-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
My issues with The Witcher 3
- Thread starter MotiD
- Start date
Yup, the open world is genuinely great.
When I saw the Points of Interest on the tutorial map, and the main game map, I knew with confidence that I could turn them off and not miss anything important.
Because everything worth finding in Witcher 3 is near some noticeable landmark.
A large elven ruin? There's gonna be something there. Cabin and a lake? There's gonna be something there. And old abandoned watchtower next to an ocean and a wyvern flying over it? Oh you fucking bet.
I could point to a spot on the map where I haven't been to before, take a short ride there, look around any interesting features, and it'd pay off more often than not. Especially since I played an Alchemy build, which wants a fuckton of different crafting formulas, and you can often find those as loot.
Last edited:
I'm playing through it for the first time now after playing the first two. Just finished said storyline and I mostly agree with the arguements. Combat is pretty boring and one note, and I'm not a big fan of the traversal system with signposts and roach. I do not like the leveling system so far either. If it wasn't for the story I probably would of dropped it, but I could say the same about the last two games lol.
Game is gorgeous and attention to detail is great however.
Game is gorgeous and attention to detail is great however.
Yeah this is how I plan to do my replay when the next gen update comes. Death March, Alchemy build, question marks off, quest dotted line off, etc. I just want to get lost in that crazy, creepy, dangerous world again.
Blood is in the water, those who didn't like The Witcher 3 are now feeling embolden.
My overall comment is this game is clearly not for you OP and that's fine. But to dismiss all the game's systems as "straight out bad" is pretty reductive, especially when many of these systems are well thought out and very fun IMO.
Hard disagree. I loved the combat. Timing dodges properly, utilizing the right combination of blade oils and potions / decoctions / bombs is crucial on higher difficulty levels. The combat is great as far as I'm concerned.
I guess my question is why are you even riding Roach on anything other than roads? I've spent 200+ hours with this game and mostly rode on roads, which is great because you can travel at high speeds and Roach auto-follows the roads for you. I don't understand this complaint.
While I agree that it can be improved, I wouldn't call it a pain to deal with. It's pretty clear which section to find different items in.
Super disagree. I loved all the extra skills you could unlock, and having to balance which skills to equip vs not was interesting the whole way through.
It's very clear you want WItcher 3 to be a different game, which it's not. If you want Breath of the Wild or Horizon: Zero Dawn go play those. Witcher 3 is an action RPG with a very enjoyable world, quests, characters, dialogue choices, and lore that I thoroughly enjoyed.
Hard disagree. I loved the combat. Timing dodges properly, utilizing the right combination of blade oils and potions / decoctions / bombs is crucial on higher difficulty levels. The combat is great as far as I'm concerned.
I guess my question is why are you even riding Roach on anything other than roads? I've spent 200+ hours with this game and mostly rode on roads, which is great because you can travel at high speeds and Roach auto-follows the roads for you. I don't understand this complaint.
While I agree that it can be improved, I wouldn't call it a pain to deal with. It's pretty clear which section to find different items in.
Super disagree. I loved all the extra skills you could unlock, and having to balance which skills to equip vs not was interesting the whole way through.
It's very clear you want WItcher 3 to be a different game, which it's not. If you want Breath of the Wild or Horizon: Zero Dawn go play those. Witcher 3 is an action RPG with a very enjoyable world, quests, characters, dialogue choices, and lore that I thoroughly enjoyed.
I liked the game but the way the quest are being hyped up as some standard is quite funny to me with the amount of fetch quest and Ubisoft-like map filling.
Never quite understood how so many things were being overlooked for this game while they were used to discredit others.
Never quite understood how so many things were being overlooked for this game while they were used to discredit others.
If people didn't like The Witcher 3 a month ago, they aren't going to like it now. I just find the timing of this thread being created just a bit suspect being few days after CP2077's release.
The perception of CP2077 shouldn't have to reflect on The Witcher 3. Being disappointed with how CDPR handled in their corporate structure is one thing, and the reasonable criticism around CP2077 with it's many issues is another.
Folks that like The Witcher 3 aren't going to suddenly stop liking The Witcher 3 just because CP2077 is in a rough state.
The problems for CP2077 issues should not retroactively have an impact on folks perception on The Witcher.
I don't see why folks can also enjoy The Witcher 3 and have the opinion it's a great game, but also equally see that Cyberpunk 2077 clearly has problems. One shouldn't have any bearing on the other, but it feels this topic was made with the intent to do exactly that.
Mostly agree with points 1, 2, and 4. A step down from Witcher 2, I have to sigh.
Blood and Wine is almost great, though. Superb use of DLC. ^^'
Blood and Wine is almost great, though. Superb use of DLC. ^^'
I've seen more than one person try to get this going over the past several days.
