But they don't need to polish gameplay "a bit" according to the thread's title. They need to polish it up A LOT in order for it to not be "shit" apparently.
-
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.
The Witcher 3: What if everyone got together and give a game a pass for having shit gameplay?
- Thread starter Deleted member 3534
- Start date
But they don't need to polish gameplay "a bit" according to the thread's title. They need to polish it up A LOT in order for it to not be "shit" apparently.
In a sea of people genuinely expressing themselves you found the post that allows you to believe what you want.
Yeah, it's all just a giant facade that we have organized in private to try and trick you because we're mad that W3 was popular on a different forum. You cracked the case.
Easily.
I get that people can get used to The Witcher 3's combat. Maybe even get so used to it that it becomes serviceable or maybe even approaches decent. But to outright deny there aren't any problems with it or that other games do it way, way better is just straight-up lying to yourselves, imho.
User warned: needless hostility
How about you just shut yer damn mouthpiece about stuff of which you know nothing, OP?
Witcher 3 is great and people know why it's great... And it's... NOT because of the gameplay! And yet you're cherry picking the worst part of a collective experience that is outstanding, oh jeez, you hater.
Witcher 3 is great and people know why it's great... And it's... NOT because of the gameplay! And yet you're cherry picking the worst part of a collective experience that is outstanding, oh jeez, you hater.
I mean I enjoyed the gameplay. Geralt tracks and kills monsters, so naturally there would have to be some mechanic in there which aids you, not wanting that or appreciating that is like asking a dog sniffing out drugs to not use it's nose.
I think the combat is solid. No it isn't the most fluid, it isn't the type of game which uses the environment to aid or switch up combat but it's still decent.
They put time into the beastiary, to aid you in future battles etc, I appreciated it anyway.
Just because other parts of the game are really strong doesn't mean a weaker part of the game has to be really really shit
I think the combat is solid. No it isn't the most fluid, it isn't the type of game which uses the environment to aid or switch up combat but it's still decent.
They put time into the beastiary, to aid you in future battles etc, I appreciated it anyway.
Just because other parts of the game are really strong doesn't mean a weaker part of the game has to be really really shit
I disagree almost completely about the combat system. There are different trees, you have a lot of different combat options to make it flow smoother and there are mods on PC on top of that.
You can change it up quite a bit in combat to make it more fun with signs usage, bombs, different moves, etc... It just seems OP went about the most boring way at it.
For quest design, the base system is fairly plain. The writing, characters and interaction is what makes it great. As someone above said, it's hard to come up with a better system for a 3rd person perspective with real time action combat.
Yeah, there was a bit too much over reliance on detective sense but it worked at the end. I can see however that if someone doesn't find the writing interesting how they would be frustrated.
You can change it up quite a bit in combat to make it more fun with signs usage, bombs, different moves, etc... It just seems OP went about the most boring way at it.
For quest design, the base system is fairly plain. The writing, characters and interaction is what makes it great. As someone above said, it's hard to come up with a better system for a 3rd person perspective with real time action combat.
Yeah, there was a bit too much over reliance on detective sense but it worked at the end. I can see however that if someone doesn't find the writing interesting how they would be frustrated.
So there are only certain posts I can respond to? The one I responded to was off limits? Gotcha. Thanks for clueing me in.
And yet you responded to me and not the person that made the post to tell him he was wrong. I'm the one that's wrong for responding to him. Again, gotcha.
The amount isn't really relevant. The point is that improving gameplay doesn't have to happen at the expense of other aspects of the game. It can, but that's on the pub/dev, not people giving feedback.
that's like saying if you eat on an amazing restaurant,it's hard to enjoy any other food.
As i said before,hyperbole is fun and this forum is oozing of it.
"Last of Us story was amazing,can't enjoy any other game's story now", "Breath of the Wild's map was monumental,can't play any other open world now"
Ridiculous freaking logic right there
The combat isn't very good in the game, although I did find the DLC combat encounters to be really well designed.
Game makes the mistake of giving you far too many options that work in a lot of situations, and the game is incredibly unbalanced because of it.
There are far worse combat designs in games though, especially in the WRPG realm. The combat is amazing compared to something like Skyrim
Game makes the mistake of giving you far too many options that work in a lot of situations, and the game is incredibly unbalanced because of it.
There are far worse combat designs in games though, especially in the WRPG realm. The combat is amazing compared to something like Skyrim
I never had a problem with the gameplay; I quite enjoyed it. If not coming here, I never would have imagined that people have issues with it.
In a way yes. Witcher 2 didn't stop geralt from running around while fighting an enemy just because he was in his battle stance.
I never got the whole "X has ruined gaming for me" thing, unless that person only plays a couple of genres. Can you imagine how ridiculous the implications sound?
"Witcher 3 was so good I can't enjoy SimCity 4 any more."
"I keep wanting to play Forza Horizon but all I can think about is how much better Doom is."
So I get your issues with that. But how come you're OK with TLGs control /camera issues and just general movement? From my own experience it's on par, if not worse than w3
Quen is like the least op most tedious way to play.... try using decoctions and alchemy to really break the game.
Also Witcher 3 has maybe the most fun gameplay in an action RPG. The constant 'worst combat ever' hyperbole is something that always greatly confused me.
Also Witcher 3 has maybe the most fun gameplay in an action RPG. The constant 'worst combat ever' hyperbole is something that always greatly confused me.
It's not great, true. It's definitely its weakest part. I would say the controls during the fight are the issue, as Geralt almost dances during these battles. One never fully feels in controls of him somehow. Still, I love everything else about it. It's crazy how long it was too, coupled with the quality.
The reason why it's on such a high piller for me has barely anything to do with gameplay.
In my eyes there are two types of games that can be considered top tier.
The ones with the most sublime gameplay like Mario Kart or DOOM. It's where the gameplay hook is so amazing the parts surrounding it don't need to pick up any slack.
Then there are the world immersing, beautiful looking games with great RPG systems. The Witcher 3 and Fallout New Vegas fall in to this category. The actual "gameplay" aka the combat is terrible. It dosent matter though. It isn't needed because the world and systems are so great.
In my eyes there are two types of games that can be considered top tier.
The ones with the most sublime gameplay like Mario Kart or DOOM. It's where the gameplay hook is so amazing the parts surrounding it don't need to pick up any slack.
Then there are the world immersing, beautiful looking games with great RPG systems. The Witcher 3 and Fallout New Vegas fall in to this category. The actual "gameplay" aka the combat is terrible. It dosent matter though. It isn't needed because the world and systems are so great.
The combat is not bad at all. Just stop comparing it to other games and you will be fine. And to be honest, if you played the game without investing in Alchemy you're missing half the experince. The witcher combat shines when you actually prepare yourself before each encounter and rewards you for doing so.
I highly disagree with OP , for the following reasons.
The witcher 3 is beautifull game , but i don't play it to be lost within in. Yes you're following a path , but the thing the game ask you is not to find something but what you , the player wants to do once you've reached your destination. I had fun playing as geralt because i took decisions , not because i found a clue about some monster / event. The quest design was fine because the goal was to present the player alternative on how you deal with certain situation and you had plenty.
Watching the rest of the game on youtube is forsaking your adventure of playing as geralt , of making your own decision within that world , i wouldn't recommand it.
As for the combat , quen is not the only available option and i'm a quen player . If i wanted to do something else i had other deadlier options and that's not even counting the stuff the expansion added , instead of defending , why not use a crowd control sign ? or you could control your ennemies with the agni ? The combat becomes trivial if you exploit something ? but that's the intended purpose ?!
