The Witcher 3: What if everyone got together and give a game a pass for having shit gameplay?

4859 said:

Id say the visuals, audio, vo, and particularly the writing are far and away vastly superior to the game play.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Ok, sure. I concede that I may have misspoken and that the combat may, in fact, be the worst part of the game. However, that speaks more to the quality of the rest of the game. And anyway, I really don't see how it could be any better, at least not without making it more like DMC or NGB, which would completely change the feel of the game. Then again, I don't particularly care to play Bloodborne or any Dark Souls game beyond DS1, which I'm sure is limiting my imagination in this case.

The combat was simplistic, but I didn't mind it too much. It's not supposed to be the game's draw, I don't think. The part I didn't really care for was the formula where you use the mini-map to you find someone talking about their missing ladle, you go to their house, turn on detective vision, follow the dotted line to a clue that makes Geralt say it might be the work of blueberry imp, follow the line some more to find that it is indeed an imp, fight it, retrieve the ladle, find a message that the imp married the ladle, follow the mini-map back to the dude who comments that the ladle smells funky, and you get nothing of worth for your time.

Melubas said:

This is my take on things: I never found the combat "bad", it was good enough that you didn't really think about it. When I play an RPG gameplay is the least important part, but to say TW3 has shit combat/gameplay is just silly. It's above average in most aspects. It would be interesting to hear what format people played it on since bad framerate can make a game feel jankier than it really is. I played on PC (mostly 60 fps with some drops). I also don't understand the repetitive quests complaint. Literally every game ever made has repetitive gameplay loops. It's what games are built on. I can't for the life of me think of a game built like TW3 that has more varied quests (plus, the variation is in the narrative and it's awesome) besides Planescape Torment and the likes, and those quests are completely narrative based, so peeps would probably like that even less.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Planescape's main complaint is in its gameplay/combat and how it doesn't really benefit a whole lot from being an isometric RPG. In many ways, it could just be perfectly fine as a visual novel. For a lot of people, its why something like Baldur's Gate 2 has far more staying power despite both being Infinity Engine games that draw their core mechanics from Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. The combat scenarios in Baldur's Gate 2 are normally fairly interesting in a puzzle solving sort of way and the conditions of that puzzle are generally dynamic as its dependent on your party/class choices.

The Witcher 3's combat (few truly varied enemy types and encounters) and quest progression (hold right mouse button, follow tracks, let Geralt go "hmmmm", pick one of two options) definitely has problems in its presentation that do hinder its long term enjoyment. Like the OP states, there's an argument to be made that you're not really losing a whole lot if you just watch a truncated version of The Witcher 3 which is a big problem for a high budget action RPG.

On PC there are mods that substantially improve combat. It still isn't a top tier system, but it makes it enjoyable combined with the game's visceral punch.

If the game was entirely swordfighting, I'd have never given it a pass...

I felt like the game was amazing despite that, which is weird for me...

Stygr said:

"The Witcher 3 combat is garbage" is a hot take from ERA/GAF. People are still mad because TW3 won the GOTY at VGA over Bloodborne and they made up this rethoric to discredit the game.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This quote is so hilariously off-base, why would anyone need to "make up" Witcher 3's gameplay being bad?...

The gameplay side of The Witcher 3 is considerably weaker than almost everything else, that's for sure. But "shit"? Nah dude. It's serviceable, that's the best and worst thing that can be said about it.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) said:

But it's complete shit on the gameplay front. Even on the hardest difficulty, the combat becomes trivial as you level up and exploit quen and use the gourmet. One could avoid breaking the game in this way but then the combat just becomes tedious and frustrating. Dodge, get a couple hits in, dodge, repeat ad infinitum. The combat is widely acknowledged to be the weakest part of the game but I think there's a much weaker component and that's the over-reliance on detective err... witcher senses.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Don't use Quen. I made that mistake in Witcher 2 and it completely trivialized the combat. It's always been an overpowered ability and you basically ruined combat for yourself by using it.

The most interesting build in W3 is alchemy + magic (minus Quen). Don't even put any points into the sword skills. Focusing on alchemy makes preparation a much bigger deal, as you'll need to use the correct oils and potions for any given enemy. Figuring out the best potion combos is a lot of fun. It also makes you feel like more of a witcher.

It's unfortunate when games allow you to play in ways that effectively ruin the game. People always take the path of least resistance and in this case, that's Quen.

Though, if you genuinely want an improved experience, you can just buy the respec potion and switch to the build I recommended. It's guaranteed to make combat more interesting.

NotVeryFriendly said:

Playing poorly is to use any other build, because Alchemy with Sword is by far the optimal way to play the game, particularly on Death March, because it raises your health to an absurd amount and opens up stupid levels of damage which far exceed what you can get through the sign build. Unlike most RPGs it's not just trivialised when you're over the enemies' level, it's still a total slog when you're equal level to them (from about level 20 onwards, and particularly by the time you've reached level 35).

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Or you could just go for an interesting build that's effective but not OP. Just because you can min-max doesn't mean you have to. Focusing on magic (minus Quen) and alchemy exclusively made combat interesting.

Philtastic said:

This is so wrong but is also what I see come up the most. I think that it's a particular problem for the Witcher 3 because it's a game that allows you to play poorly and yet, through attrition of dodging and getting those 1-2 hits in, still eventually succeed, unlike other games where you have particular gimmick enemies that just can't be defeated at all unless you use specific abilities. Quen is actually the worst sign to use against the large majority of enemies because it doesn't (normally) do any damage, doesn't interrupt enemies, doesn't crowd control, doesn't give you instant kills, and (on higher difficulties) doesn't last that long, often only absorbing 1-2 hits. What it does is give you is a very brief opening to get a couple of swings (or whirl) in before it goes down and you have to go back to dodging until you can use Quen again. Igni and Aard are almost always better to use because these DO interrupt a wide arc of enemies and DO crowd control by lighting them on fire or knocking them down which leaves them open to your attacks or instant kill finishers. You say that Whirl just slaughters everything. How does Whirl do against human opponents? They typically block the large majority of it and, eventually, a couple of swings get through. It takes so long and is frustrating to be constantly blocked. Whirl also uses your stamina which means that you aren't able to Quen right away which also means that, if you're still facing multiple opponents, you might not be able to safely Whirl again for awhile. Instead of just brainlessly Whirling up against blocks or waiting for stamina, you could have just blown them all up with grapeshot bombs or knocked them all down with Aard and finished at least 2 of them instantly. Keep hitting them with Aard or Igni to knock their guard down which makes them open to attacks. Hitting fire-susceptible enemies with Igni or Dancing Star bombs lights them on fire which crowd controls them and makes them open to your attacks since they can't block or gang up on you, simultaneously eliminating any need for Quen (since no one can attack you), does damage, and gives you openings for your sword strikes. Combine that with Tawny Owl potion and your "single cool down" goes down to ~3-4 seconds which leads to a nice rhythm of sign, 2-3 swings, maybe a dodge to reposition, sign, and repeat, throw bombs as needed.

Bombs are another thing that a lot of people completely underestimate. You think Whirl is good with Quen? Try Whirl after you blind everyone with Samum or freeze them all with Northern Winds which locks everyone down for 4+ seconds. Not only do you remove everyone's guard, but you prevent them from ganging up on you and interrupting your Whirl. As the bestiary highlights, Quen is mostly for large enemies that cannot be crowd controlled and have slow, high damage attacks where you just need to bypass their one swing to get your multitude of strikes in before you roll out, Quen up, and attack again. The fact that you CAN kill pretty much everything by using Quen, dodging, Whirling, and having patience doesn't mean that it's the most effective way of doing so.

I will concede, however, that by end game when you've got lots of skill points and witcher gear and out level pretty much everything, the combat does become pretty trivial... which is pretty much standard for any RPG ever.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

In the early levels of Death March, which is specifically what the OP is playing on, you die in one to three hits by quite a lot of enemies. The ability to survive an additional hit is of far more value than any of the other signs offer until you've seriously invested in them when the status effects play a larger part (and Aaxi at it's lowest level can still be used to instant kill human enemies who out-level you if that ends up a problem).

By the mid-game and later levels (in which case you still have a lot you can potentially do, most likely the DLC which is where this becomes a much more serious problem), you can tank more hits even on Death March. If you invest in Alchemy you can boost your health to ridiculous levels and dying is highly unlikely unless you serious make a mistake. The highest DPS is using Whirl, which, yes, does slaughter human opponents as well as pretty much anything in the game (I'm not sure if you've ever actually used it, but their block breaks while you use it before any significant portion of your stamina has been used and it goes through groups without much issue). At this point Whirl is not only the best damage output which you have access to but you no longer need Quen (and yes at this point the other signs have more utility, but you've reached a point where it's just as effective to not use them) because your absurd health pool makes surviving an additional hit totally negligible. Bombs certainly can be useful, but are completely unnecessary when the combat is already so trivialised to the degree there's nothing engaging about it. By the time you've access to the later level Alchemy Skills you've eliminated the need to use any of the defensive signs. By the time you've access to both the later Alchemy Skills and Whirl the combat is just there to slog through until you can get to the actual interesting part in the game. Playing poorly is to use any other build, because Alchemy with Sword is by far the optimal way to play the game, particularly on Death March, because it raises your health to an absurd amount and opens up stupid levels of damage which far exceed what you can get through the sign build. Unlike most RPGs it's not just trivialised when you're over the enemies' level, it's still a total slog when you're equal level to them (from about level 20 onwards, and particularly by the time you've reached level 35). If you think it's playing wrong to use the Alchemy and Sword paths (two of the three paths on offer to you, which open up far more damage potential and survivability than you ever get in the comparatively weak Sign path) then I'm not even sure how to respond because if you think that I'm not sure how you can not think that aspect of the game is designed anyway but poorly.

By the time the combat is trivial in The Witcher 3 you still can have anywhere from 30 to 60 hours left of content in the game. If it was only at the very end where this occurred then yes, it wouldn't be a big deal, but it happens when you still have a massive chunk of content in the game left which is why it's such an issue, because the game relies on using Witcher Sense and Combat to pad out quests when neither is engaging and it is subtracting from all of the good that's actually in the quest (the plot, the characters, the writing).

Jerykk said:

Or you could just go for an interesting build that's effective but not OP. Just because you can min-max doesn't mean you have to. Focusing on magic (minus Quen) and alchemy exclusively made combat interesting.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Using Alchemy removes any interesting aspect from the game's combat, and you're even suggesting this as a way to make the game 'more interesting'.

As soon as you use Alchemy your survivability becomes so absurdly high with Acquired Tolerance and Tissue Transformation that the combat becomes brainless, particularly when tied to Gourmet as the OP highlights. If you have to purposely go out of the way to ignore what are plainly seen as the best abilities (because Sign on Death March simply never remotely reaches a level of damage output available in the other paths) to gimp your character to try and make the combat interesting I'm not buying the claim it's somebody choosing to ruin the game for themselves and think it's much more evident there are more serious underlying issues with the gameplay (in terms of the balance which is available in the abilities, the simplicity of the combat being such that it's no more interesting to use the most effective route than to use a lesser route, and the game not providing any incentive to explore alternative options when any alternative is just making your character weaker and lengthening out combat encounters).

At the lower levels of the game on Death March Quen is by far the most logical thing to use in any scenario (except fighting over level human enemies) because the enemy damage output is so high that an additional hit is more valuable than crowd control offered by the other signs, and choosing to use a single cool down timer for signs discourages you from using anything else.

At the higher levels, if you include Alchemy in your character's build then quen's utility drops sufficiently so that it is encouraged to use other abilities, but the issue at this point is that you end up with such a massive hit pool with so many restorative options that using abilities is just delaying your main damage output. If you choose not to include Alchemy in your character's build then you never increase your health pool to the extent that Quen's utility over the other signs is diminished enough to encourage using anything else, in which case the sword path makes more sense to level than the sign path and you are lowering your damage output by using signs other than quen. There are major design flaws in the combat and levelling system (before we even touch on things like how Geralt controls, how the world was populated, the repetitivity of the quest design and over reliance on Witcher Sense) when there are options which are very clearly more effective than others to the extent that people claim using them 'breaks the game'/'ruins combat for oneself'.

NotVeryFriendly said:

I'm not buying the claim it's 'playing wrong'

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Anyone saying another player is "playing it wrong" should really think a bit more about what they're writing.

I mean I think there are some areas where this kind of argument can be admissible, like when someone insists on playing on "hard" and then complains that the game is too hard. Or when someone forces him/herself to play a game he/she definitely doesn't like.

But for the most part, there is no "wrong" way to play a game. If Quen breaks the game, then the right answer is not "don't use Quen". It's "Quen breaks the game".

I agree, the combat sucks big time. The funny thing is I started collecting Plats with W3 on PS4 although I didn't even enjoy it that much.
I dragged myself through the last hours of my first playthrough on second hardest difficulty and ended up with close to 80% of the trophies which
encouraged me (pls don't judge me) to do a sort-of-speed-run (25 hours) before NG+ was out on hardest diff.. And boy was it easy to exploit the combat. Even more so with the knowledge gathered on my first playthrough - all on Quen and Blood March or what it was called is easy mode, except (fuck this game's balance) those wraths in the Baron quest with that annoying check point.
I remember how I was able to kill some of the big slow enemies like golems 10 levels above me with a tedious fast hit- fast hit-backstep combo.

This should've been a Pokemon-type Gwent game and I would've liked it way more. The rest of the gameplay is painfully average sometimes even below average. People who enjoyed side-activities like the horse-races are surely into S&M aswell. On of these was more frustrating than anything I've experienced in the entire Souls series, because Geralt's horse is an asshole.

The Witcher 3 I played didn't have "shit" gameplay; I'm not going to give something I like a "pass".

There's plenty of repetition but that's a characteristic of every game. It just comes down to whether or not you like the gameplay loop, which I did.

Morrigan said:

Depends on how you define "quest". Is, say, the Pilgrims of Dark covenant quest in Dark Souls 2 something we can define as a "quest" even if it has no journal entry or marker? I'd say so, and I'd count that as more than just, "talk to NPC -> follow markers to place -> do a thing -> end quest", it's far more than that.

Also, Fallout New Vegas (Beyond the Beef, Come Fly With Me, etc.). Bloodborne (Eileen side-quest, the umbilical cords side-quest, + all the optional/secret areas are arguably "side-quests"). Deus Ex and Dishonored games also have a few cool and/or interesting side-quests that go beyond the simple formula. Sometimes it's about the writing being good enough to support what is a simple quest gameplay wise, but sometimes it's in the gameplay itself.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I can't tell you anything about the Dark Souls quests cause I don't remember them (same with Bloodborne tbh) but the Beyond the Beef quest for example is a perfect example of how breaking quest quests down to a couple of super basic mechanics is a dumb thing to do.
If you check the somewhat famous flow-graph you'll see that pretty much every step involves talking so somebody, getting an item or fighting. Of course it does, those are the mechanics of a game.

