Witcher 3 - Disappointing in so many ways.

[spawn024]

you literally made your first posts on this forum trying to criticize witcher 3 and admitted you lied about "most" rpg's having a level scaling GG I could find someonebetter on neogaf that could bring up solid points. As of now I declare the topic closed.

 

You could at least try to tell the truth and quote correctly if you're going to call someone a liar.  This is the quote you are referring to: "At this stage in RPG history it's common for enemies to level up with the character to maintain the difficulty, challenge, and fun of the game."  I didn't say "most", I said it was "common".  Two different words, two different meanings.  Perhaps you should have paid more attention in English class too.  The meaning of words.  How to quote someone correctly.  If the topic is closed as you so brazenly declared, at least that means your ignorance has been removed from the discussion... Unless you were lying...

Not back it up? Are you butthurt coz I didn't like one of your favorite games? Seriously everyone knows those games are a fucking mess. The things I had to go through to complete Fallout 3 DLC's with that fucking frame rate and crashes, constant glitches. It froze so bad I had to move 10 seconds, save, load up the game again, move a few steps again, save and repeat to be able to reach the end. Thats how fucking unplayable it is. It's ok to like their games, but you don't have to ride Bethesdas dick so hard.

 

Do you have to cuss to make your point?  Very childish.  It only makes you seem ignorant.  It ruins your credibility and shows that you're the one who is... and I'm quoting you... "butthurt".  P.S.  "coz" is not a word.  Education and maturity clearly aren't common traits amongst trolls.

 

Why post anything when you have nothing relevant to say?  Oh yeah... no life.

 

No one forced you to finish Skyrim and/or any Fallout game.  And as previously stated several times, those games were pushing the limits of the PS3 and were bound to have issues.  Witcher 3 does not push the limits of the PS4.  Not even close.  If Witcher 3 were a PS3 game it would have similar problems.  It has plenty of bugs and freezing issues despite being on a PS4.

Just for once I want to see a healthy argument about video games on this site. "Oh, he doesn't think game X is great blah blah blah I must attack his opinion by mentioning games that I think are better than game X". Let's just be thankful that we live in a time where we have video games. 

 

I agree.  I only posted my criticisms because most posts and press regarding this game ignore the game's flaws.  Mostly just Witcher 3 fans preaching to the choir.  I enjoyed this game, but found it very frustrating because of "game design" choices by the programmers.  The Battle of Kaer Morhen is one of my favorite quests in any game, ever.  This game has many awesome aspects, but falls very short when it comes to game design choices that embrace all styles of play.  

 

The only way to have a healthy argument would be for all the trolls to grow up, get educated, and use adult words.  Never gonna happen.

[nyonmyan]

Can you provide some links and sources for that claim? Thanks.

 

 

Parker

Now when I reread it, that sentence sounds misleading, since it implies that they were trying to monetize specifically bug fixing mods, while only a handful of mods/modders have used the system before it was rolled back.

 

Source on Bethesda leaving bugs:

http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/31/todd-howard-on-skyrims-worthwhile-glitches-mmos-and-when-big-i/

Source on Bethesda pushing monetization of mods:

https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/33tt1e/its_actually_bethesda_not_valve_who_decided_to/

http://i.imgur.com/VdHg4dG.png

http://www.idigitaltimes.com/fallout-4-news-bethesda-says-paid-mods-will-be-back-not-soon-459701

 

 

Big games and software always have lots of bugs. 

 

 

Not always and not as much as Skyrim. On top of that Bethesda was content with shipping PS3 Skyrim with gamebreaking save bug and not fixing it later. The only other company I can think of that does this sort of crap is NISA.

[Ric]

I've read a lot of praise for this game, and very little criticism. This game deserves a lot of criticism. It's a sub-par RPG, well below the bar of the Skyrim/Elder Scrolls series and the Fallout series. I think games like Dragon Warrior 1 and Final Fantasy 1 for the NES were better RPG's and much funner to play. I enjoyed South Park: The Stick of Truth more than Witcher 3.

First the positives. The graphics are stunning... well they should be, it's a PS4 game. Personally I found the views in Skyrim on the PS3 much more enticing. If only Skyrim had a PS4 version. The story for the Witcher 3 is one of the best stories I've encountered in a RPG. Credit given where it's due. The gameplay itself it quite fun and very well done, if you can ignore the flaws in the "RPG overhead", meaning the leveling system, menus, companions, (the stuff you expect to see in any RPG game)

Opinions. In my opinion you can't compare old school RPG's like Final Fantasy and Chrono Trigger with the modern RPG's. Chrono Trigger is my favourite old school RPG's, and the Witcher is one of my favourite modern RPG series. I'm not a huge RPG fan though, I just like to play 1 every now and then, but the Witcher has been an instant buy since I played the first one. I have had bad experiences with your Skyrim, Fallout and South Park. Skyrim was full of bugs, Fallout 3 (GotY no less, so they've had plenty of time to fix their shit) froze every half hour and South Park also had a bug where you couldn't progress further near the end when it just came out. This doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the games, every game has its issues, that doesn't make them bad games.

You say you don't like the Witcher 3, but then you go on to say best story, fun gameplay and awesome graphics. I don't know what your problem is then...

 

The biggest flaw in this game is the overleveling compensation. Way to take the fun right out of exploring. This is literally once of the the worst RPG leveling systems I've encountered. If you explore too much main missions which give hundreds, sometimes thousands of points will give you only a handful of XP. If you push through the missions, suddenly exploring the world will give you almost no points. At lvl 35 you get the same XP for killing a lvl 29 creature as you do for killing a lvl 1 creature. That doesn't make sense. I discovered the overleveling compensation when playing The Whispering Hillock mission. I had just leveled up before the final battle and I got 1 xp for beating the mission. I had saved just before leveling up and reloaded. This time I didn't kill random creatures and just pushed through the mission. I received 600 XP instead.

I've spent the rest of my time with this game jumping around the world trying to beat as many quests as possible before overleveling renders the mission XP moot. I would much rather explore the world than do the missions, but if I do, the missions are worthless XP-wise.

Wait..? What..? You want to get full XP for a monster that's almost one-shotable? Or a quest you can practically finish with your eyes closed? The levelling system is fine imo (opinions again). It keeps you from overlevelling too much to not make the next story content a complete joke. You'd like to explore the world, but you don't because there's no xp in it... Sounds to me like you just want to level up, and don't care much for the exploration part.

 

Now that I've beat the game and I'm returning to areas I wanted to explore earlier, the enemies are ridiculously easy. It's like swatting flys, even on Deathmarch. The game designers took a great deal of fun out of this game with a narrow minded overleveling system. At this stage in RPG history it's common for enemies to level up with the character to maintain the difficulty, challenge, and fun of the game. The Witcher 3's overleveling compensation is a childish attempt to maintain the difficulty of the main quests.

I think you don't actually know what you want. It basically comes down to "I want to level up more so content A becomes easy" and "Content B became easy because I levelled up more". Content A being the story, Content B being the side missions. Is there any game where enemies from starting area's don't become ridiculously easy after the end of the game?

 

The menu system is clunky and slow. The items aren't well categorized and the L1, L2, R1, R2 buttons aren't used well at all for menu navigation. If you're in a store, you can't even tell if you already own the items for sale unless you sift through your own item lists. You can't compare the bonuses on gear you have equipped with items in the store unless you back out of the store. A number of times I bought armor that had better defense than mine, but upon going to equip it, the bonuses turned out to be worse than what I already had. The delay when changing menu categories is very annoying too.

 

We can agree on this one. This is a valid point.

 

Where are the companions? This is one of the few RPG's I've played where there are no companions to travel with. Sure, a few companions are programmed into missions, like Vessimer in the first mission. However you have no control over them and you can't bring them along for other quests and exploring. Just another example of how this game falls short of most other role playing games.

 

Opinions again. This isn't an obligatory element of an RPG. Criticizing an RPG for a lack of companions is like criticizing a fps for not having a rocket launcher. It's not an integral part of the genre.

 

The very limited ability point/character development system is archaic. Outside of a short list of about six abilities, the abilities don't change gameplay much. And since you can only have 12 abilities active, eventually the ability points you accumulate are useless. There's no reason to limit the number of abilities a player can use. It greatly reduces incentive to keep playing once you've found 12 abilities that you enjoy using. Games like Skyrim and Fallout reward players who put in a lot of time by continually granting new abilities. Witcher 3 penalizes people who put a lot of time into the game by de-incentivizing character development through a limited ability point system and the overleveling compensation.

Games like Skyrim and Fallout give the player the freedom and choice to specialize, or become a jack of all trades. The Witcher 3 forces you to choose from a very limited skill set. In Skyrim and Fallout the many different abilities you have allow you to approach battles from many different approaches, magic, stealth, brute force, distance fighting, close quarters... You will find that Witcher battles play out almost the same exact way regardless of what abilities you use. I've read some posts about how some people think the limited ability system is a good thing. It forces you to specialize. How is that better than a game that gives you the freedom and choice to specialize or play the game differently?

Character development was fine for me. Opinions... again...

 

I heard so much praise for this game before I played it. The gameplay is very fun. The story is very good. The graphics are amazing.

I keep wondering how a game that got the gameplay/story so right, could get the "RPG overhead" so wrong. Especially since this is part 3 of the game series. They've had time to learn and fix this stuff.

So did Fallout 3 and Skyrim (Elder Scrolls 5!), and like I said, those where buggy. Buggy is a much bigger problem to me then the choices a dev made that I might not like 100%.

 

The leveling and ability point system penalize you for "overplaying" the game. The menu system is poorly designed for a console system. (It does seem easier to use for PC players with a mouse). The lack of companions to find and explore with is subpar for a modern RPG.

The designers of this game seem intent on pushing you down the path. They want you to play the game the way they intended it to be played, instead of giving players the freedom to play it how they want.

I prefer exploring open world games a lot more than I enjoy playing missions which force you down a path. This is the first open world game I played that discouraged exploration. Why make all that content, then not reward players for exploring it?

When I started this game I thought it would be one of my favorite games ever. It won't even make my top 20 list. It might not even make my top 20 RPG list.

The "RPG overhead" is so bad, it greatly reduces enjoyment of the exceptional gameplay, making Witcher 3 one of the most frustrating games I've ever played.

All in all, you like Skyrim and Fallout better, and that's fine. For me it's the other way around, I like the Witcher better. But to say any of these games don't deserve the praise they get is short sighted. Most of your arguments weren't objective and to me felt more like "the game I enjoy is better than the game you enjoy because reasons".

Edited May 21, 2016 by Ric

[aditya319]

Well witcher 3 is one of the most intelligent game i have ever come across..lets see why it was so highly rated..

1. Please note its rpg and not an action game.. rpg are about choices and no game so far has had choices which had impact like witcher 3.

2.Skyrim was linear game.. just going through the motion. I never ever cared to read walkthrough for it.. but for witcher 3 every choice i made i had to look for walkthrough as i dint want to miss anything.

3.The variety of enemies in the game was awesome.. in skyrim all i was killing skeletons and more skeletons with little variations..i remember dragon age inquistion where everything same throughout the game..

4.levelling up.. well if you are killing a level 28 with level 35 ofcrs it will be easy no matter what difficulty and if you want to play a game where others level up with you than whats the point of leveling up.. it would become a normal game..and not a rpg..if you think game was easy try killing skull marked enemy without using quen with light armor.. if still you feel overpowered try more level diff.. in dark souls when my level was high even i found game very easy.. if you are levelling up nice enough every rpg becomes easy

5. I think witcher 3 combat was perfect for such big game.. remember skyrim combat.. well it was like dolls playing and killing.

6. Quests of witcher 3 are just awesome.. side quests as well as normal.. i remember doing a side quest and then returning to the quest done scene to see some real changes there.. there are tons of secrets in the game.. and world is so much filled.. with everything..gwent concept was just best collectible concept i have ever come across.. it was not like when you collected all then only you will se effect..it was brilliant

7 plz note that witcher 3 was far far bigger than skyrim and bigger a game is difficult it is to develop and mainatain that interest throughout the game..and witcher 3 has done just brilliantly in that.

8 In my view the place where game actualy lacks is with weapon and armor drops.. but game has so much that if i started changing armor every level i would have been frustrated...i just used cat armor upgrading it throughout the game.. and i just loved it..

9 well companion point is little absurd i reckon.. i think you are more of diablo fan.. its ok..everyone has interests.. but coz game doznt have companion its not good.. is not a right way to go.. but just let me inform you that there are many quests where you play with companion..in one of the main quests you play aside 6 7 companion.. transformation from ciri to geralt is so nicely done in later main quests..

10. Exploration point you said well world was so beautiful that i naturally explored the world.. those question marks make you explore.. and normaly if you do all questss you will find that you have explored almost everything even if you dint want to..

11. Well abilities you mentioned.. every game is different.. and i love it.. you cant impose skyrim upgrading to witcher 3..i used upgraded all combat.. fast attack.. crossbow.. adrenaline etc to fullest and some other red skills and i was able to use all of them.. i dint upgrade anything else.. no signs no miscellaneous.. yellow one. That is just waste of skills later on.. used mutagens accordings.. all red .. i dint find anything unused..now if you are upgrading everything in the game ofcrs game will punish you coz this game is diff..and its not bad

12 only dissapointing in the game was perhaps treasure hunts.. they could have put some more side quests.. i hardly did them except scavenger hunts.

SO BASICALLY WHEN ITS GIVEN GREAT RPG TITLE THE CONCEPT OF RPG IS KEPT IN MIND WHICH IS HOW YOU ARE AFFECTING WORLD AND NOT JUST YOURSELF BY DIFFERENT ARMORS AND WEAPONS.. IN THIS REGARD I THINK WITCHER 3 HAS DONE FANTASTIC JOB AND SHOWN WHAT EXACTLY RPG IS.. AND ITS NOT JUST ABOUT ARMORS AND WEAPONS AND UPGRADATION..

Edited May 21, 2016 by aditya319

[Cleggworth]

The lack of companions in the Witcher 3 was a positive for me. Companions in all honesty are a pain in the arse. The only thing they do well is carry all your crap and get in the way. In fallout 4 they just complain constantly as well. Ellie from The Last of Us is how companions should be done. They are there to enrich the story only. You don't need to equip or control her and most importantly as far as I could tell outside scripted events she can't die

Oh and it always made sense to me that an End game Geralt could one hit kill a Wolf. The game would become a bit of a slog if everytime you back tracked to an earlier area you had to battle lvl 35 drowners

Edited May 21, 2016 by Cleggworth

[Maftet]

lol I've never seen a person think you need a 'computer science' degree to have a valid opinion on games. I guess that puts all those journalists out of work.

I honestly can't decide if this guy is a troll ot not.

 

You also don't need a 'computer science' degree to see that Bethesda games are bug-ridden messes that sometimes make the game unplayable. This is a common complaint, whereas with The Witcher 3, it was a minor complaint from a few people and CDPR have done their best to resolve these issues. The same simply can't be said for Bathesda.

Instead you excuse them by saying they were big games.. well.. isn't the Witcher 3 a 'big game'? Only change is that it was made by a competent dev team that cares about their game.

 

Since almost everything you post is opinion stated as fact, I'll throw my 2 cents in.

 

- I like the leveling system. It's not fun when things scale with you (or you're downscaled) and was one of my biggest gripes about Guild Wars 2.

- I don't really care for the story of Witcher, Witcher 3 is the first one I've played, I went and read the story from the previous ones and it's just not a story that interests me, but I still enjoy the game. Bethesda stories are always weak and badly written. I get they're there just to push you through the world but I've never played games with such a boring ending that leaves me saying 'Is that it?'.

- I think the menu system is organised in such a way that just seems terrible. But the more I play it the easier I find it and understand the decisions to make it like that. I do agree it's kind of slow and it can be difficult to see what's highlighted.

- I like that the abilities actually make a noticable difference. Compare them to Bethesda where the only things you get are like '+15% Blocking'. It's just needless padding, not improved customisation. Imo, those things should be on weapons/armour, not in a skill tree. Changing abilities in Witcher 3 can make a huge difference if you're struggling with something. There is a reason 'Sneaky Archer' is a running Skyrim joke.

- Combat, dodging is actually relevant in Witcher 3, especially in comparison to Bethesda games where the combat doesn't get more complicated than R1, R1, R1, L1, R1, R1, L1, R1, R1, R1, R1

- I don't get why you would want companions, they're nothing but a nuisance. I also don't know what kind of pet/companion you would want Geralt to have since I can't think of one that would be fitting. Skyrim/Fallout companions have terrible pathing, terrible AI but still make you feel gimped if they're not there because of the carry limit, while Witcher 3 doesn't push a companion onto you. I like not having someone block doorways, aggro everything and trigger every trap in a 5 mile radius.

 

As fixing stuff from previous games go, as far as I'm aware they've greatly improved practically everything from the previous games.

 

I prefer the Witcher 3 over Bethesda RPGs, just because it feels more complete, playable and like the stuff you do is worth something. It's a fresh change from Bethesda that just pastes a new skin over their previous games and dumbs everything down.

I still enjoy Bethsada games though because sometimes you need a simple, easy game to wind down with.

[Doom]

Ah yes. The classic "X game I love has Y and Z features. Clearly every other game must be like X game or they are lame".

Bethesda games are fun sandbox games with unoriginal and boring plot, just put in there as an excuse. Monsters scale (woah, a random bandit with full glass armor!).

There is basically no challenge because everything is mostly around your level range and you can face anything without too much trouble (unless it's specific boss like creatures).

It's fun to explore, find easter eggs, power-level and get every skill to max (which can be really satisfying, but defeat the purpose of playing a role) and find the best equipment.

Witcher 3 is heavily plot driven, where even side quests are interesting, with interesting dialogues, twists and acting.

Enemies have fixed levels so you are either skilled (know how to move and which abilities are best), or you go back and get better before exploring that new area.

It's still fun to explore and rewards skill (being able to explore a high level area because you know your witcher-fu), it has a very interesting plot (even on side quest),

there are a lot of choices that can impact events, the leveling system is quite different from most games, but still allows for creative builds.

The game is designed to reward questing, not killing monsters. And no matter what you do, you'll reach max level anyway (same thing as other bethesda games, except F4 where you have infinite levels, I believe).

They are basically 2 heavily different rpg philosophies. And it's totally fine to not like one of them.

Just realize that not all games will have the same characteristics of the ones you like. It's only natural.

Oh and it always made sense to me that an End game Geralt could one hit kill a Wolf. The game would become a bit of a slog if everytime you back tracked to an earlier area you had to battle lvl 35 drowners

Yeah, I can't even imagine lvl 35 dogs. Those things are killing machines even at level 2. Edited May 21, 2016 by Doctor Doom

[MMDE]

Great graphics, fine, I don't personally care all that much about it. Comparing it to Skyrim, and saying that is enticing? Well, Skyrim was a lot of white and grey, unless in dungeons, then everything was dark...

 

One of the best stories you've experienced in an RPG, which is rather important in RPGs. This could almost be enough by itself, at least as long as the gameplay is great.

 

So you think the gameplay is great too...

 

This form of over leveling compensation is quite common in many RPGs. There are generally two ways to solve it, either that you will need increasingly more EXP to level up or you get EXP depending on your level compared to what you get the EXP from. Usually, the former gives you almost as little EXP compared to how much is required to level up as the latter. I do however enjoy the former more, but it has more to do with the fact that it can be more abused by the player. The latter enforces that you always challenge yourself to gain EXP, but also that you're never underleveled or overleveled.

 

Obviously, The Witcher 3 went with the latter?

 

I'm not sure why you think TES is any good at this stuff. TES IV for example had one of the worst level up systems I've experienced in any highly praised RPG I've ever played. It actively encourages you to not level up, because that way the game stays more doable. At the same time, you're getting worse unique weapons. So much pain! Please don't take me back!

 

I'd explore the world, get some free EXP, and then do the missions. Who cares if you get the EXP then? You've already leveled up, right?

 

You complain you don't get any more EXP, but also that enemies are too easy to kill......... wtf? It's not like too easy to kill enemies aren't a thing in FF or DW?

 

Yeah, I dislike clunky and slow menus as well.

 

So you like the companions in TES....??? There are MANY more real-time action battle system where you don't have companions. The problem with companions in such games is that you don't really control them, or control them in any meaningful way. This isn't a big complaint in my book. Also, I thought there was a horse?

 

I'm no fan of ability point systems that limits you and you can't reorganize. It also limits the amount of real choices people will make, certain abilities will likely rarely ever be picked.

 

I really can't remember too much about the ability system in Skyrim, but I think it was just very open and allowed you to pick almost everything. I also remember I had to attack a horse over and over for a couple of hours.

 

I don't think it is too bad that the game punish you for overplaying the game, so what you fight don't become too easy. Yes, they force you to play the way they intended you to play it. Is that a bad thing too?

 

Really, it seems like you wanted more freedom than the game gave you, very specific type of freedom as well, and because of that the game disappointed and frustrated you in so many ways.

Edited May 21, 2016 by MMDE

[SuffyZorugelion]

Do you have to cuss to make your point?  Very childish.  It only makes you seem ignorant.  It ruins your credibility and shows that you're the one who is... and I'm quoting you... "butthurt".  P.S.  "coz" is not a word.  Education and maturity clearly aren't common traits amongst trolls.

 

Why post anything when you have nothing relevant to say?  Oh yeah... no life.

 

No one forced you to finish Skyrim and/or any Fallout game.  And as previously stated several times, those games were pushing the limits of the PS3 and were bound to have issues.  Witcher 3 does not push the limits of the PS4.  Not even close.  If Witcher 3 were a PS3 game it would have similar problems.  It has plenty of bugs and freezing issues despite being on a PS4.

 

I think you should be able to understand that "coz" is short for because, but since you are out of ideas and defenses you have to turn into the desperate "Oh I'll, just insult his grammar so I will look fucking intellect and totally awesome."

 

Nothing relevant to say? You asked me to backup my claims, I told you what happened and you are still butthurt. You can go to youtube or google and search Fallout Or Skyrim game breaking glitches for yourself.

 

Lastly, if I buy a game, I expect to be able to finish it. It's not about anyone forcing me to play it. If it's gamebreakingly broken I don't see what the problem is with my actions. It's Bethesdas fault, and bitch please they didn't push the PS3 to the limits for fuck sake. Bethesda never had a fucking clue how to develop games for the PS3. You call me childish, but can't handle my simple, reasonable argument.

Edited May 21, 2016 by LovesAnInjection

[spawn024]

I think you should be able to understand that "coz" is short for because, but since you are out of ideas and defenses you have to turn into the desperate "Oh I'll, just insult his grammar so I will look fucking intellect and totally awesome."

 

Nothing relevant to say? You asked me to backup my claims, I told you what happened and you are still butthurt. You can go to youtube or google and search Fallout Or Skyrim game breaking glitches for yourself.

 

Lastly, if I buy a game, I expect to be able to finish it. It's not about anyone forcing me to play it. If it's gamebreakingly broken I don't see what the problem is with my actions. It's Bethesdas fault, and bitch please they didn't push the PS3 to the limits for fuck sake. Bethesda never had a fucking clue how to develop games for the PS3. You call me childish, but can't handle my simple, reasonable argument.

 

I know what "coz" stood for.  It's still not a word and it's a sign of immature writing skills, just like your continued use of cuss words.

 

You didn't back up your claims at all.  You told me to go do research for you.  If you want to back up a claim you do the research yourself and present it in a professional way, without immature slang words, or ignorant cuss words.

 

There's nothing reasonable about your argument.  Your claims aren't even accurate.  Bethesda was clearly pushing the limits of the PS3 with Skyrim.  You'd be very hard pressed to come up with 5 other ps3 games that had bigger worlds, more choices, more freedom, more items in the world to interact with, more different ways to develop your character, the ability to build structures.  There was an almost infinite number of ways to change the state of the game world.  Each of these changes had to be saved.  The more changes that occur to the state of the game world, the more likely a bug is to exist.  Considering how ambitious Skyrim was I understood why the game had so many bugs/game freezes on limited processing power of the PS3.

 

The only game I've played as complex as Skyrim is Fallout 4.  I experienced no mission breaking bugs on Fallout 4 and the game froze about as often as Witcher 3 even though the game is much more complex and offers much greater playing freedom similar to Skyrim.  This is solid evidence to support the fact that Skyrim was pushing the ps3's processing limits.  The only annoying bug in Fallout 4 I experienced was the settlement happiness bug.  It was far from a game breaker.  The bug didn't really change anything about the way the game played.

 

If Skyrim was a ps4 game, like Witcher 3, the extra processing power alone would have fixed most of the bugs that occurred.  If Witcher 3 was a ps3 game it would have just as many issues as Skyrim did.  I've experienced a number of bugs while playing Witcher 3, including bugs that make it impossible to complete missions.  My Witcher 3 game has frozen at least 15 times while playing it.

 

It amazes me how easily Witcher 3 fans overlook these things.  If this game didn't have the exceptional processing power of the PS4 behind it, the bugs and freezes would happen on a level similar to Skyrim.

 

The primary reason I think Skyrim and Fallout are better than Witcher is because Skyrim/Fallout give the player more freedom, more choices, more ways to play the game.  Anytime a game gives more freedom to the player... that's a good thing.

[Juzota]

 If this game didn't have the exceptional processing power of the PS4 behind it, the bugs and freezes would happen on a level similar to Skyrim.

 

Yeah but it didn't.

[Ric]

It's still comparing apples to oranges. The witcher tells a story, fallout and skyrim have very simple storytelling and hardly any interesting characters imo. It's like saying Zelda isn't a good game because it has no meaningful choices or freedoms.

You can't have a good lineair (coherent) story in a big massive free open world.

[Gibbo_0113]

Since you compared The Witcher to Skyrim a lot i have to say that The Witcher wins in the gameplay department. Anyone who says Skyrim has better combat is blind. Skyrim is basically keep hitting until he dies but The Witcher is on par with the souls games involving much more difficulty and strategy.

 

You kept saying that the game isnt RPG like? I dont think there is a rule that says every RPG has to be the same. Upon completing everything the game had to offer (minus DLC) i had nothing bad at all to say about it and that is where i will take my leave   

[Parker]

 

Now when I reread it, that sentence sounds misleading, since it implies that they were trying to monetize specifically bug fixing mods, while only a handful of mods/modders have used the system before it was rolled back.

 

Source on Bethesda leaving bugs:

http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/31/todd-howard-on-skyrims-worthwhile-glitches-mmos-and-when-big-i/

Source on Bethesda pushing monetization of mods:

https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/33tt1e/its_actually_bethesda_not_valve_who_decided_to/

http://i.imgur.com/VdHg4dG.png

http://www.idigitaltimes.com/fallout-4-news-bethesda-says-paid-mods-will-be-back-not-soon-459701

 

 

 

Not always and not as much as Skyrim. On top of that Bethesda was content with shipping PS3 Skyrim with gamebreaking save bug and not fixing it later. The only other company I can think of that does this sort of crap is NISA.

 

 

That is exactly how I read it, thanks for clearing it up though. I knew they were trying to monetize mods with Skyrim on Steam but I didn't remember ever hearing about them trying to make money off of bug fixing mods. The internet would've exploded if that happened. 

 

 

Parker

[spawn024]

Since you compared The Witcher to Skyrim a lot i have to say that The Witcher wins in the gameplay department. Anyone who says Skyrim has better combat is blind. Skyrim is basically keep hitting until he dies but The Witcher is on par with the souls games involving much more difficulty and strategy.

 

You kept saying that the game isnt RPG like? I dont think there is a rule that says every RPG has to be the same. Upon completing everything the game had to offer (minus DLC) i had nothing bad at all to say about it and that is where i will take my leave   

 

You are wrong.  Skyrim has much better gameplay than Witcher 3.  I found there is very little strategy to Witcher 3 fights other than the oils and potions.  Almost every Witcher 3 fight plays out the same.  Cast a sign, dodge, hack and slash.  The only significant way to change the battles in Witcher 3 is to use a "bombmaster" build.  However almost every foe in witcher 3 will die because of hack and slashing.  THIS IS A FACT.  That's not the case at all in Skyrim, unless you choose to play that way.  My primary issue with Witcher 3 is the lack of choice and freedom.

 

In Skyrim you can hack and slash just like the Witcher.  You can win fights with magic, unlike Witcher 3 where the signs are used primarily for support.  Winning a fight against a strong creature in Witcher 3 using only signs, is borderline not possible, or is so tedious it's not worth the effort and time.  In Skyrim there are several schools of magic that have spells strong enough to win a fight against a strong opponent.  You can summon creatures to fight for you, set magical traps, use traditional spells like fire spells, long list of options unlike the limited options in Witcher 3.  The magic choices are exponentially greater than Witcher 3.  You can win fights with bow and arrow from a distance in Skyrim.  The crossbow in Witcher 3 is borderline useless except underwater.  In Skyrim you can use stealth and sneak attack to win fights.  Witcher 3 doesn't support stealth at all even though it seems like a witcher would have mastered the art of stealth

 

The Witcher gameplay is fun.  I already said that.  But it's not even close to gameplay provided by Skyrim.  Skyrim give you choices, many choices that embrace many different playstyles.  The Witcher 3 gives very few choices of playstyle.  As already stated... almost every Witcher foe will die by the blade.  In Skyrim just as many of my foes died from hack and slash as did from magic, as did from bows/arrows, as did from sneak attacks.  Any game that provides more options and choices is better than a game that provides less choices and less freedom.  

 

The combat system in Witcher 3 is vastly inferior to the sundry options available in the Skyrim battle system.

 

Not to mention the fact that Skyrim gives you the CHOICE and FREEDOM to bring companions into the gameplay.  The Witcher 3 doesn't give you the CHOICE, it doesn't give you the FREEDOM.

 

It blows my mind when people complain about the companions in Skyrim and Fallout when you had the choice and freedom, to not bring them with you.

 

Why would you praise a game like the Witcher 3 for giving less CHOICE, less FREEDOM.

[YTPerfectParadox]

I didnt read the whole post because im afraid of spoilers (currently playing it) but i have to agree with you. Everyone talks about how this is spectacular and while it is certainly enjoyable its got alot of problems and is fairly overrated. I cant do the side quests because im to underleveled, i cant do the main quests because im to underleveled (so everyone tells me to do the sidequests ) all i can do is go around killing level 1 rabid dogs for days on end hoping ill level up one day and might be able to get a bit further. I feel like im in that world of warcraft centred episode of south park. The bosses i was a high enough leve for still kick my ass with two hits, i could dodge but they hit me regardless of whether im dodging or standing still and most the time the dodge is horribly delayed until well after im hit. I used to always hate the scaled leveling system in bethesda games but i realise now why its so important!

 

Still loving the game, just saw a forum inviting a rant and couldnt resist.

Edited May 21, 2016 by Terarded

[spawn024]

It's still comparing apples to oranges. The witcher tells a story, fallout and skyrim have very simple storytelling and hardly any interesting characters imo. It's like saying Zelda isn't a good game because it has no meaningful choices or freedoms.

You can't have a good lineair (coherent) story in a big massive free open world.

 

Apples and oranges are easy to compare, where did that meaningless phrase ever start.

 

I don't think the story of the Witcher 3 was significantly better than the story in Skyrim or Fallout.  Witcher 3 was all about Geralt (surrogate dad) finding Ciri (surrogate daughter).  How is that any different than the overall story arch of Fallout 4 (dad searching for kid), or Fallout 3 when the kid was looking for the dad.  It's old and overused story theme.  At least Fallout 4 had the creativity to put in an unexpected twist once the son was found.  That twist alone makes the Fallout 4 story more compelling.  I won't spoil it for those of that haven't experienced it.  It's up there with the best story twists I've ever experienced.  

 

I found many of the Witcher 3 quests to be overly diplomatic and political.  Very boring.  Another overused story arch.  

 

I don't see how saving the world from dragons (Skyrim) is less creative than the political story in Witcher 3.  Personally I enjoyed Skyrim's story a lot more than Witcher 3.  I doubt I'll find many who agree since this is a Witcher 3 forum.

 

And as far as your Zelda comment goes, it makes no sense.

 

For anyone who played The Legend of Zelda when it came out, (as I did), it did provide a great deal of freedom compared to other games of the time.  It was a groundbreaking game then in the same way that Skyrim is now. The Legend of Zelda is one of the best video games ever made.  It's better than most AAA games created today even though games of today tend to be much more complex.

 

Many Zelda nock-off clones appeared after just as the Witcher 3 is a mediocre nock-off clone of Skyrim.  I suppose that's part of my problem with Witcher 3, nothing about it seems original.  In almost every way it plays like a dumbed down version of Skyrim on a better computer processor.

I didnt read the whole post because im afraid of spoilers (currently playing it) but i have to agree with you. Everyone talks about how this is spectacular and while it is certainly enjoyable its got alot of problems and is fairly overrated. I cant do the side quests because im to underleveled, i cant do the main quests because im to underleveled (so everyone tells me to do the sidequests ) all i can do is go around killing level 1 rabid dogs for days on end hoping ill level up one day and might be able to get a bit further. I feel like im in that world of warcraft centred episode of south park. The bosses i was a high enough leve for still kick my ass with two hits, i could dodge but they hit me regardless of whether im dodging or standing still and most the time the dodge is horribly delayed until well after im hit. I used to always hate the scaled leveling system in bethesda games but i realise now why its so important!

 

Still loving the game, just saw a forum inviting a rant and couldnt resist.

 

Great comment, I thought about bringing up the WOW South Park episode several times.  To my knowledge there are no spoilers in this thread.  This thread is about gameplay mechanics and game design choices, not about specific in-game events.

 

For what it's worth, I enjoyed the game, but was simultaneously very frustrated by it because of game design choices that were intentionally put into the game.  

 

I don't understand why people compare accidental bugs to intentional bad game design choices.  Bugs are bound to happen in software development.  Bad game design choices don't have to happen.

[stitchesnscars]

Apples and oranges are easy to compare, where did that meaningless phrase ever start.

 

 

This is a joke right?

[DaivRules]

Apples and oranges are easy to compare, where did that meaningless phrase ever start.

 

That explains this whole thread.

[Ric]

Apples and oranges are easy to compare, where did that meaningless phrase ever start.

 

It's an expression and far from meaningless. You can't objectively say that an apple is better than an orange, because that's a subjective opinion. Kinda what you've been doing the entire thread.

 

I don't think the story of the Witcher 3 was significantly better than the story in Skyrim or Fallout. Witcher 3 was all about Geralt (surrogate dad) finding Ciri (surrogate daughter). How is that any different than the overall story arch of Fallout 4 (dad searching for kid), or Fallout 3 when the kid was looking for the dad.

Except where it isn't. Geralt isn't just looking for Ciri. I'm not in the mood to explain the story of the Witcher to you as it became quite clear that you're either trolling, or just fanboying.

[Cleggworth]

The problem I think you have with the Witcher boils down to you playing as Geralt and not a character of your own creation. Geralt is a Witcher and Witchers fight with swords and signs. He's not Geralt of Rivia if he's a mage or an archer. I guess for that reason The Witcher isn't a true RPG. Stick to 'true' RPGs where you play as 'you' if thats your bag

[aditya319]

Apples and oranges are easy to compare, where did that meaningless phrase ever start.

 

I don't think the story of the Witcher 3 was significantly better than the story in Skyrim or Fallout.  Witcher 3 was all about Geralt (surrogate dad) finding Ciri (surrogate daughter).  How is that any different than the overall story arch of Fallout 4 (dad searching for kid), or Fallout 3 when the kid was looking for the dad.  It's old and overused story theme.  At least Fallout 4 had the creativity to put in an unexpected twist once the son was found.  That twist alone makes the Fallout 4 story more compelling.  I won't spoil it for those of that haven't experienced it.  It's up there with the best story twists I've ever experienced.  

 

I found many of the Witcher 3 quests to be overly diplomatic and political.  Very boring.  Another overused story arch.  

 

I don't see how saving the world from dragons (Skyrim) is less creative than the political story in Witcher 3.  Personally I enjoyed Skyrim's story a lot more than Witcher 3.  I doubt I'll find many who agree since this is a Witcher 3 forum.

 

And as far as your Zelda comment goes, it makes no sense.

 

For anyone who played The Legend of Zelda when it came out, (as I did), it did provide a great deal of freedom compared to other games of the time.  It was a groundbreaking game then in the same way that Skyrim is now. The Legend of Zelda is one of the best video games ever made.  It's better than most AAA games created today even though games of today tend to be much more complex.

 

Many Zelda nock-off clones appeared after just as the Witcher 3 is a mediocre nock-off clone of Skyrim.  I suppose that's part of my problem with Witcher 3, nothing about it seems original.  In almost every way it plays like a dumbed down version of Skyrim on a better computer processor.

 

Great comment, I thought about bringing up the WOW South Park episode several times.  To my knowledge there are no spoilers in this thread.  This thread is about gameplay mechanics and game design choices, not about specific in-game events.

 

For what it's worth, I enjoyed the game, but was simultaneously very frustrated by it because of game design choices that were intentionally put into the game.  

 

I don't understand why people compare accidental bugs to intentional bad game design choices.  Bugs are bound to happen in software development.  Bad game design choices don't have to happen.

Just chill mate.. its ok you like skyrim more than witcher 3.. its all right not all people share same thinking and you cant change it either so just relax.. i respect your thinking..i like witcher 3 more than skyrim and i have my reasons.. you like skyrim and you have your reasons its perfectly fine.. you put a forum to know people view.. definately not for landing in some argument.. people have given their view.. thats it.. its obvious not all will agree to you.. and witcher 3 is not overated acc to me.. it is according to you and its fine.. now see there is no way to prove that whose combat is better and whose story is better.. its all about perception.. we dont have mathematical proofs for it which can be universally accepted.. its just that people have definately liked it.. just for info if you see metacritic user rating.. its 9.1 something.. which is very rare thing.. there are people who have given the game 0 as well.. atleast you liked it a bit..lol.. so its ok.. but yeah from internet we can say more people have liked it.. plzz note i am not saying that more people have liked it than skyrim becoz i dont stats i cant say anything about it.. but i do think metacritic user rating for witcher 3 is better.. though i think critic rating is better for skyrim.. i am not sure just check it for info.. i saw it a while ago.. and i dont know whether u played 1.12 version or retail version..coz i dint find any adverse bug in the game.. just found this weird actually. But may be it dint happen with me.. so just chill mate..

[MesopithecusUK]

Whilst I have zero interest in getting involved in a "my opinion is right and you're all wrong" debate, I do wish to address the comment you made regarding Witcher 3 being a knock-off of Skyrim.  You do realize that the Witcher games are based on novels by Andrzej Sapkowski which predate Skyrim?  Your point could therefore be argued otherwise.  I've actually read an interesting piece of conjecture today drawing striking parallels between Skyrim and The Game of Thrones books (which also pre-date Skyrim being made) 

Edited May 21, 2016 by Mesopithecus

[TwilightSpira]

It's really sad to hear this, but I guess it's all opinions and we must accept the differences. However it's really sad to read something off about Witcher 3 which is on my opinion the best Western rpg released recently. The game not only delivers a wonderful story but it's also fun and a step up for Western rpgs. I won't express my opinion on fallout here to avoid further discussion, but it's indeed sad to think there's a possibility of people thinking a game like fallout 4 is better than Witcher. In the end at least, we have the opportunity to play new games and stick with the ones we love the most, everyone wins

[Pirelli913]

The problem I think you have with the Witcher boils down to you playing as Geralt and not a character of your own creation. Geralt is a Witcher and Witchers fight with swords and signs. He's not Geralt of Rivia if he's a mage or an archer. I guess for that reason The Witcher isn't a true RPG. Stick to 'true' RPGs where you play as 'you' if thats your bag

While you can't create the "look" of Geralt (other than beard and hairstyle - which were free DLC), you can, technically choose his play style by equipping various mutagens and upgrades. You can be a "mage" spamming magic signs, you can be a tank, going in swords blazing, you can be the character that relies on brewing potions or you can choose a combo of any. I primarily cast signs, but have just started delving into alchemy.

 

As to the topic at hand, I personally love the game, am impatiently awaiting the upcoming DLC, but I do know the game has a ton of bugs. I've actually sent issues (along with save files) to CD Projekt Red informing them of these issues. Some, they've fixed. Others, they haven't. But they've always responded to let me know if they looked into my issue.