The Witcher 3 | Review Thread

EatChildren said:
Context is key though and that's where the statement becomes muddied, especially when contested by other reviews that specifically outline the weight of context behind the optional side quests compared to typical fetch quests we're familiar with from other titles.

The statement isn't false, but the definitions and your personal interpretation are subjective, and the exact opposite being specified in other reviews makes it impossible to draw any real conclusion.

Like I said earlier, the idea of a "fetch quest" is poorly defined. In reality, most/all RPGs structure quests in a "fetch" variety. But the context of that structure and the pacing ultimately define them. Being asked by a character to go find the thing can be called out as a fetch quest, but the journey you embark on to find the thing, the choices you'll make, and the ultimate resolution will dictate how fondly you remember it. Most fetch quests are made unmemorable or disappointing entirely because they lack appealing context and development. They're literally go find the thing and you do just that almost to a T.

What excites me is that most reviews are highlighting that this isn't the case for quest structure in Wild Hunt. A woman asks you to go find her missing frying pan. But rarely, if ever, are the quest arcs that simple and trivial even if they seem that way at first.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of Fallout New Vegas, which had quite a few quests where all you had to do was literally go back and forth between two areas and talk to people. In any other game, that'd be boring, but in that game it was really engaging. I'm particularly reminded of the late game quests where the faction you aligned with asked you to go talk with other factions and determine their fate. You could just go to the Brotherhood hideout and sabotage them, or you could speak with them and find a way to get them to hop on board your employer's plan. The dialogue and the context was so good that it didn't make me really realize that all I was doing was warping between two points and talking to NPC's.

Sounds like it's going to be a real personal opinion as to how the context colors it in Witcher 3. I have cautious optimism.
 
RoboPlato said:
Given the size of this game, I could imagine someone getting unlucky and doing the worse quests in time for the review and having a lot of better ones still out there.
Click to expand...

Possibly. Or simply that IGN didn't like the good ones, so they felt they were all meaningless fetch quests at the end of the day. That's fine too. It's kind of hilarious that someone would consider that as a "fact" and ignore others as "opinions".
 
I see Witcher 3 like the previous ones still suffers from reverse difficulty curve, Witcher 2 was such a cakewalk in the second half.
 
Heavy said:
IGN's criticism on the game being filled with fetch quests isn't an opinion. That's why it should be taken seriously. It's a definitive, factual statement. It's not like he said 'I don't like the color scheme in this game'. He said it's filled with filler fetch quests to pad the game. This isn't a case of taking one negative statement and ignoring all the positive ones. What he said wasn't an opinion.
Click to expand...

It is because there doesnt seem to be a consensus on what is a "fetch quest". Some folks use a very reductive "any quest where an NPC asks you to do something". While others attribute it to quests with poorly done narrative hooks and design where you dont know and dont care why you are fetching, youre just doing it for the reward -- literally, like a dog fetching his master's newspaper for a doggy treat. The dog gives zero fucks about the paper or the master reading it, he just wants to eat.

That is where it becomes a matter of opinion. For some it feels like padding, while others say that they tell interesting enough stories that they don't ever feel like a chore.
 
EatChildren said:
Context is key though and that's where the statement becomes muddied, especially when contested by other reviews that specifically outline the weight of context behind the optional side quests compared to typical fetch quests we're familiar with from other titles.

The statement isn't false, but the definitions and your personal interpretation are subjective, and the exact opposite being specified in other reviews makes it impossible to draw any real conclusion.

Like I said earlier, the idea of a "fetch quest" is poorly defined. In reality, most/all RPGs structure quests in a "fetch" variety. But the context of that structure and the pacing ultimately define them. Being asked by a character to go find the thing can be called out as a fetch quest, but the journey you embark on to find the thing, the choices you'll make, and the ultimate resolution will dictate how fondly you remember it. Most fetch quests are made unmemorable or disappointing entirely because they lack appealing context and development. They're literally go find the thing and you do just that almost to a T.

What excites me is that most reviews are highlighting that this isn't the case for quest structure in Wild Hunt. A woman asks you to go find her missing frying pan. But rarely, if ever, are the quest arcs that simple and trivial even if they seem that way at first.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and you can see this in some of the longer quest line videos they released. You might be tasked to do something for a person in order for them to give you information, but it all depends on what the quest constitutes, even if on paper it is a little reductive.

