The Witcher 3 has now entered the group of things that are cool to hate. CDPR should be proud.
4) gear is something you have restrictions on in several ways - you need to be certain levels to use certain levels of gear. On top of that, one of the main ways of upgrading gear is through crafting. But crafting requires schematics and components that you acquire through playing. Moreover, it costs money. And money isn't thrown at you left and right in the way it is in some RPGs - so, again, you have to work for it. Being able to do more dangerous quests and contracts requires higher level, and so it all loops back to needing to progress as a witcher.
If you hoard, money doesn't seem to be a problem. I pick up everything that I can and sell it. Money has not been an issue at all for me.
5) alchemy is very important to the game, and requires exploration, recipe acquisition, and advancement to improve as well.
It depends. I have totally ignored alchemy so far. I make the potions if I can (and I can, because I hoard), but I never use them. That said, I first do a lot of question mark hunting before I do quests, which means so far I've always had witcher gear that's very close to my current level. That even makes enemies that are several levels above me relatively easy to beat. Combine that with a quen sign that regenerates health when I get hit and battles are generally pretty easy. I'm playing on 'blood and broken bones' now and sticking to it, so I'm not sure what it's like on 'death march'.
It all matters a lot. To expand on how these things tie into combat mechanics: your gear and points allocation help with resistances to various types of attack. They help with stamina and health recovery. They affect stamina loss. Meanwhile you need potions and oils/poisons to be an effective combatant - giving you better dark vision, choosing the right poison for the right type of foe (is it a spirit or a living creature or a vampire or...), affecting health recovery and resistances... you need to craft bombs to blind or damage foes and destroy their nests. Again, different bombs for different purposes, just as with the potions and oils and poisons. You need to set traps, dodge, roll, parry, block, cast spells, throw bombs, use light attacks when appropriate, heavy attacks when appropriate... all of this depends on the foe type and how many, and it all uses stamina and other depletable resources. It's not simple button mashing on a hard difficulty... it can't be or you will die. And hopefully you can see how the leveling aspects above tie into the ability to do all this effectively.
I guess the problem some people might be having is that, while the options are all there, you don't really seem forced to actually use them. The game encourages you to use a variety of sword fighting, signs and potions, but it doesn't seem to make those things absolutely mandatory, especially on lower difficulties. And the levelling system kind of suggests you should pick your branch, the problem being that one branch isn't particularly interesting or deep on its own. It's the combination of things that makes the combat fun. Also, on the higher difficulties it seems pretty much impossible to do everything with just your sword and button mashing, because Geralt's movement is rather heavy and he staggers easily when hit. That kind of contradicts the levelling system's suggestion that you should focus on one branch (especially with levelling going rather slow).
What I'm trying to say it's that it doesn't seem entirely clear what the game wants you to do in terms of combat. It offers three seperated branches, but investing in all branches seems necessary to make the combat easier and more diverse. I can see why people might initially think you can mash your way through this game and then get frustrated when you can't. I can also see why the combat might get very repetitive on lower difficulties, in which case button mashing becomes a viable option, with the frustrating addition that button mashing isn't really the way to go, even if you can. Geralt staggers easily and his movement is rather clunky, which makes the combat very unsatisfactory when you like mashing buttons and look cool doing it. In that case it works, but it's not fun. There's also little variety in his sword attacks, so people who like button combos have nothing to work with, which can again make the gameplay repetitive if you somehow expect that pure melee is a viable option. The variety lies in combining swordplay and careful movement with signs, but I suspect it's not something that's absolutely necessary on the lower difficulties. And it seems that generally, people will stick to their routines if they're not forced to play a certain way. And people also like their routines, so if something is slightly different they're quick to dislike it.
I find the combat very satisfying. Geralt's movement needs some time getting used to for sure. But controlling crowds with a variety of signs and making sure you don't focus on one opponent at a time, but use dodge to pick away at enemies' health bars is extremely satisfying, in my opinion. All the complaints about the lock on, clunky movement, etc. are totally justified, but I'm completely used to it now and what's left is smooth and fun combat.
But as I suggested above, I'm focusing on two branches, dumping most of my points in the signs branch (for variety), while spending the rest on melee. Haven't put any points in the alchemy branch (just like I did in the witcher 2), simply because I don't feel it's necessary at all and because I don't want to spread my points out too much and have all these mediocre skills. But maybe on my second playthrough I'll force myself to work with bombs, potions and oils more.
Nobody plays an RPG for good gameplay.