The witcher 3 is beautifull game , but i don't play it to be lost within in. Yes you're following a path , but the thing the game ask you is not to find something but what you , the player wants to do once you've reached your destination. I had fun playing as geralt because i took decisions , not because i found a clue about some monster / event. The quest design was fine because the goal was to present the player alternative on how you deal with certain situation and you had plenty.
Watching the rest of the game on youtube is forsaking your adventure of playing as geralt , of making your own decision within that world , i wouldn't recommand it.
As for the combat , quen is not the only available option and i'm a quen player . If i wanted to do something else i had other deadlier options and that's not even counting the stuff the expansion added , instead of defending , why not use a crowd control sign ? or you could control your ennemies with the agni ? The combat becomes trivial if you exploit something ? but that's the intended purpose ?!
I don't get why and how this kind of topic are still ok to open. Maybe for the loz...
There's nothing to elaborate or to debate. You don't like the story and the gameplay, that's ok. Some hate Zelda and that's ok. But don't call it shit or shit gameplay since most of people are clueless about shit gameplay is. Fantasia on the MD has a shit gameplay. It's not responsive. It's freaking not possible to play, or very hard due to some serious input lags. There is no such problem in Witcher III.
It's not because some don't like the formula chosen in X game, they have to call the gameplay "shit". Gerald is responsive, it's nothing like Mickey in Fantasia or that motion plus Zelda on the Wii....
And the majority has spoken. I had no problem with the gameplay, some choices can be strange but at least it's different from what you get on other games.
I'm just wondering, since WItcher III is so "shit", so "garbage", how do you call that Motion + Zelda on the Wii? What is worse than shit? I'm just wondering.It's not about trashing that game or to do games wars, its just to name more important failures than what you say is this game. Ultra shit ? 64 shit? Art?
There's nothing to elaborate or to debate. You don't like the story and the gameplay, that's ok. Some hate Zelda and that's ok. But don't call it shit or shit gameplay since most of people are clueless about shit gameplay is. Fantasia on the MD has a shit gameplay. It's not responsive. It's freaking not possible to play, or very hard due to some serious input lags. There is no such problem in Witcher III.
It's not because some don't like the formula chosen in X game, they have to call the gameplay "shit". Gerald is responsive, it's nothing like Mickey in Fantasia or that motion plus Zelda on the Wii....
And the majority has spoken. I had no problem with the gameplay, some choices can be strange but at least it's different from what you get on other games.
I'm just wondering, since WItcher III is so "shit", so "garbage", how do you call that Motion + Zelda on the Wii? What is worse than shit? I'm just wondering.It's not about trashing that game or to do games wars, its just to name more important failures than what you say is this game. Ultra shit ? 64 shit? Art?
Last edited:
Some hot takes I get. Some I sort of get. This one is baffling to me. It's not shit. Something not amazing is not shit, it's just ok. Ok is not bad.
I don't know, been hearing this since day one but I just can't wrap my head around the fact that people think the game plays like shit.
I don't know, been hearing this since day one but I just can't wrap my head around the fact that people think the game plays like shit.
I agree and the main story of the game is not great either. Like the whole wild goose chase stuff is so done to death, after the first 2/3 of the game i was falling asleep from boredom. The game has definitely some very strong story beats and side quests but overall i can not understand the universal acclaim it gets. I probably would not call it shit though maybe mediocre.
I hate this take.
But I mean there are people who love shallow medicore games cause of gameplay alone *cough Dragons Dogma cough*
But I mean there are people who love shallow medicore games cause of gameplay alone *cough Dragons Dogma cough*
Bloodborne is an action game first, RPG second.
Witcher is reversed. Most of the Witcher's efforts went into the amazing writing and storylines and the look and feel of the world. Bloodbornes went into combat and atmosphere.
They are very very different games.
Witcher is reversed. Most of the Witcher's efforts went into the amazing writing and storylines and the look and feel of the world. Bloodbornes went into combat and atmosphere.
They are very very different games.
I liked DD, but I never finished it.
Same with Skyrim.
Same with most open world really.