I will be the first one to criticize CDPR for getting high on their own supply but their reputation was not unearned, not by any stretch.
Agree with you OP.
I made the mistake of playing Bloodborne right before playing TW3. It's combat is severely lacking compared to BB. I was expecting it to be on par especially with all the praise the game was receiving.
I'm sure I would've liked the gameplay better if I didn't play Bloodborne before it.
I made the mistake of playing Bloodborne right before playing TW3. It's combat is severely lacking compared to BB. I was expecting it to be on par especially with all the praise the game was receiving.
I'm sure I would've liked the gameplay better if I didn't play Bloodborne before it.
OP, I loved TW3 and I can't say I agree with any of these points, but that's fine (opinions, etc.).
What puzzles me is that you said you very much enjoyed the first two games, so I'm curious: are they so much better than the 3rd entry in all these aspects? Or did you mean you enjoyed them at the time, but they don't necessarily hold up to today's standards?
That's a genuine question, I've never played TW1 and I stopped TW2 after a few hours (I started it after finishing TW3, and while it wasn't bad at all, it still showed its age).
(sorry if someone already asked, I admit I haven't read all 6 pages yet)
It came out around the same time as bloodborne, and it was clear around the discussion that for half of gaf/era, combat could either be 'from soft tier' or 'unplayable dogshit'. I mean a lot of games don't meet up with bloodborne's combat, but the combat in W3 was above average, and pretty enjoyable for what it was. Switching spells, dodging, parrying, making use of positional effects, it's really better than most of the games in the genre. People act like it's somehow worse than what assassin's creed served up for around 10 years.
I didn't enjoy it either, after multiple attempts to get into it. RPGs are my favorite genre, and I love the open world ones like Gothic, but The Witcher 3 just didn't grab me.
I honestly don't understand what it is that makes people think it's one of the best games ever made. I enjoyed Risen 3 more. Yes really. (PC version, btw)
I honestly don't understand what it is that makes people think it's one of the best games ever made. I enjoyed Risen 3 more. Yes really. (PC version, btw)
I was thinking that actually... I am a From fanboy, bought a PS4 on Bloodborne launch, love their games, yet shiting on Witcher 3 and just saying bad combat it's nonsense.
If Witcher 3 is a bad game with bad combat, most games are bad.
Nah Witcher 3 is a great video game The combat improved for me like crazy when I was able to play it at 60 FPS on my Xbox one x.
My GF who just got a lot more interested in videogames Thinks it's the greatest game of all time lol.
My GF who just got a lot more interested in videogames Thinks it's the greatest game of all time lol.
Game of the century. Amazing DLC, combat is super responsive at 60+ fps, RPG's haven't been real RPG's in a while, and if you're going into the game knowing it's lore you don't expect a full on RPG either way.
Mine was the opposite I played Bloodborne right after the Witcher 3 and what a huge disappointment that was. Bloodborne had no memorable characters, no open world exploration. Where were the rpg choices on Bloodborne? Where was the bloody baron quest of Bloodborne, the game had no quests to begin with and people dare to call it an rpg. After all that hype I was expecting BB to be on par with the witcher in story, quests design, characters but there was nothing. I was deeply disappointed.
Well, 90% of everything is bad, so that's not too surprising of a conclusion.
Witcher 3 still absolutely slaps and is a genuinely great game. The combat is the biggest flaw people seem to have and it's not perfect but it's also nowhere near as bad as some make it out to be. It works well, has good enemy variety that require different approaches, and has enough avenues to find success. Playing it on normal or easier I think can harm the game because players can power through without needing to engage in a lot of the mechanics. As for the writing, and why Bloody Baron is brought up so much - I think there are a lot of standout sequences and quests throughout the game, but the Baron is relatively early in the story and genuinely exciting moment of "oh this game is going some *places*" other standout quests that I remember would be the whoreson junior stuff / anything with dykstra, all of Hearts of Stone's main quest, fyke isle with Keira, anything involving werewolves, the sylvan, all of the stuff with the Crones of Crookback Bog.
I think the "is this game an RPG or not" debate is dumb and largely useless but won't disagree that some of the leveling and character progression is lacking in some ways. That being said, the game is pretty good about player choice and consequences within the framework of a character as immutable as Geralt. I am a staunch opponent of voiceless character creator rpg games, as so few of them handle it well at all - Witcher is stronger because of Geralt and him being himself. And it's a role that you absolutely play, a role that has character and player progression, and a variety of directions/outcomes. The Witcher 3 IS a role playing game. No, it's not a classic crpg built around dice rolls and dnd-derived systems, but it would be a worse game if it were. The inventory is fine, better than some and worse than others. The updates to the inventory definitely helped smooth some rough edges. Traversal is something most games fail to make interesting, and while Roach can be a bit harebrained, most of the time the "follow road to destination" stuff works well. Geralt moves like he does, the alternate response system should be the default, but it's there and he otherwise is an adept runner and clamberer.