Hence why even a shitty game like Skyrim can get Perfect Scores and GOTY's gallore..... because actuall gameplay is not a factor.
That's generally my problem with RPGs. I don't like stats determining too much about how well I do. I prefer the stats to support my actions. I used to love RPGs when I was younger, but have since grown away from them.
The only RPGs that engage me any more are the Souls games because they strike the perfect balance. There are stats and ways to build your character the way you want them, but it's ultimately your actions that matter most. These games also nail mystery/exploration as well as video game storytelling. Absolutely top notch.
In short, I play the Souls games because they have good gameplay.
The Witcher 3 has now entered the group of things that are cool to hate. CDPR should be proud.
Indeed. Congratulatiions CDPR, you've made it to the big leagues.
I agree that The Witcher 3's main strengths are in its absolutely top-notch writing, storytelling, roleplaying, questing, monster design, world-building and graphical design. Those aren't really up for debate - CDPR did an incredible job with this game.
Let's lay this myth to rest though: The Witcher 3's combat...is actually pretty excellent. The enemies are varied and attack ruthlessly in packs. The parrying, counter-attack, and dodging system work extremely well with a little practice. The targetting system is excellent once you actually know how to play the game. The spellcasting options are fun, and can be mixed and matched to create your own interesting combat tactics.
Overall...I honestly can't think of too many real-time RPGs with better combat. Sure, there's the Souls series...but little else. The Witcher 3 certainly has better combat than anything Bethesda has ever made, and anything Bioware has made since BG2. Perhaps Kingdoms of Amalur, but that game was weak at everything except for combat...
Anyway, short version? It's a wonderfully skill-heavy combat system that is difficult to master - but plays *very* well when you get the hang of it.
I agree that The Witcher 3's main strengths are in its absolutely top-notch writing, storytelling, roleplaying, questing, monster design, world-building and graphical design. Those aren't really up for debate - CDPR did an incredible job with this game.
Let's lay this myth to rest though: The Witcher 3's combat...is actually pretty excellent. The enemies are varied and attack ruthlessly in packs. The parrying, counter-attack, and dodging system work extremely well with a little practice. The targetting system is excellent once you actually know how to play the game. The spellcasting options are fun, and can be mixed and matched to create your own interesting combat tactics.
Overall...I honestly can't think of too many real-time RPGs with better combat. Sure, there's the Souls series...but little else. The Witcher 3 certainly has better combat than anything Bethesda has ever made, and anything Bioware has made since BG2. Perhaps Kingdoms of Amalur, but that game was weak at everything except for combat...
Anyway, short version? It's a wonderfully skill-heavy combat system that is difficult to master - but plays *very* well when you get the hang of it.
See, this was actually the case with Witcher 2. And I know people like to complain about the combat of Witcher 2 but I don't think they gave the game enough time. One thing I heard about it all the time is "Geralt controls like a tank." Only at first. As you level up he gets more and more agile until eventually the game gets pretty damned easy combat-wise. It didn't do the "Just add more damage numbers" with leveling that some games do. He got much, much more spry in his movements as you advanced.
@Wickerman777:
Thats even worse....... making the controls floaty on purpose in the beginning just so you can make people grind levels to make the fine again is even worse than just "making numbers bigger"..... atleast in that scenario the controls are consistent and dependable.
Saying you must play a game at a higher difficulty mean there is a problem with the game play at lower levels.
I agree that The Witcher 3's main strengths are in its absolutely top-notch writing, storytelling, roleplaying, questing, monster design, world-building and graphical design. Those aren't really up for debate - CDPR did an incredible job with this game.
If it is anything like The Witcher 1 or 2 then I would find it poor. I put The Witcher 1 or 2 as some of the worse story I seen in gaming. The character a bland and one note at their best/. The setting is over the top and make it me not care about the pick a branch story moment. To finish the game I had to ignore the story and setting.
Surprised no one else was annoyed with Geralts fake, lame voice. Aside from the awful gameplay, Geralts voice did not make me feel like I was playing a hero. It made me feel completely disconnected from being the main participant in the world. No body in real life speaks like Geralts. At least have the only playable character speak like one could see himself in real life.
Ye, nothing like in real life... that voice.
But I agree with you, that voice is not the best thing. It's just like with Batman, it tries too hard, yet not a deal breaker for me. Still a 10/10.
Regarding the "awful gameplay", my position on that matter is that anyone with trouble controlling W3, after the initial adaptation, should consider visiting a doctor. Or just play Pacman.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment