Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
spawn024

Witcher 3 - Disappointing in so many ways.

64 posts in this topic

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.

You can't compare a character from and elder scolls game to geralt. Geralt is a character clearly defined from a series of books. He has those specific abilities and combat training.

You can't expect him to user magic aside from some weak basic sign enchantment because not everyone can access magic in the world of witcher. And you can't expect him to use bows or crossbows like a super expert marksman because he is not.

In this game the role you play is not based on a wide array of combat mechanics, but in the choices you make during the quests.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

This was fun in the beginning, but now you are just boring me. Fallout 3's world might be huge, but there's seriously nothing there. It's grey and a dull looking world with bad level design. By the way, It's also a common fact that the Xbox 360 runs Fallout 3 better then the PS3. The 360 is supposed to be the weaker system spec wise. How come the 360 can handle the game alot better then? Because it really should be pushing the 360 to it's limits. I know the consoles are pretty much the same in the end. But in theory. This just proves Bethesda can't develope for the PS3 for shit. But yeah, I don't really care, you keep enjoying that massive Bethesda cock.

 

 

About my use of "cuss" words. I curse like a sailor, I'm rebel, I don't give a fuck.

Edited by LovesAnInjection
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this is a fun thread  :lol:

 

First things first: I have not played The Witcher 3 yet. I might do so in the future, that is why I was checking out the forum.

However, I have played The Witcher 1 (really did not like it, especially the fighting system made me furious) and The Witcher 2 (did not get very far, don't know why, somehow it did not "click"... but I restarted it today to give it a second chance, that's also why I was looking up The Witcher 3 because if I finally get into TW2 and finish it, I might pick up TW3) and I love the Bethesda-Style RPGs (Elder Scrolls, Fallout 3 etc.), my first experience with them being Morrowind. I would even call myself a Bethesda-Fanboy to some extent.

 

So, here is my 2 cents to this whole discussion:

 

a) Yes, Bethesda games are a really buggy mess. Never prevented me from enjoying them but sometimes, they drove me nuts! (I look at you, Benevolent Leader trophy in Fallout 4!!!) Even big fanboys of The Elder Scrolls or the newer Fallout games cannot deny this. No matter what the reasons for the bugs are (yes, the games are complex, but I don't need a computer science degree to understand that 1) the engine simply overstayed it's welcome and it's high time they switched to something more modern and 2) that there are many bugs in Bethesda games that should not simply go through Q&A and really need to be fixed before a game goes to sale!), developers should always strife to make games as bug-free as possible... and I think we all can agree that Bethesda could put more effort in that because while I can accept that a huge, complex game like Skyrim or Fallout 4 can never be 100% bug-free, there are many, many sometimes very obvious bugs that are fixable (otherwise they would not have been patched out by now) and they should not release their games until only "obscure" bugs remain. But that's where developers and publishers/marketing/etc. often clash.

 

B) As I said before, I have not played TW3 yet but the points OP makes in his first posting in my opionion really just tells one thing: he expected a different kind of RPG! And that in itself is not a problem, there are many different kind of RPGs out there and TW3 may be one of them OP does not enjoy. However, the "mistake" he makes is blaming the game for not being tailored to his needs/expectations instead of accepting that it simply may not be for him and moving on. It's like hating DOOM (2016) for being DOOM and not Call of Duty or Battlefield. They are all FPS but wastly different and so The Witcher games are something different than a Bethesda RPG or a J-RPG like Final Fantasy 7 (which is, in my opinion, one of the most overhyped games in the world!)

 

And I don't like it when people "hate" a game because it is not like Game XYZ ... because those people with their whining just add to the "trend" that videogames become more and more the same, that less experiments are made, that the same formula is applied everywhere etc.

 

What bothers me about OP post is that he is not acknowledging that the things he does not like about TW3 are his personal taste but sounds like he cannot understand how anyone can like those things and that the game should be considered "shitty" by everyone etc.

 

Therefore, dear OP:

 

Don't like that The Witcher 3 has no companions? Go play a RPG with companions in it, there are enough to choose.

 

Some criticism is valid like menus or maybe even the leveling system... the mechanics... but stuff like companions etc. for me are things, that would make the game something it does not want to be. Geralt is a loner. You would not make a Rambo game where he has 15 different companions, would you? This is a design choice that was made specifically to make this game in a certain way... you don't have to like it, but do not say that they have to change this! You don't say to Adele she should start making Metal just because you like Metal music more... you just don't listen to her and that's it. So don't play an RPG without companions in it if you really want companions / a party in your RPG experience but do not ask every game to be like a certain formula ... diversity is a good thing and many people (me included) prefer games without party management or companions. I play Fallout 4 most of the time without a companion for example.