I will say one of the best things Witcher 3 has going is a completely justified and built in explanation for why Geralt is happy to just fuck around and do side quests where all he ends up doing is going to a place and killing a thing. The context is really key for making those kinds of mundane moments interesting, and they also end up feeling important to the characters involved. I tried getting into AC Valhalla and it just made me want to replay Witcher 3 because of how much it is trying to get to that same feeling.
I think the "is this game an RPG or not" debate is dumb and largely useless but won't disagree that some of the leveling and character progression is lacking in some ways. That being said, the game is pretty good about player choice and consequences within the framework of a character as immutable as Geralt. I am a staunch opponent of voiceless character creator rpg games, as so few of them handle it well at all - Witcher is stronger because of Geralt and him being himself. And it's a role that you absolutely play, a role that has character and player progression, and a variety of directions/outcomes. The Witcher 3 IS a role playing game. No, it's not a classic crpg built around dice rolls and dnd-derived systems, but it would be a worse game if it were. The inventory is fine, better than some and worse than others. The updates to the inventory definitely helped smooth some rough edges. Traversal is something most games fail to make interesting, and while Roach can be a bit harebrained, most of the time the "follow road to destination" stuff works well. Geralt moves like he does, the alternate response system should be the default, but it's there and he otherwise is an adept runner and clamberer.
I will say one of the best things Witcher 3 has going is a completely justified and built in explanation for why Geralt is happy to just fuck around and do side quests where all he ends up doing is going to a place and killing a thing. The context is really key for making those kinds of mundane moments interesting, and they also end up feeling important to the characters involved. I tried getting into AC Valhalla and it just made me want to replay Witcher 3 because of how much it is trying to get to that same feeling.
Its an impressive/well crafted world. Inventory didn't bother me. But yeah the gameplay just felt like a chore to me. Bloody Baron quest is overrated. The combat sometimes felt kinda fun I guess. I don't play that many different games but doubt it would crack my top 20 of this gen.
The story, world and characters are 10/10. Characters especially are unmatched. The combat is a rough 5/10 but it's also not really an issue because it's so easy. Inventory is fiddly but not in any sort of way I'd bother to complain about, takes a couple hours to get accustomed to
By all accounts Cyberpunk is just as good or close to it. Just very glitchy too, but so was W3 at launch
Literally the best thing about W3 for me. Still playing it now (the standalone version) and the new expansion just came out 3 days ago
I hate the camera/fov and the running and riding animations. One would think these aspects would be more cared about in a game this size. Not to talk about Witcher senses vision both aesthetically and as a mechanic in how it's used.
Combat was just ok, not worthy of a "game of the generation". It also got boring soon.
Yes there were a lot of quests (main and side) and many involved doing the same shit, but almost every one of them was engaging in some way and well written at least, whether it was more or less original (which many were too) and I can see it as a one of a kind in that regard, also better then both previous games in my opinion, in that aspect (in many others as well, let's be honest).
I don't think that alone warrants its status as goat for so many people though. Yeah it's a bit overrated imo. But clearly it has something special about it and I respect it, also it came out of nowhere, almost.
And the rpg thing, well, I think there's more than one way to look at it. For me, mass effect is more rpg than others with lots of stat numbers and character progression, so... Yeah the Witcher is a rpg in which you assume the role of a set character, pretty much. You can imprint your personality on the character and affect the world. Plus you get numbers to rise lol.
Combat was just ok, not worthy of a "game of the generation". It also got boring soon.
Yes there were a lot of quests (main and side) and many involved doing the same shit, but almost every one of them was engaging in some way and well written at least, whether it was more or less original (which many were too) and I can see it as a one of a kind in that regard, also better then both previous games in my opinion, in that aspect (in many others as well, let's be honest).
I don't think that alone warrants its status as goat for so many people though. Yeah it's a bit overrated imo. But clearly it has something special about it and I respect it, also it came out of nowhere, almost.
And the rpg thing, well, I think there's more than one way to look at it. For me, mass effect is more rpg than others with lots of stat numbers and character progression, so... Yeah the Witcher is a rpg in which you assume the role of a set character, pretty much. You can imprint your personality on the character and affect the world. Plus you get numbers to rise lol.
I hear you on that but understand that we went into each game expecting different things from them.
In my case, I went into TW3 expecting the same visceral combat found in BB. Unfortunately it does not have such things.
You went into BB expecting story driven narrative and heavy RPG elements which it does not have.
I wouldn't call BB an RPG. If anything its an Action game with lite RPG elements tied to it.