Dragon Age Inquisition is full of soulless fetch quests that do not inform your knowledge of the world. They are literally busy work copy and pasted from each location to the next.
 
His Majesty said:
The Gamesradar review is really weird.
Click to expand...

I'll have to play it myself to know for sure, but that doesn't strike me as particularly weird. Witcher 1 and 2 were both fairly linear outside the existence of the story branches. And I don't mean that in a bad way, nor am I suggesting that there wasn't good, optional content available. But they weren't sandboxes.

The Elder Scrolls games are giant sandboxes. That's simultaneously the series' biggest strength and weakness. Fans love that you can waste away a day picking a random direction on the map and doing a bunch of quests. Detractors lament that though there is an abundance of content, that content isn't very interesting.
 
His Majesty said:
The Gamesradar review is really weird.

"A big one, yes. A beautiful one. But not open, and certainly not a sandbox in the way Skyrim’s environment operated. As Dragonborn, you could disappear for months ascending the ranks of various guilds, getting married, buying property and clearing dungeons while everyone waited patiently for you to save the realm. As Geralt though, you’re rarely able to shake off the grip of the developer’s hand as it guides you from point to point."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

There's so many conflicting things I'm hearing about TW3, I've heard the complete opposite of this.

Any ways, I'm my own judge, can't wait to play and find out myself to see what it's like.
 
EmptySpace said:
aaand? just because it's from the same person does that make witcher 3 not a 10/10 game? please. kevn also gave asscreed a 9.0 but to me asscreed 1 was 2/10. did that make mgs4 not a 10/10 for me? no.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what I am getting at or what I said. Why are you so defensive about that?

I am not willing to blindly hail the accuracy of a "10/10" from Gamespot or a particular reviewer as some sort of gospel truth. For me MGS4 as a 10/10 is so ridiculously off the mark, ergo I am less likely to agree with a particular reviewer's opinion (since I haven't played the games he reviews at the time - in the case of all launch reviews).

Completely disregarding that, looking around at plenty of these outlets shows variable criticisms suggesting it is not a perfect game. My opinions regularly don't match most outlets, but do frequently match collated user review scores, which is what I will look at when there are enough of them, then decide whether to purchase or not based from that and friends opinions.

Why my disagreement with MGS4 being a 10/10 game is enough for you to lose your shit, when you mention it isn't a 10/10 game for you either, makes no sense to me.
 
Steve Youngblood said:
I'll have to play it myself to know for sure, but that doesn't strike me as particularly weird. Witcher 1 and 2 were both fairly linear outside the existence of the story branches. And I don't mean that in a bad way, nor am I suggesting that there wasn't good, optional content available. But they weren't sandboxes.

The Elder Scrolls games are giant sandboxes. That's simultaneously the series' biggest strength and weakness. Fans love that you can waste away a day picking a random direction on the map and doing a bunch of quests. Detractors lament that though there is an abundance of content, that content isn't very interesting.
Click to expand...

What I mean is that it seems to me like the reviewer is criticising The Witcher 3 for not being a sandbox RPG like Skyrim and instead choosing a story-heavy approach in the open world. Despite being both open world they are two completely different games so I find the comparison really out of place.
 
hobblygobbly said:
There's so many conflicting things I'm hearing about TW3, I've heard the complete opposite of this.

Any ways, I'm my own judge, can't wait to play and find out myself to see what it's like.
Click to expand...

Considering, the different endings, that you play your own story and how vast the game (map) is, it really sounds like that they each get a different play through and experience.
 
Mr. Sunny said:
Bloodborne is very good but not a 9.
Click to expand...

You are right. It is a perfect 10. Comparing Bloodborne to Witcher is comparing mario with any platformer.

I for one am kind of sick of open world games. Ubisoft really overkilled that genre. But nevertheless looking forward to Witcher 3. I enjoyed Witcher 2 though I felt combat was a little off.
 
Nzyme32 said:
No, that's not what I am getting at or what I said. Why are you so defensive about that?

I am not willing to blindly hail the accuracy of a "10/10" from Gamespot or a particular reviewer as some sort of gospel truth. For me MGS4 as a 10/10 is so ridiculously off the mark, ergo I am less likely to agree with a particular reviewer's opinion (since I haven't played the games he reviews at the time - in the case of all launch reviews).

Completely disregarding that, looking around at plenty of these outlets shows variable criticisms suggesting it is not a perfect game. My opinions regularly don't match most outlets, but do frequently match collated user review scores, which is what I will look like when there are enough of them, then decide whether to purchase or not from friends opinions.

Why my disagreement with MGS4 being a 10/10 game is enough for you to lose your shit, when you mention it isn't a 10/10 game for you either, makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...

Gamespot has explained before (just recently with Bayonetta infact) that 10/10 does not mean it is a perfect game, none of the games they've given 10s to have been perfect. What it does mean is that whatever issues the game has they are largely minor and don't detract from the experience. That is why they even changed the wording to "Essential".
 
Hey, anyone else remember that supposed insider from CDPR who said that the game was in trouble and was the reason for all these delays and that CDPR would lost a lot of the good cred they built up once the game was released? Yup, seems it all was complete BS as we all knew it was.
 
Nzyme32 said:
No, that's not what I am getting at or what I said. Why are you so defensive about that?

I am not willing to blindly hail the accuracy of a "10/10" from Gamespot or a particular reviewer as some sort of gospel truth. For me MGS4 as a 10/10 is so ridiculously off the mark, ergo I am less likely to agree with a particular reviewer's opinion (since I haven't played the games he reviews at the time - in the case of all launch reviews).

Completely disregarding that, looking around at plenty of these outlets shows variable criticisms suggesting it is not a perfect game. My opinions regularly don't match most outlets, but do frequently match collated user review scores, which is what I will look at when there are enough of them, then decide whether to purchase or not based from that and friends opinions.

Why my disagreement with MGS4 being a 10/10 game is enough for you to lose your shit, when you mention it isn't a 10/10 game for you either, makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...

a 10 does not equal perfect.
 
Steve Youngblood said:
I'll have to play it myself to know for sure, but that doesn't strike me as particularly weird. Witcher 1 and 2 were both fairly linear outside the existence of the story branches. And I don't mean that in a bad way, nor am I suggesting that there wasn't good, optional content available. But they weren't sandboxes.

The Elder Scrolls games are giant sandboxes. That's simultaneously the series' biggest strength and weakness. Fans love that you can waste away a day picking a random direction on the map and doing a bunch of quests. Detractors lament that though there is an abundance of content, that content isn't very interesting.
Click to expand...

Skyrim is large as an ocean, deep as a puddle.

Witcher 3 seems to be large as two oceans, and deep as a...lake ? :)

In any case, it seems like first AAA RPG that sucessfully joins quality story/characters/quest design with huge open world ripe for exploration.

Next contender: Kingdom Come: Deliverance.
 
JK-Money nailed it in the PS4 gameplay thread. It literally looks like an oil painting that came to life.

PrQERHN.gif
 
Heavy said:
IGN says the actual side quests off the beaten path are excellent and rich with story, but they say the main plot line is filled with poor fetch quests. Usually it's the other way around. I've never heard that before.
Click to expand...

That's what has me scratching my head.

However, if you think about it, wouldn't you WANT the open-world stuff to be richer and more compelling?

Because. once you play through the main story, what's left to do but explore the open world?

I use GTA5 as a perfect example - an EPIC main storyline full of character development, laughs and drama. But once you complete the final, big heist and the little follow-up stuff at end, what is there to do but mini-games and "mess around"? Nothing you do after the main story is done is compelling or persistent. It's all just mini-games or mini-missions that don't really amount to anything. Or, hop in a car and run people over for giggles? Yay?

(EDIT - yes, I know there is GTAO, but I'm talking about people who prefer to stay within the original game world in singeplayer.)

I'm hoping with the Witcher 3 that it's the exact opposite - that the game really continues, or even just begins, outside the main storyline.

I'm just glad I have a week before the release to sift through all the reviews and try to build a good picture of the game before I decide to buy or not.
 
foxtrot3d said:
Hey, anyone else remember that supposed insider from CDPR who said that the game was in trouble and was the reason for all these delays and that CDPR would lost a lot of the good cred they built up once the game was released? Yup, seems it all was complete BS as we all knew it was.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying what he said was true, but the game did get delayed twice so obviously there was problems with the game.
 
foxtrot3d said:
Hey, anyone else remember that supposed insider from CDPR who said that the game was in trouble and was the reason for all these delays and that CDPR would lost a lot of the good cred they built up once the game was released? Yup, seems it all was complete BS as we all knew it was.
Click to expand...

Don't really think it means that it was BS? Didn't he get verified?