As an example, in Dishonored 2 you can either go through a level or solve a logic puzzle right at the beginning and basically skip the entire level. That's just super fucking cool. Yet if you break it down enough, it also just turns into "Go to place"

That's why I hate it when people say quests are formulaic because they only involve "Talk to NPC, go to place, talk/fight/get item, end quest" cause that's just doing a huge disservice to game and quest design. It's just amazingly stupid to me to basically equate a quest like Tower of Mice with a standard "Kill 10 rats" MMO quest. The Witcher 3 has tons of quests that plays with the formula, just as any other decent game has. Because a game is more than just it's gameplay loop and it's mechanics and that's what I was trying to point out, maybe not all that successfully.

The Witcher 3 is a good game, but the combat sucks. Not as bad as in 1 and 2, but still.... =/

That mission were you had to stay inside the forcefields and fight off enemies while the forcefield was moving was so frustrating and really showed off how kinda "not good" the basic mechanics are

Fantastapotamus said:

I can't tell you anything about the Dark Souls quests cause I don't remember them (same with Bloodborne tbh) but the Beyond the Beef quest for example is a perfect example of how breaking quest quests down to a couple of super basic mechanics is a dumb thing to do.
If you check the somewhat famous flow-graph you'll see that pretty much every step involves talking so somebody, getting an item or fighting. Of course it does, those are the mechanics of a game.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

But that's not what the discussion was about, which was about following brain-dead crumbtrails from point A to point B. I do see what you mean about being reductive, but I don't think o k was doing that, he made it clear he was talking about following a glowing trail that holds your hand the whole time.

Wamb0wneD said:

Very subtle lmao. (OP didn't mention Zelda.)
The OP also sepcifically stated he loved the story, so no idea where you got that from.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

What's the point if this post?

I've got to say, it's one of my games of the generation - if not the game of the generation. As someone who loves tight combat, I get the complaints, but I think it really is one of those scenarios where if you work against the game and go melee first, you'll find it slow going. The game opened up considerably for me when I re-allotted my stats on NG+ and dumped most of my talents into alchemy. It's a powerful, but often neglected skill-tree, and opens the game up in some crazy ways - but I don't blame anyone for overlooking it as the game does a lousy job of incentivising players to pursue it early on.

That said, once you do get to grips with it, dousing your enemies with poisonous cluster bombs and then running in with Superior Golden Oriel running (which will actually cause the poison to heal you) is a great feeling and a nice reward for having taken the time to prepare your attack.

Morrigan said:

But that's not what the discussion was about, which was about following brain-dead crumbtrails from point A to point B. I do see what you mean about being reductive, but I don't think o k was doing that, he made it clear he was talking about following a glowing trail that holds your hand the whole time.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

But that's also not what's happening in every Witcher 3 quest, not even close.

Hmm, I don't really like the thread title - nobody got together and gave the game a pass. You think there are people on forums that try to shut others down if they complained about the game. Nah.

But yeah I can agree that The Witcher 3 doesn't have the most exciting combat or investigative gameplay. I agree the combat is largely broken, not only from spamming that invincible shield, but also the leveling up, monsters put up a fight at the start of the game, but 30-40 hours in, everything is a walk in the park. The monsters are unbalanced. The investigative gameplay is pretty lame. And Skellige is largely uninteresting main story wise, versus Velen/Novigrad.

I LOVED the first half of The Witcher 3, but the second half of the game doesn't live up to the first half. It smells like the game was rushed out to the door and they couldn't delay it again. The game feels meticulously crafted up to around Novigrad, and then unedited afterwards. How many reviewers played 60 hours to play through the entire game before release? Does it even matter anymore, everyone loves the game on Steam reviews anyway. This game has a lot of stuff to do, and that's what gamers love, even if they're just things dotted on a map.

The only thing that annoys me is floaty Geralt combat.

I need to finish this game

RDreamer said:

Shit gameplay is just complete hyperbole. I can understand not liking it as much as other games, but come on. Especially the category of game that Witcher 3 is in, the gameplay is at the top of the heap. I mean look at games like Oblivion/Skyrim/Fallout and GTA. In my opinion Witcher 3 stands head and shoulders above those. It's not even a question. A lot of open world games and especially open world RPGs just aren't that great for gameplay.

But personally I loved Witcher 3's gameplay. I'd take it over Bloodborne any day of the week, but I suppose I'm the only one thinking that.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

No way

It's no Dragon's Dogma when it comes to the combat... but no other game is. I actually really enjoyed the combat in The Witcher 3, even if the combat itself isn't what makes it the best game of this gen. Here's a random vid I made of some swordplay. This is an end game totally OP build, I just really loved hacking the enemies to pieces:

God I hope CDPR won't listen to Souls fans and won't make the next Witcher with Souls like combat. That would be just sad.

Grimminski said:

It's not tedious though. If you're purposefully going through the game only playing it 1 way, then that's entirely on you. You're not given bombs, potions, oils, magic, and a wide variety of build options just so you can mash the the light attack button.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This is partially on the leveling system. The combat needs all of its systems firing on all cylinders to really get going, but it lets you invest in only 2 or 3 of them properly.

People say "use igni", but with 0 points in signs it's like farting at the enemy with a 10 second cooldown and you're not allowed to to use abilities you've actually invested in while you're at it.

You could say that RPGs are about making these decisions in your build, but is it worth it when gameplay variety suffers so much for it?

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) said:

I'm at the Ugly Baby (returning to Kaer Morhen questline in Witcher 3 after 80 hours completing side-quests, doing the main story and struggling with the cycle of abuse foisted upon me by this game. For 80 hours I was dragged through my eyes and ears. This is a beautiful looking and gorgeous sounding production. The game is a treasure trove of interesting characters with genuine depth and even some of the most throw-away side quests serve to engross you in the world. I remember stumbling across some ruins and finding a monster that was tricking a group of people into thinking he was a god of some kind but really he was just a gluttonous troublemaker. The quest maybe took all of 10 minutes but is a prime example of why I hung on for as long as I did.

I can't take away the praise the game gets on these fronts. It deserves ALL the accolades it's gotten for it's story, world, characters, music, writing. All of it.

But it's complete shit on the gameplay front. Even on the hardest difficulty, the combat becomes trivial as you level up and exploit quen and use the gourmet. One could avoid breaking the game in this way but then the combat just becomes tedious and frustrating. Dodge, get a couple hits in, dodge, repeat ad infinitum. The combat is widely acknowledged to be the weakest part of the game but I think there's a much weaker component and that's the over-reliance on detective err... witcher senses.

I know it isn't an original criticism, but Jesus Fucking Christ the actual GAMEPLAY part of the quests is atrocious. I'm trying to think of a single quest that didn't involve having to follow a hard to see trail by holding down a button and stop every few steps to investigate a clue. I'm sure they're here but after 80 hours I can't remember any. And it's the reason I'm dropping playing the game and why I'm just going to watch the rest of it on YouTube.

It's hard to hold it against the game though. The nature of the dialog and story-driven quests make it difficult for me to think of another way they could have done them. Things like the Shrine Quests found in Breath of the Wild are fun but they aren't good vehicles for delivering narrative. It's hard to say how The Witcher 3 could improve because there's not much to compare it to. There's nothing else out there this ambitious. It's probably a failing on my part but I can't see The Witcher 3 improving on this aspect of its design without sacrificing a part of what makes it so special.

So yeah. I want to go on. I want to see it through to the end (and beyond). But I just don't see the gameplay improving. I think it's just going to keep getting better from a narrative sense but I'll be following footprints and scent trails up until the ending credits. So I guess I'll implore you, any recommendations for good Let's Play or story vids so I can enjoy the best parts of the game without having to suffer through another Witcher sense session?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Sees topic, expects there to be page after page of posts on how wrong you are. Wasn't disappointed in that regard, but I was similarly disappointed with the game for the same reasons, despite everything else being top notch. It never improves gameplay wise in the expansions either, but both are still worth playing for everything else. If you can force yourself to ignore the combat. And points if disinterest. And all dropped equipment.

Anyway, it was probably my biggest disappointment next to Dark Souls 2 coming off of (IMO far superiorly paced) TW2, but I won't say I didn't enjoy my first playthrough. I could just do with less open world nonsense, especially when it clashes so badly with the main story.

dgrdsv said:

God I hope CDPR won't listen to Souls fans and won't make the next Witcher with Souls like combat. That would be just sad.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Somehow, Demon's Souls was an "influence" on TW2 and Dark Souls was an "influence" on TW3 according to CDPR. Aside from the prenerfed TW2 damage levels, I don't see it anywhere.

Honestly, sometimes some games really can ruin your time with another. If the Souls games and Dragon's Dogma did not exist, I would probably like the combat more. Or at least dislike it less. But we now live in a post Demon's Dogma world, and there's no going back for me.

Exentryk said:

Using Axii to stun an airborne Griffin feels great!

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I love the animations of many of the monsters too. I just wish the feedback didn't feel like I was a ballerina whose sword cuts deep into a block of wood, instead of actually feeling any weight with what looks like a truly heavy strike. The combat is so egregious to me, because it has such a great foundation. It's like a few tweaks here and there and it would have been really good. Magic wasn't any better in that regard either before a few patches. It felt slightly better to cast I guess (especially Igni), but there was also a bug early on that made Igni disgustingly broken, and you could take on red enemies that were 30+ levels higher with ease.

It also has a scaling problem. You can easily become grossly overpowered early on even after all of the patches. The level scaling option doesn't really fix it either, because IIRC, you end up with more spongey enemies, yet they still have the same greyed out levels, and they give pitiful experience. It also just exacerbates the issues with the combat system similarly to how simply raising the difficulty does. It doesn't make it more "tactical" or "harder". It just makes it more tedious.

