@Jerubedo: Your comment about the combat is objectively wrong, it just makes the not so great combat take longer, but yes too everything else. Especially humanoid boss enemies, which mostly sucked until the DLC, but I would turn up the difficulty for monsters because they actually had interesting designs.
@Renunciation: I think the reason that I am hard on Witcher on that point is because it (very commendably) is the closest I feel like a non-isometric RPG has come to the story-telling and reactivity of the great cRPG's of yesteryear.
It's a game for Star Wars fans, not shooter fans. That's fine. But I do think the game will die very quickly. I would guess at that stage core shooter fans wouldn't care too much because they have other better games to play anyway.
@retron57: I would put it in the same category as Undertale of really interesting ideas for videogames where I didn't much enjoy the execution. Not to say they weren't done well, I just didn't like playing them much.
@Renunciation: I'm a huge Souls fan, and I love that style of having to dig through everything to get the story and the lore, so BB works very well for me (though I do prefer Souls slower combat). But in a game like Witcher where the strengths I see in it is the writing, not the combat, I would have rather the content was much more heavily skewed to dialogue and role-playing than combat. Obviously as a monster hunter you couldn't pull a Fallout 2 and talk your way out of it all, though.
@billzihang: Yeah, I didn't quite get that one either. I would give it to Witcher on the strength of Fields of Arg Skellige alone, to say nothing of the rest of the fantastic score.
@adam4897332: I still got to play Bloodborne, and I don't think it is the type of game where an award would encourage many more people to try it. Besides a notch in the publishers belt, it's probably the indies which do best out of these shows, by way of more mainstream attention. No sales data have I to back that up, though.
jecomans' comments