The game was delayed after all.
 
The Verge Review:

http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/12/8586515/witcher-3-wild-hunt-review-ps4-xbox-one-game

This is obviously a huge game, but unlike a lot of open worlds, it's also one that feels lively. The developers at CD Projekt Red have spent a lot of time ensuring that it's not just a collection of towns connected by empty space. Even outside of the quests I stumbled across, there was a lot to do out in the world, whether hunting monsters or exploring ancient ruins. The game is so beautiful and so full of surprises, that I rode my horse most places instead of using the fast travel option that lets you zip around the map.
Click to expand...
 
Fine Ham Abounds said:
I swear I see a review with that statement at least every 18 months, and it's always for a much hyped AAA game

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be surprised or impressed or what
Click to expand...

-tetsuo- said:
Quite a few times a year nowadays.
Click to expand...

A 10 from GameSpot a few times a year ?
I don't think so.
They only gave perfect 10's to a few games:
Bayonetta 2
GTA IV
Zelda OFT
Soul Calibur
SMG 2
THPS 3
Chrono Cross
MGS 4

They actually made a article about they 10 scores after reviewing The Witcher 3:
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/gamespots-complete-list-of-10-10-reviews-and-how-t/1100-6422955/
 
As a wise man once said

I ain’t no fan boy but this mother fucking game looks like nothing you’ve ever played…and you can hold me to that when this thing hits and when they start showing gameplay footage. It looks like a painting come to life- it’s THAT good looking.‘
 
erawsd said:
Gamespot has explained before (just recently with Bayonetta infact) that 10/10 does not mean it is a perfect game, none of the games they've given 10s to have been perfect. What it does mean is that whatever issues the game has they are largely minor and don't detract from the experience. That is why they even changed the wording to "Essential".
Click to expand...

Is that not Eurogamer? Regardless, I know that general impression is what most people mean when they throw a 10 out there (and that nothing is ever perfect, that was just the easiest word to use). Like I said, I rarely agree with most of these outlets and their scores, but when someone's opinion in the past is so far away from my own, I am more likely to be cautious of their review.

My previous post is spawned from me simply stating I didn't think MGS4 was a 10/10, in response to a comment from someone saying it was. I said that because for me it was not only not great; I found it crap, maybe a 6/10 - but that is just my opinion, and one of the reasons I am cautious of reviews and wait to here from large collated user impressions and friends / GAFers opinions I trust and are frequently similar to my own.
 
Netherscourge said:
That's what has me scratching my head.

However, if you think about it, wouldn't you WANT the open-world stuff to be richer and more compelling?

Because. once you play through the main story, what's left to do but explore the open world?

I use GTA5 as a perfect example - an EPIC main storyline full of character development, laughs and drama. But once you complete the final, big heist and the little follow-up stuff at end, what is there to do but mini-games and "mess around"? Nothing you do after the main story is done is compelling or persistent. It's all just mini-games or mini-missions that don't really amount to anything. Or, hop in a car and run people over for giggles? Yay?

I'm hoping with the Witcher 3 that it's the exact opposite - that the game really continues, or even just begins, outside the main storyline.

I'm just glad I have a week before the release to sift through all the reviews and try to build a good picture of the game before I decide to buy or not.
Click to expand...
I rather have an incredible main story. That's what I'm going to remember years down the line, not random side quests, no matter how good they are. We should have both. I doubt the main story is bad, it's probably just average. It should be fine.
 
Primethius said:
Don't really think it means that it was BS? Didn't he get verified?

The game was delayed after all.
Click to expand...

He was a bit grandiose though - "CDP is bullshitting since day 1", "presenting overblown vision of a game that does not exist"

Sounds like he just had an axe to grind, to be honest. Game was probably in a bad state back then, but if it was the way he said it, we wouldn't be seeing these scores even today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Review Fatal Fury: City of the Wolves | Review Thread
Analysis Review 
14
95
Spukc replied
  • Poll
Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 | Review Thread
Analysis Review  3 4 5 6 7
344
345
Little Mac replied
The Talos Principle: Reawakened | Review Thread + Mini OT
|OT| Review 
13
3K
Astray replied
Lunar Remastered Collection | Review Thread
Opinion Review 
43
3K
anthony2690 replied
Avowed | Review Thread
Analysis Review  28 29 30 31 32
2K
86K
GymWolf replied
Top Bottom