If the combat in TW3 was as fun and engaging in BB I would've stuck with it through and through. It's a main gameplay feature and unfortunately its story alone could not keep me engaged.
How you gonna say you enjoyed the first 2 games and then start off complaining about 3s combat?
It's good, I enjoyed my playthrough and I may eventually play through the expansions when the XSX patch hits. It still took me four attempts to get to Novigrad, once I hit that the game got a whole lot better.
It's starts off pretty meh though and I'm sure I'm not the only person who thought it took a while to get going. If it wasn't for the side quests then I'd probably have not thought that highly of it.
It's starts off pretty meh though and I'm sure I'm not the only person who thought it took a while to get going. If it wasn't for the side quests then I'd probably have not thought that highly of it.
Yeah, it's bizarre.
Maybe you could make that statement compared to Witcher 1 when it was completely different gameplay style so it's apples to oranges, but Witcher 2 was an incomprehensible mess of Assassin's Creed and Dark Souls elements that Witcher 3 actually turned to something functional finally
I dare anyone to go back to Witcher 2 after 3. It does not hold up, and I say this as somebody who beat Witcher 2 FOUR times
It's a pretty mediocre RPG with good writing (Though the last half of the main game has quite a few stinkers) and presentation, but most people point of reference nowadays are ME2 or Skyrim rather than stuff like BG2 so Geraldo 3 may as well have Arcanum level of depth compared to them.
The weirdest thing is how everyone praises the quest design while they are not complex as something like NW and like a good 50% of them are batman senses monster hunting quests that use the same structure. I guess they have good presentation though?
The weirdest thing is how everyone praises the quest design while they are not complex as something like NW and like a good 50% of them are batman senses monster hunting quests that use the same structure. I guess they have good presentation though?
My thoughts exactly.
Great writing, but everything else just is mediocre to good.
I enjoyed the game, but my biggest issue is that it overstays its welcome. I still have not finished the game and I've been coming back to it for years. Just when I thought I was at the finale, NOPE! It keeps going. I want it to be over. And I'm having a hard time coming back to finish it.
The bloody baron quest was excellent though. The highlight. I don't really care about the rest. All the politics bore me.
The bloody baron quest was excellent though. The highlight. I don't really care about the rest. All the politics bore me.
Of the four listed issues the only one I can really see how people feel that way is combat, and even then I enjoy it. It's not Bloodborne but if you enjoy mashy combat (or clicky on PC lol) it's a lot of fun in my opinion. I only played it on strong PCs but it's probably my game of the decade, certainly single player game of the decade.
The questing and side quests are fun from a writing and adventuring perspective, not role playing. The three Witcher titles, right from the start, were never good "role playing games" in the traditional sense of specific character builds and complex, diverse quest arcs that thrive on player agency and engagement. CDPR's "role playing" motif has always been more in dialogue choices and simply choosing what Geralt says and does in specific context, usually amounting to changing a character's fate or something along those lines. It's not supposed to be Fallout 2, New Vegas, Deus Ex, or any of those agency driven role playing games where interaction with game systems and stat values dramatically alter your progress through quests and their outcomes. The Witcher 3, like its predecessors, it's an action adventure RPG at heart, with emphasis on action and adventure. The quests won people over not with "role playing" or mechanical diversity, but the context of the stories they told, how they told them, and the adventuring they rewarded. The Witcher 3's questing is best viewed as an enormous compendium of short Witchery stories, and in that respect it's great.
While it did leverage a lot of archaic Batman-vision shit, the reason it became so iconic, beloved, and influential on other studios was because of CDPR's attention to detail in quest context and presentation. Even if they mechanically operated on very simple parameters and structure, with limited "role playing" nuance, they way most quests were presented was that of hand tailored, narrative driven events. Often in both scripted narrative and visual details quests and objectives had presence in the game world and a "story to tell". Even the most rudimentary, bland, checklisty "find the key, find the chest" world map missions had visual and note detail to tell a small story if you were paying attention. All of these things combined gave quests and adventures presence in the game world and aided tremendously in the moment-to-moment experience.
While it did leverage a lot of archaic Batman-vision shit, the reason it became so iconic, beloved, and influential on other studios was because of CDPR's attention to detail in quest context and presentation. Even if they mechanically operated on very simple parameters and structure, with limited "role playing" nuance, they way most quests were presented was that of hand tailored, narrative driven events. Often in both scripted narrative and visual details quests and objectives had presence in the game world and a "story to tell". Even the most rudimentary, bland, checklisty "find the key, find the chest" world map missions had visual and note detail to tell a small story if you were paying attention. All of these things combined gave quests and adventures presence in the game world and aided tremendously in the moment-to-moment experience.