I finished Witcher 3 and both expansions back to back.
Good writing can really carry other elements in a game.
Right?
I didn't even love the later combat in Horizon either but I needed to see what happened
Yeah gameplay is plain garbo especially on the highest difficulty with it's reverse difficulty curve. But man the story, atmosphere and everything else is just phenomenal. While better gameplay is always welcomed, I always put more stock on story. That's why I would rather play Deadly Premonition than BotW
The amount of hyperbole this game gets is so mind-blowing.
Yes the combat isn't the best and you can cheese through it but that's not a bad thing. It does everything perfectly apart from the combat but that doesn't mean the gameplay itself sucks. It is serviceable.
Yes the combat isn't the best and you can cheese through it but that's not a bad thing. It does everything perfectly apart from the combat but that doesn't mean the gameplay itself sucks. It is serviceable.
This is true, but at the same time it doesn't grant Bloodborne immunity from storytelling or roleplaying criticism or Witcher 3 from gameplay criticism.
Something From was smart about is that you can engage with the world and lore as much as you like. "Don't like it? Okay, we won't let it get in the way." Witcher 3 forces combat on you in almost every quest whether you like it or not.
Do they though? Skyrim definitely doesn't. It's just that with Skyrim everyone goes "aye, it's shit" and that's it. People are much less unanimous when it comes to Witcher 3 and that's why it's still getting long threads years later.
The combat gameplay is pretty varied but the game gives you little incentive to explore most of it, unfortunately.
But OP, you have to play Hearts Of Stone, probably the best piece of content there is.
But OP, you have to play Hearts Of Stone, probably the best piece of content there is.
Use the Ghost Mode overhaul mod.
Game goes from a 9.5/10 to a solid 10.
Trust me on this, it's a game changer on DM.
Game goes from a 9.5/10 to a solid 10.
Trust me on this, it's a game changer on DM.
The fighting mechanics are okay, it's just in the base game the encounters were poorly designed. In the DLCs, the erratic movements of the spider swarms, and the intoruction of shield carriers to bandits along with clever staging of archers and nimble sword users made combat much more mobile and strategic and encouraged using a variety of signs.
And that's without even going into some of the bosses in the DLC, which also have unique and interesting powers/designs.
All-in-all the DLC is really good. And because it's designed for higher level play, you should have a full range of abilities to use.
And that's without even going into some of the bosses in the DLC, which also have unique and interesting powers/designs.
All-in-all the DLC is really good. And because it's designed for higher level play, you should have a full range of abilities to use.
Its not that The Witcher has shit gameplay in a vacuum. Its not bad, just way below the quality of the rest of the game and there is a lot of jank in just moving around. Even then its not bad, again in a vacuum. Playing Dragons Dogma made TW3 combat feel even worse.
You still have a padded out and poorly paced story that peaks with the Velen arc and never gets as good, monotonous quest design with uncompelling choices, an uninteresting main character, and a lack of good antagonists outside of the DLCs.
Also holy crap, do people get mad if you dare suggest something about the Witcher 3 is bad lol. With all the praise the game gets the last thing it needs is a pass for things people can actually admit maybe it doesn't do perfectly.
Also holy crap, do people get mad if you dare suggest something about the Witcher 3 is bad lol. With all the praise the game gets the last thing it needs is a pass for things people can actually admit maybe it doesn't do perfectly.
Playing Witcher 3 made dragons dogma look like a RPG maker project in regard to story, lore and worldbuilding.
The pendulum swings both ways
I think the issue is people not equating "not perfect" with "shit", understandably.
Most people admit it's serviceable. They just disagree with the notion that it's bad.
You can substitute TW3 for any game and "shit gameplay" for any other asinine comment.
This.
I think people that utilize this phrase and the like are extremely easy to dismiss. Which is to say, that it is hard to take seriously people that use hyperbole as a final statement, rather than as lingustic construct, possibly to illustrate setting more meaningful.
Last edited: