 50 to spend.

Witcher 3 was a highlight, good price, good reviews, good praise, but I was a bit reluctant due to my playing time. I was going to get Wolfenstein TOB, The Order and one of The Witcher 3, Borderlands THC or Shadow of Mordor. I was almost decided to get Shadow of Mordor then ......

I saw this thread and started considering grabbing it and finding on my own how good it is, try to find the time to play it.

I ended up getting Witcher 3 and Shadow of Mordor... so this thread ironically, did a good job on selling me The Witcher 3.

 

[Ralemont]

I mean...TW3 is basically direct sequel from the last book of the saga. It actually finishes the plotline that was left unresolved and abandoned in the books by Sapkowski. It is strange since the ending Sapkowski did was very satisfying to me, but yeah...he left the whole Wild Hunt storyline unfinished and CDP decided to finish it for him.
So the last book...but if you read that, you also need to read the ones before it...which means essentially I would recommend starting at the beginning with Last Wish, then Sword of Destiny (my personal favourite, it also introduces Ciri for the first time), then follows the main Saga - Blood of Elves, Time of Contempt, Baptism by Fire, Swallow's Tower and last one, Lady of the Lake.

There is also new book that came out two years ago, Season of Storms, which is great, but mostly standalone (takes place between Last Wish and Sword of Destiny). Witcher 3 already does contain few references even to this new book though

Yeesh, now I see why you said to read them before a replay. That's a gigantic investment for someone to make before playing it for the first time.

Still, thanks for taking the time to type that up.

 

[RespectThySole]

Wasn't really for me. Though I was level 35-38 by the time I finished Hearts of Stone. I felt a bit overpowered through it all.

I'd say it is way more cutscene and dialogue heavy than the main game quests. I mean overall that may be my only complaint with the Witcher 3 - there is soooo much dialogue and cutscenes during quests compared to moments actually controlling Garalt and killing/doing things.

Also a lot of quests follow the same theme: use witcher sense and follow trail until you get to bad guy or find treasure etc. Got a bit stale.

I have very little big complaints about the experience. After 150+ hours and basically completing it 100% I started playing around with the console commands which were also a ton of fun to fool around with. Some really neat stuff in there.

This is why it was so puzzling to see that user make up that mythical 90:10 combat/rest of the game ratio. It's probably 25-30% of the game at best.

 

[Altairre]

Yes, I read the books in 1999 for the first time and two more times over the years since then, it is my favourite book saga ever. So yeah, that does have something to do with my enjoyment

I always say to people who play TW3 and like it and never read them - go read the books now, then replay TW3 again and get your mind blown all over again since you will now understand all the references and know so many of the characters..

And yeah I enjoy the combat, against humans especially. It feels like it is described in the books, almost dance like, fast and fluid.

I try to recommend the books where I can too, as far as fantasy goes they're up there with my favorites. Read them before the first Witcher game came out and was really sceptical about it but thankfully things worked out like they did.

 

[Haines]

I'm having a very hard time with this game. I like the game but Im having a hard time wrapping my head around everything.

I killed the golem looking for ciri and now I can barely even dent the knight.

I haven't barely achieved anything with the alchemy and crafting systems yet.

 

[kek_lel]

Coming from DS1, then DS2 and now playing the Witcher 3 I must say that it feels a little weird and I need some more time adjusting.
The thing with Open World RPGs is that I hate exploration in them. I mean I can run around in the Witcher 3 for quite some time and will find nothing interesting especially nothing thatll really help me (better gear for example) so I just ignore all the exploration stuff. I feel like I have to be lucky to find something.
When doing exploration in Souls games I always feel like it is worthy to explore just because you get new gear all the time. Whenever there is a struggle, you know it will probably be worth overcoming because there is a reward.

This is an example from the Witcher 3:
I did wonder why I had to hit some low level wolf like too fucking often for it to die on normal difficulty. After some quests and not getting any new gear, just some exp and not much money which feels very lackluster as well I noticed a smith sold some swords and they did like 2x the DPS than what I had, if anything you should get better stuff when just proceeding main story. Well fuck this game for combat and stuff.
In the end I switched it on easy and just went on doing main story quests. Im looking at it more like an interactive story than anything else.
If I want good gameplay I just fire up some shovel knight or anything else really.
This is without even going into detail aboput combat!
holy cow

 

[CadetMahoney]

Just about every super hyped/expectation AAA game goes from "GOTY, you're dumb if you don't agree" to "it has many issues" months later.

i remember dragon age inquisition getting goty comments but was too scared to question the status quo.

is normal.

the combat in witcher is laughable.

 

[Denton]

Yeesh, now I see why you said to read them before a replay. That's a gigantic investment for someone to make before playing it for the first time.

Still, thanks for taking the time to type that up.

It is a seven books (8 with SoS), but they are not that huge - this is not Song of Ice and Fire where every book has over 1000 pages. Sapkowski doesn't waste much time, they read very quickly and are filled with humour and dialogue...like the games. I remember trying to read LOTR and when after 100 pages I still read descriptions of Shire, I put it down.. forever.
Still, it is definitely time investment..plus the last two books are iirc not officially out in english yet.

I'm having a very hard time with this game. I like the game but Im having a hard time wrapping my head around everything.

I killed the golem looking for ciri and now I can barely even dent the knight.

I haven't barely achieved anything with the alchemy and crafting systems yet.

If you are in that large dungeon at the start, don't be afraid to lower difficulty there. It can get quite hard. You can put it back up again when you get through it.

 

[Vex_]

If you have such constrains then obviously it's your problem not the game. You can't expect every game to have the pace suited for you, and if it's otherwise then it's bad.

If you had 10 minutes to watch a movie, it's not movie's fault you can't see it.

You dont get it, do you? Why are you not understanding? It was HIS opinion that after 3 hours... it was not good enough for him. There should be no argument over this.

Anyway. I appreciate your point and I absolutely see the validity in it it depends on what you have patience for at a particular time in your life. If I had played The Witcher 3 four years ago I would have dropped it like a bad habit in the first two hours. Just didn't have time. But it fits me perfectly right now.

Glad you understand.

 

[Hari Seldon]

I'm having a very hard time with this game. I like the game but Im having a hard time wrapping my head around everything.

I killed the golem looking for ciri and now I can barely even dent the knight.

I haven't barely achieved anything with the alchemy and crafting systems yet.

You have to treat it like an RPG and not an action game. When you encounter an enemy, look them up in the bestiary. It will say which oils/signs/bombs are useful against it. Use those and most encounters are pretty trivial.

 

[thecouncil]

This is the first Witcher game I've played and it was a rough start for me. I thought I hated it too, but I'm loving it now. Things started clicking and now it's a lot of fun. Great quests, great world.

 

[RespectThySole]

I'm curious, have you read the books? I feel like I enjoyed the main story a lot more because I knew who a lot of the characters are going into the game. The game does its best to establish the context of these relationships (including a rather clunky information dump in the Novigrad Dreaming quest) but ultimately you're going after somebody that is important to the main character but not necessarily to the player. There are so many small character interactions between Geralt, Ciri and Yen I thought were extremely well done and it's hard for me to tell if they would've had the same impact (probably not). It's also hard to look at the main story without the context of the side stories because the game does such a good job of providing a smooth transition between them while also providing smaller self contained narratives in the Witcher contracts. It just all felt natural to me.

As far as the combat goes, I'm playing through the game a second time right now and I'm having a really good time with it. The hitboxes are a bit fucked up at times and the fights against monsters, especially the larger ones don't feel as climactic as they should but especially against human sized enemies the variability really shines. There are a lot of viable ways to tackle these fights and I enjoy switching between, spells, bombs and melee techniques. It's definitely the game's weakest aspect considering how great the rest of it is but to me it's not the huge problem that it seems to be for a lot of other people.

The amount of options you have in your toolset is definitely a big part of why I find it so enjoyable.