Sande said:

People say "use igni", but with 0 points in signs it's like farting at the enemy with a 10 second cooldown and you're not allowed to to use abilities you've actually invested in while you're at it.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Early on, the secondary mode is where all the damage is, and the cooldown is less of an issue too because the sparkler just melts shit and keeps them at bay. By the time you're out of stamina, the enemy or group is mostly dead, or on fire (which means free to hit against normal enemies). Besides that, you really only need to invest into a few sword skills to be effective with melee attacks. Much of the combat trees have superfluous filler.

Sanctuary said:

Early on, the secondary mode is where all the damage is, and the cooldown is less of an issue too because the sparkler just melts shit and keeps them at bay. By the time you're out of stamina, the enemy or group is mostly dead, or on fire (which means free to hit against normal enemies). Besides that, you really only need to invest into a few sword skills to be effective with melee attacks. Much of the combat trees have superfluous filler.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I said I had 0 points in signs. Secondary mode for any sign requires at least 7. That's exactly my point, depending on your build signs might never get any good. Geralt is this insane fighter that cuts through monsters with ease, but Witcher 3 has a leveling system that is very restrictive regarding what you can actually excel at.

And yes, there's filler, but you have to pick those if you want to get to the end game skills that require dozens of points in that tree. If you could focus on one subcategory (so leveling up igni doesn't require a lot of points in other signs), it would already be much better.

Sande said:

This is partially on the leveling system. The combat needs all of its systems firing on all cylinders to really get going, but it lets you invest in only 2 or 3 of them properly.

People say "use igni", but with 0 points in signs it's like farting at the enemy with a 10 second cooldown and you're not allowed to to use abilities you've actually invested in while you're at it.

You could say that RPGs are about making these decisions in your build, but is it worth it when gameplay variety suffers so much for it?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

There's certainly a rock-paper-scissors element to it, and if you heavily spec a certain way then you'll find certain enemies easier than others. There are no real roadblocks though, and it's certainly nowhere near as punishing as games like the Souls series for example. If an enemy is weak to Igni, it's weak to Igni regardless of how much you've specced Igni. It'll still have a good effect, even if you haven't really specced signs. Most of the problems I see people having aren't to do with how they levelled their character, it's people trying to play the game like Devil May Cry or Souls, rather than reading the Bestiary entries and adopting the appropriate tactics.

Sande said:

I said I had 0 points in signs. Secondary mode for any sign requires at least 7. That's exactly my point, depending on your build signs might never get any good. Geralt is this insane fighter that cuts through monsters with ease, but Witcher 3 has a leveling system that is very restrictive regarding what you can actually excel at.

And yes, there's filler, but you have to pick those if you want to get to the end games skills that require dozens of points in that tree. If you could focus on one subcategory (so leveling up igni doesn't require a lot of points in other signs), it would already be much better.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Well yeah. You said with no investment, but I thought it was already clear that you would actually need to invest in a skill for the skill to be effective. My point was mainly that if someone is suggesting to "just use Igni", you're going to be doing a sign build, but you don't have to completely sacrifice your melee options because of that. But yes, the way this game strangles your available options is infuriating. There's really only effectively three builds, but one is really only for buffs (aside from bombs) and they all rely heavily on melee.

Don't specialize his build in any one area and mix up the abilities seems to keep it from getting too stale for me. I like chopping things up in W3, while mixing up my attacks. I just added the special moves in the melee tree in my NG+ and those are pretty fun. Gameplay is still much more present than any in GTA5.

Space said:

I just added the special moves in the melee tree in my NG+ and those are pretty fun.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

That's the worst part. "Want a third melee attack? 21 points, please."

That's a large investment for something that should've probably been a tier 1 skill (rather than 3), if not unlocked to begin with.

Edit: A lot of games make the mistake of holding fundamental game mechanics hostage because they have poorly implemented skill trees. Witcher 3 might be the worst offender I've seen in that regard.

dgrdsv said:

God I hope CDPR won't listen to Souls fans and won't make the next Witcher with Souls like combat. That would be just sad.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

That's exactly what they did though, The Witcher 2 apparently drew a lot of influence from Demon's Souls.

They didn't seem to understand why Demon's Souls worked though, seeing the insipid boss fights and level design of said boss fights in The WItcher 2.

Sande said:

That's the worst part. "Want a third melee attack? 21 points, please."

That's a large investment for something that should've probably been a tier 1 skill (rather than 3), if not unlocked to begin with.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Yeah, that's my other problem with The Witcher 3's combat besides the awful level/encounter design. Where a lot of action games will introduce mechanics and skills in a logical fashion, The Witcher 3 doesn't seem to be concerned about that which is how you get constantly get people yelling "its boring, signs and alchemy break the game" and "stop using XYZ then, add bombs to your collection it makes the game more fun". If a lot of people are spamming Quen and aren't digging deeper into the mechanics, there's a problem with how the mechanics are being asked to be used full stop.

To bring up Metal Gear Rising again, Bladewolf is basically a tutorial hidden as a boss fight to teach you how to parry. Then the next immediate enemy after the Bladewolf boss fight are a pair of combat shield cyborgs that lose their shield if you manage to parry them. The Souls games do something similar with the introductory levels teaching the player what to expect from enemies. In Dark Souls 3, the Cemetery of Ash had enemies in higher vantage points, around corners, playing dead on the ground, fleeing only to trap and ambush you if you gave chase. It gives you the mechanics and rules to follow in an inconsequential playing ground.

The Witcher 3 has little of this outside of White Orchid. As far as I can remember, the only guidance provided is the boss fight against the Griffin and the suggestion to brew a vial of Swallow to finish a quest. The fact that a lot of people didn't need any guidance to break the base game should be a bit of a problem in my mind.

You know someone doesn't play a lot of game when they call Witcher 3 gameplay as shit. There's a ton of shittier game. Tone down the hyperbole.

It's perfectly serviceable for the majority of the audience. Wether you personally like it or not is a different story. I don't like some super popular game but I wouldn't call those game shit in the slightest.

Oh man, this thread is still active. Hah

Sande said:

This is partially on the leveling system. The combat needs all of its systems firing on all cylinders to really get going, but it lets you invest in only 2 or 3 of them properly.

People say "use igni", but with 0 points in signs it's like farting at the enemy with a 10 second cooldown and you're not allowed to to use abilities you've actually invested in while you're at it.

You could say that RPGs are about making these decisions in your build, but is it worth it when gameplay variety suffers so much for it?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The biggest problem in the Witcher leveling system, IMO, is that it exclusively has 12 slots + 4 mutations, which are slowly unlocked through gameplay. By the time the combat gets moderately interesting, you're at least level 15. Considering a lot of people finish the game at level 30-35, that's like half of the experience. For a good chunk of the game, Vigor regenerates really slowly and unless you start investing in the Alchemy tree since day one, Toxicity becomes a problem really soon too.

If you add to that the fact that, for some reason, they locked infinity frames in the second row of the Sword Fighting tree so you'll need to invest like 13 points before pressing O is actually realible, then you have a game whose gameplay doesn't feel interesting until the last third of it. Even then, the game still feels limited because you can only equip so much stuff at the same time and because, for some reasons, a lot of skills require you to spend more points than necessary to max them.

My biggest issue with the game, however, is how little enemies interact with you while playing. Take you're fighting 10 people. You kill 9 of them without getting any harm. The last one keeps fighting you. Now, in the next fight, you decide to use Axia to brainwash an enemy and make him fight alongside you. At the very same moment you use it, your enemies will turn and attack his friend before they start being attacked by him. They don't have any sort of reaction to that turn of events. No fear, no doubt, anything. It's a bit underwhelming, in my opinion.

Witcher 3 is THE game of the generation. Combat was awesome compared to Skyrim or Dragon Age: Inquisition. The quests were constantly surprising because NPC's always felt like they had their own stories and secrets to be unravelled.
If you're 80 hours in and are invested in the story, the characters, their motivations and the choices you've made as Geralt, then the next 20 hours are possibly the best part of the game.
You won't get the satisfaction of wrapping it all up by watching on YouTube.

I wouldn't go as far as calling it shit OP. If I were to rate it on a ten point scale, I'd get give it a ~6/7 out of 10. I think they did a better job with the combat in the expansions Heart of Stone and Blood and Wine.

It has a "Just the story mode" so you can mash through the combat.

People who are criticizing it are comparing it to action games with better combat and people who are praising it are comparing it to RPGs with worse combat. That's quite a difference in perspective.

I actually enjoyed the combat more once it got trivial due to my equipment and high level. At lower levels it was more frustrating than challenging, it wasn't really enjoyable. But at higher levels, despite getting easy, at least there was this feeling of actually being a powerful Witcher.

I Love Rock 'n' Roll said:

What's the point if this post?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

What's the point of mentioning Zelda negatively 4 times in a thread not about Zelda?
What's the point of making shit up like the OP not liking the story of The Witcher?
What's the point of thread whining?

Sande said:

People who are criticizing it are comparing it to action games with better combat and people who are praising it are comparing it to RPGs with worse combat. That's quite a difference in perspective.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

No, most people criticizing it are definitely comparing it to an open world rpg.

4859 said:

No, most people criticizing it are definitely comparing it to an open world rpg.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Okay, there's quite a bit of Dragon's Dogma in the mix.

For me though, these kinds of comparisons are irrelevant. Who cares if Skyrim is worse? If I'm playing a game and not enjoying it, I'm not going to think "well, Skyrim has worse combat so I guess I like this after all".

In general it's high time to stop giving RPGs with forced combat a pass for bad combat. And this is regardless of anyone's individual opinion on Witcher 3 or any other game for that matter. "It's an RPG so it's fine" is an attitude that can only stunt progress. And it's an attitude that is far too prevalent and these discussions.

Sande said:

In general it's high time to stop giving RPGs with forced combat a pass for bad combat. And this is regardless of anyone's individual opinion on Witcher 3 or any other game for that matter. "It's an RPG so it's fine" is an attitude that can only stunt progress. And it's an attitude that is far too prevalent and these discussions.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

As long as we start doing the same with action games and having dumb plots. Time to rightfully bash Bayonetta and DMC as the shit they are for having stupid cheesy characters and stories.

Wait, we won't because "plot and stories are not the main focus of action games so its silly to judge them by it"? Well wouldnt you look at that.

Starlatine said:

As long as we start doing the same with action games and having dumb plots. Time to rightfully bash Bayonetta and DMC as the shit they are for having stupid cheesy characters and stories.

Wait, we won't because "plot and stories are not the main focus of action games so its silly to judge them by it"? Well wouldnt you look at that.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

How much does the bad story get in the way of the good stuff? Long unskippable cutscenes or forced walking sections full of talking and the like? If so, those games definitely deserve criticism for it.

The thing with most RPGs is that combat is a significant mandatory part of the game.

Edit: God of War (2018) is a brawler that decided to have a very heavy story focus. If you don't like the story then of course you bash the hell out of it. You don't go "it's a brawler so it's fine". Criticize a game for what it is, not what you "should" based on its vague labels.

Sweet baby Jesus, the base game last leg really bored me out of mind, even just focusing on making sure Ciri was ok started to grind my gears. It was like being forced to side with Iorveth in Witcher 2.

Even the story, its strong point, suffers because of shit characters and limited choices. Having to tolerate Dandelion's bullshit, Philippa getting through unscathed after causing so much shit, Yennefer shenanigans, having to tolerate Avallac'h, even Geralt's own bullshit of not linking politics (yet always getting caught in such shit) got old fast...

Add all that to a mediocre combat and it really wasn't a very good time. Wish they had at least followed up on Jan Natalis and Anais, making sure Temeria got back on its feet would be a nice sidequest ( ._.)

Sande said:

Okay, there's quite a bit of Dragon's Dogma in the mix.

For me though, these kinds of comparisons are irrelevant. Who cares if Skyrim is worse? If I'm playing a game and not enjoying it, I'm not going to think "well, Skyrim has worse combat so I guess I like this after all".

In general it's high time to stop giving RPGs with forced combat a pass for bad combat. And this is regardless of anyone's individual opinion on Witcher 3 or any other game for that matter. "It's an RPG so it's fine" is an attitude that can only stunt progress. And it's an attitude that is far too prevalent and these discussions.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

That's pretty well put.

I guess it boils down to what the main motivation is.

People who want better games criticize and curate, even if (or especially if) they are their favourite games or franchises, because that's what's most important to them.

People who's main focus of desire is to stop criticism.... Just come up with any possible excuse to stop people 'attacking' their game, because that's what's most important to them.

It really is pretty pointless, particularly since they will love and defend the next game voraciously regaurdless, so why not make progress and have better games?

The combat isn't shit, because "shit" would imply that it's actually broken.

It's just very aggressively mediocre...which might be worse.

The Witcher 3 does not have shit gameplay, not every action game can have melee combat like DMC 3. TW3 is at the very least serviceable, taking into account its an RPG.

BTW it goes both ways. Japanese games: What if Era got together and gave the games a pass for having shit production values, stories, characters. cumbersome UI design and optimization issues? And everyone knows sure as hell it happens in this forum.

Kumomeme said:

people dont ask combat good as bloodborne, i believe people doesnt ask for perfection..but atleast people want less frustration and people doesnt like getting bored

i'm can overlook the combat if they fix the hit box and hit weight issue,fix side step evade mechanic,improve janky animation...but now?snoozefest...people want in control,not being controlled by the animation

i believe,including me,people didnt ask for dragon's dogma or nier automata level of combat(both game is open world though)

As due to the reputation ,these issue is something should not existed

I enjoyed the game,but can't helped to raised my eye brow to all these over praise reaction from people

Being called 'perfect' or ' ultimate' rpg weight alot.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Opinions I guess cause personally I'd take The Witcher 3's combat over Nier Automata's any day of the week.

Nier Automata is a lot more restrictive in what you can do with each character and it's a really basic version of the combat systems in Platinum's straight action games with an overused shoot em up system on top.

Bosses are inferior in Automata and even more so if we're about the DLC Witcher bosses. Combat with 9S is laughable as well. Little to no enemy variety, etc. The only thing it has over TW3's combat is a cooler dodge.(but it's OP)

martincrimson87 said:

BTW it goes both ways. Japanese games: What if Era got together and gave the games a pass for having shit production values, stories, characters. cumbersome UI design and optimization issues? And everyone knows sure as hell it happens in this forum.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I'm glad someone brought this up. It happens with people who like to believe they are "gameplay" purists (whatever that term encompasses is anybody's guess). Sort of an elitist mindset.