 

Also, based on your TOP 10 RPG list, I suspect that your experience with RPGs is not a big one or that it is limited to the mainstream and "modern" RPGs... South Park is great, as is Skyrim etc.... but almost all the games you mentioned (especially the JRPGs) are not really what I used to call RPG back in the day... and you claim to be older than me! If that's correct and if you love RPGs, how come that no Baldur's Gate 2 or Planescape: Torment or Ultima game etc. made the way into your list? What about the original Fallout? Because you know, bach then, the RPGS were real meaty, complex, full of choices, story branches, skill trees etc.? All the games you listed are - and I hate myself for using this word - very casual RPGs compared to some of the RPGs that are generally considered to be the best of all time. Oh and I would not count Chrono Trigger as a RPG (same for all the SNES JPRGs like Secret of Mana etc.) because I think they are more action adventures like Zelda then RPGs, even in the broader JRPG sense (I personally think that most JPRGs do not really qualify as RPGs but that would be another discussion).

 

So, sorry OP ... while you are in your rights to not like TW3, I don't think you should condemn the game for being something that you did not want. Also, as a RPG fan I find your Top 10 list lacking... but then again, we should not discuss taste. But I find it a bit funny that you criticize TW3 for not being complex enough and having no companions etc. and then listing a lot of non-complex JPRGs and the modern Bethesda games, which are great and have a lot of (simulated) freedom but take the piss in the complexity category compared to earlier games in their franchise or good old RPGs in general. 

 

Puhh, I hope my rant made sense haha ... English is a second language for me so if some things might be confusing, I apologize in advance  :-D

Edited by Sicho
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel you should've worded the start and/or at least the title to make it sound like you're trying to show a subjective opinion rather than trying to straight up say "X is better than Y."

I have to personally disagree with a lot of your points, and I've played both games to somewhere in the 3 digit hours myself, not sure on exact numbers however.

The story of Witcher 3 is beautiful, engaging and it drips with emotion. Witcher probably has the best story I've played in an RPG to date, and I don't think I skipped a single cutscene or piece of dialogue (unless I'm rebrowsing conversations). I loved the Witcher 3 story a lot more than Skyrim's, which I personally thought was really, REALLY cliche with the whole saving the world from dragons and such. Not to mention the side quests in Witcher had an immense amount of story packed in them too, where as I felt was rather lacking in Skyrim.

Graphics? Both games deliver amazing visuals, especially in thier sceneries/locations, it's pure eye candy right there, not to mention how gorgeous the weapons look in both games as well.

The gameplay of both games was great, I had a blast with both games, but I'm going to have to say Witcher 3's is better. I liked the combat in both games, but honestly, Witcher's felt a lot more punishing if you played terribly (I played both games on max difficulty, Death March and Master respectively). You take a lot more damage for being hit in Witcher, and have much less means of healing it up, as healing is not instant and on Death March, you can't simply meditate and restore your health. I liked how the dodge roll in Witcher had to be used as a repositioning tool, rather than flat out invulnerability frames to make the combat not completely easy. I don't know about how you played, but when I played Skyrim, the combat became really not punishing once you get a solid set of gear and weapons. I simply used Elemental Fury with a buffed Daedric Dagger and R1 spammed most things to death, which brings me to my next point...

The levelling or "over levelling" system rather was not a huge problem for me, and in fact in a lot of cases I really hated it in Skyrim. As much freedom as you have in your build path, you were forced to level your combat stats to a high level first if you really wanted to get invested in non combat stats, because the enemies level up with you, and especially in higher difficulties that becomes a huge problem if you don't have respectable combat stats early. I will agree that I hated how missions gave 1 exp if you were out of a certain level range, that got on my nerves. But you complained about going back to earlier areas and fly swatting all the enemies because you were overlevelled, but it would become a serious chore to go back to starting areas and have to fight level 35 dogs. As I said in my previous point, I felt as though combat became really not punishing in Skyrim once you got some decent gear and weapons, where you can R1 spam and fly swat not only earlier enemies, but pretty much anything you come across.

The menu system is clunky and slow in both games, but is easily remedied by clearing up all the useless junk in your bag. Go store your items in a chest and it will not be so bad, making it easier to navigate and fix your gripes about the delay, but use multiple storages in Skyrim because my chest takes a while to load now, because I stored too much things in it. I will agree with you that I hated the lack of being able to see if you have/how much you have of an item in your bag while buying.

The lack of companions was a bonus for me in Witcher 3. I hate companions because especially in games these days they usually get in your way, or just become a mule, which I can't think of a better way to describe Lydia in my opinion, apart from a sneak training dummy. Also the fact that the companions in games in this generation have HORRIBLE AI, using Lydia in Skyrim as the example again, thank god she only goes wounded and doesn't die. The only times I can think of having reliable AI companions off the top of my head are: FF12, because gambits, Dragon Age, because tactics, and Guild Wars 1, because AI was so brokenly strong to do things that humans would struggle to do or found tedious to do. (Quarter second cast time interrupts, perfect buff uptime, perfect minion sustain, etc)

There is a lot more freedom in Skyrim in build crafting, this is 100% true, but I found it useless to put points into a lot of the stats in Skyrim like Alteration/Illusion/Lockpicking/Speechcraft etc. While you had more options in Skyrim, a lot were extremely lackluster, such as traps because you don't really need to lure enemies to you before just murdering them with regular destruction magic for example. I didn't feel as though Witcher's was restrictive or forcing to specialise though. You had to invest a certain amount in a tree to unlock further parts of the tree, that's how it works in both games.

I don't know what you mean by "The designers are intent to push you on a path". Witcher 3 is anything but linear. You get access to most of the areas before you even enter chapter 2 of the game, and you can explore freely and tackle side quests. I really don't understand how you concluded that Witcher 3 is linear.

You do not need a computer science degree to criticise a game about the monstrous amount of bugs it has in it. In fact, you're complaining that people aren't giving Witcher 3 "the criticism it deserves", but are trying to shoot down well deserved criticism on the poor QA testing and support to bugs in Skyrim. Yes, both are open world games and both have bug problems, that is in thier nature. But the bugs in Skyrim are far more game breaking and my game crashed more than 100 times, along with other bugs such as frame rate tanking and more. The only bug I had with Witcher 3 that wasn't easily remedied is the occasional crash (it was rather rare, maybe once every two days, vs once an hour in a Bethesda game) and a trophy bug, which I tweeted to CDPR, and they told me that it was included in the next patch. (Made me respect CDPR a lot more for that) You cannot say that "Skyrim was pushing the limits of the PS3 engine", especially since the PS3 had better hardware than the XB360, yet the PS3 was the worst version of Skyrim by far.

In the end, everything is subjective to opinion, this is my opinion in response to yours. I enjoyed Witcher 3 a lot more than Skyrim and will hope games have a Witcher 3 standard of quality in future.

Also, you shouldn't be bashing on Suff's (sorry if I butcher your name) use of the word "coz", especially when you use "funner" in your opening paragraph ("fun" is a noun, not an adjective) and then question other's knowledge of the English language/maturity.

Edited by Griffon234
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as a single player action RPG experience, the game is near perfection... except, i swear that was a head shot!!

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I never once thought, "Golly gee, I need a companion to get in my way." Witchers are notorious loners and Geralt had allies that aided him throughout the game, but with the amount of dialogue the game already has, it'd probably cost quite a bit more to pay the voice actors for additional lines for whoever was a companion. And as I stated before, it didn't take away from the experience for me and I've played the Mass Effect trilogy as well as Jade Empire - both BioWare games. As others have said, The Witcher was a series of novelizations first, so it has lore that CD Projekt Red included in the games.

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

Says the guy who wrote a book on why he finds The Witcher 3 disappointing and then replies to everyone who disagrees with his views...

 

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.

Cussing isn't a sign of immaturity. If you insult the one you're debating against, then yes, because it means you already lost the debate. But I read (don't remember where) that people that cuss have higher IQs. That said, using correct grammar, wording, and punctuation go a long way to showcasing one's intelligence. I knew a guy who butchered practically every word and my friends and I never respected him or thought highly of him.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if troll topic or being serious? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll admit I stopped reading after I saw you having Fallout and Skyrim as your benchmarks for a good RPG...IMO both largely over rated and run terribly

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This... was an interesting thread  :popcorn:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know why everyone can't respect everyone's opinions. This thread is nothing but people shitting on the OP because his opinion is different than everyone else's.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know why everyone can't respect everyone's opinions. This thread is nothing but people shitting on the OP because his opinion is different than everyone else's.

 

If you'd actually read any of the posts in this thread you would have known better. Everyone isn't shitting on OP for having a different opinion. OP is shitting on everyone else for having a different opinion.

 

Why start a thread at all if not for discussing a subject. If OP just wanted to spew his opinion he should have just made a status update or something. You can't just expect to throw your opinion out there and expect everyone to agree with you. Especially if you do it in the way OP has been doing by presenting his opinion as fact and then ignoring actual facts and other opinions throughout the thread.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you'd actually read any of the posts in this thread you would have known better. Everyone isn't shitting on OP for having a different opinion. OP is shitting on everyone else for having a different opinion.

Why start a thread at all if not for discussing a subject. If OP just wanted to spew his opinion he should have just made a status update or something. You can't just expect to throw your opinion out there and expect everyone to agree with you. Especially if you do it in the way OP has been doing by presenting his opinion as fact and then ignoring actual facts and other opinions throughout the thread.

I did read the thread, otherwise I wouldn't have posted what I just did. I'm not defending the OP or anything but even by looking at the first page, you can see the smart ass remarks people were making about what he said. He only started doing his thing after everyone already started acting like a douche. Like I said I'm not defending the OP and he probably could have acted a bit better, but still. Edited by Kubanga
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't really on topic anymore people.

 

Attacks on spelling and grammar = no intelligence..ever thought someone might have dyslexia?

People attempting smart ass comments at each other. - you are arguing on the internet. No one is smart.

Calling each other douches.

Something about oranges and apples.

Ect Ect.

 

Man. :facepalm:  :facepalm:  :facepalm:

 

Can a MoD lock this, it's clearly gone way off topic.

Edited by VitalFury
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.