And now for my next trick I shall say unkind things about The Witcher 3.

[Zhukov]

So I finished The Witcher 3 a couple of months back.

Basically, I thought it was alright. (I vaguely remember making an 'early impressions' type thread where I said some flattering things about it.)

The open world was convincing and pretty. The visual design was mostly great. The game was mechanically... well, functional at least.

There was actually some very solid characterization on display, with the standouts being Yennifer, The Bloody Baron and Dijkstra, which came as a nice surprise since I hadn't seen any evidence up till then of CDPR being able to so much as write their way out of a shopping list.

I liked that it took the time to show Geralt and Ciri interacting so the audience got to see them giving a damn about each other, lending the character's motivations some much needed emotional weight.

The story had some interesting bits in it - the stuff with the crones in the swamp was great. And it managed to wrap things up in a satisfactory manner.

And yet, a couple of months on, I would have completely and utterly forgotten that the game existed were I not a member of these forums. Which leaves me wondering why.

My first major complaint is the combat. It's not bad. It basically works as intended. But it is way too damn shallow for a game that fucking long. All you do is press dodge when enemies are trying to twat you about the head and press attack when they aren't. For like 80 fucking hours.

To be fair, they tried to add some depth with peripheral mechanics like parrying, spells, bombs, crossbows and potions. But aside from the occasional well-placed firebomb, everything on offer is either utterly ineffective or merely complementary to the core of mashing light attack and dodging.

My second complaint is the pacing. It's fucking woeful. And bad pacing can render any material forgettable. Part of that comes with the territory of being an open world game. Any story where 80% of the content consists of, "And then the Mighty Hero kept riding down the road", and, "And then the Mighty Hero killed his ninety seventh band of nondescript monsters/bandits", is shooting itself in the foot right from the word go.

But even just looking at the main storyline, the game has an execrable habit of padding things out and ruining the pacing in the process. The prime example is when you finally get to the island where Ciri is, a point to which things have been building since the end of the damn prologue, and the game brings everything to a screeching halt so you can escort-quest a narcoleptic dwarf. For no other reason than an extended Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs reference, which gave me the sickening feeling that the developers thought they were being incredibly clever.

Overall, The Witcher 3 just left me feeling a bit sad. They had a big ol' bucket of very tasty, prime quality raspberry jam, then they went and tried to spread it over four square miles of bread.

I've heard this game hailed as the pinnacle of the RPG genre (or ARPG, or WRPG or whatever the fuck we're calling these things now). I don't care enough to argue that, but if this is the best the genre can offer then it seems to me that the genre is in a very sorry state indeed.

 

[Casual Shinji]

My first major complaint is the combat. It's not bad. It basically works as intended. But it is way too damn shallow for a game that fucking long. All you do is press dodge when enemies are trying to twat you about the head and press attack when they aren't. For like 80 fucking hours.

Which is why I tend to stick to combat on horseback for every possible situation. It's faster, it's more fun, and it makes tougher enemies easier.

Anyway, I have very little to critique about with this game other than it's just too fucking big for me. I love how much shit they put in this thing, how great many of the characters are, how alive and organic the open-world feels, and how hard some the story choices can be, but after three weeks of playing and still not finishing, I really need to go play something else and take about a 3 month break from it. Which then forces me to start over to come to grips with all the mechanics again; The returning issue I have with many RPGs.

I'd still say this is the best game of the year. Not my favourite, but the best. The way it handles its open-world alone is enough.

 

[sky pies]

My first major complaint is the combat. It's not bad. It basically works as intended. But it is way too damn shallow for a game that fucking long. All you do is press dodge when enemies are trying to twat you about the head and press attack when they aren't. For like 80 fucking hours.

This has been a problem throughout the Witcher series. The various things you mention as attempts to spice things up were more or less present in the one or both of the first two games... To be honest they are the reason I didn't really put as much time into those games as I wanted to. Also, busy life, but yes the combat has never been perfect...

Put in something like what Skyrim featured and if might be better~ Turn based combat belongs in MMOs, not lag-free single player games.

 

[Phasmal]

Eh, I have The Witcher 3 but I've not played much of it. I don't find Geralt very engaging as a character and I wasn't really absorbed by it.
It's not bad, but I'm kinda missing what grabbed most people about it. I'll get round to finishing it eventually, but I haven't gotten very far.

Also some of the dialogue is just plain silly- Geralt, tell me again what Yennifer smells like because I honestly missed it the first ten times you said it.

 

[sky pies]

I think the game was just the right length, that and the lack of mods just make the game feel like something that ended, nothing to really add or take away.

How central are mods to your appreciation of a game? Is an ending, if well done, not a good thing? Like, is it not sufficient?

Is this a view held by many contemporary gamers?

I'm not trying to have anything behind my words here, it's just the last time I checked it wasn't a bad thing for a game to not have mods. I say 'the last time I checked' for a reason because I haven't actually played a computer game in about 10 months now. It's interesting that mods have gone from being third party, or just lightweight, additional snippets of material into, apparently, crucial parts of a game.

Unless I'm just misreading you, and Witcher 3 doesn't ship with modding software or something?

 

[sanquin]

The Witcher focuses more on story and setting, and less on combat. Most rpg's do it the other way around these days. Which they shouldn't. The core of a good rpg should always be the story and setting. Granted, them making the game open world and adding a ton of meaningless sidequests was a bad idea though. Basically, you can't have it all. It's usually either great combat, or great story and setting. Because it takes a lot of resources and time to make either great. I'm not sure about the pacing, since I haven't played the game that far just yet.

As for combat monotony. You must have been playing on a lower difficulty setting. On higher difficulties, those potions and signs become incredibly useful. My brother played through the entire game on the hardest difficulty, and Quen (the shield) was his life safer. Plus he used potions and sharpening stones all the time to get through. Maybe you don't see signs and alchemy as combat variety, but I see it as a different kind of combat variety.

For that matter, Skyrim had incredibly monotonous combat as well. Sure, you have several options to choose from at the start, but after that it's usually just 1 type of attack or 1 type of spell you're using.

 

[sky pies]

The core of a good rpg should always be the story and setting. Granted, them making the game open world and adding a ton of meaningless sidequests was a bad idea though. Basically, you can't have it all. It's usually either great combat, or great story and setting.

How would you place Skyrim and the other TES games in this RPG balance? I don't think Skyrim was a perfect game - like with all TES games interaction with NPCs who were not going to give you quests was terrible - but it did seem to do a decent job of combining story with content? Though perhaps Witcher is heavier on story.

Don't get my wrong, I think the Witcher games are a fantastic tonic. My favourite TES games were 3 and 4, but I just thought I'd ask the question about 5.

 

[sanquin]

How would you place Skyrim and the other TES games in this RPG balance? I don't think Skyrim was a perfect game - like with all TES games interaction with NPCs who were not going to give you quests was terrible - but it did seem to do a decent job of combining story with content? Though perhaps Witcher is heavier on story.

Don't get my wrong, I think the Witcher games are a fantastic tonic. My favourite TES games were 3 and 4, but I just thought I'd ask the question about 5.

For Skyrim, the main story was mediocre. Some of the side quests was where it was at in that game. Though it also had huge problems with many of the quests being very generic. The combat was worse than Witcher 3. On my 'scale' if you would call it that, Skyrim would be more story/setting based, and less combat based. But the Witcher 3 still does better in story from what I've seen so far. And a lot better in side-quests too.

On the semi-standard /10 scale people like to use, I'd put modless skyrim at 7/10, modded skyrim on 8/10, and Witcher 3 on 9/10. I consider the Witcher 3 to be pretty close to my perfect RPG of the last couple of years from what I've played of it so far. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Zhukov]

Eh, I have The Witcher 3 but I've not played much of it. I don't find Geralt very engaging as a character and I wasn't really absorbed by it.

I'm torn on Geralt himself.

On the one hand he's a professional monster hunter and a tragic outcast, the best swordfighter ever who also knows magic, has exotic hair and mutant cat eyes, has a badass facial scar (vertical slash scar over the eye for extra cliche points), is a complete chick magnet and of course is a hardened loner who bows to nobody. Jusus Christ, fucking please. Could that be any more Mary Sue nerd bait?

On the other hand, at least in the third game he comes across as a polite and reasonable guy, which is rare for video game action heroes. He's also given a distinctively wry sense of humour, which helps make him feel more grounded as a character.

He gets a few good moments too. There's a bit where a shapeshifting character shows him what what Ciri, his surrogate daughter who he hadn't seen since she was an adolescent, looks like as an adult for the first time. He gets severely choked up. Actually made me feel for the guy for the first time in the entire series.

The Witcher focuses more on story and setting, and less on combat. Most rpg's do it the other way around these days. Which they shouldn't.

Oh, it's story-driven, sure, but there's still an absolute ton of combat. Often used to pad out said story.

Basically, you can't have it all. It's usually either great combat, or great story and setting. Because it takes a lot of resources and time to make either great.

Why not?

That's like saying a game can either have great graphics or great music but never both. Or a game can have a great story or really tight controls but not both.

Plenty of games manage to be great in all those areas. Why are quality stories and good combat suddenly mutually exclusive?

As for combat monotony. You must have been playing on a lower difficulty setting. On higher difficulties, those potions and signs become incredibly useful. My brother played through the entire game on the hardest difficulty, and Quen (the shield) was his life safer. Plus he used potions and sharpening stones all the time to get through. Maybe you don't see signs and alchemy as combat variety, but I see it as a different kind of combat variety.

Nope, I played on the second highest difficulty. Just meant I had to be prompt with the dodge button.

As for Quen and sharpening stones and whatnot, that's what I mean by the supposed combat variety merely being complementary to the core of mashing left click and dodging on cue. Up against a big enemy? Press Q to cast shield then commence with the click-click-dodge routine. Up against insects? Pause game, apply insect poison, commence with click-click-dodge. Got flying enemies? Middle click for auto-aimed crossbow to knock them down to ground then proceed with click-click-dodge. Yay busywor... err, I mean, yay mechanics!

For that matter, Skyrim had incredibly monotonous combat as well. Sure, you have several options to choose from at the start, but after that it's usually just 1 type of attack or 1 type of spell you're using.

Oh sure. Skyrim's combat was twice as bad. Left click to attack. Continue left clicking to attack some more. Hold left click if you're a spellcaster. Maybe hold right click as well if you're feeling especially adventurous and want to really push the envelope.

 

[Euryalus]

You're fucking terrible at being uncritically unkind. XD

The problem I have with it is that it's a story driven open world RPG to begin with. So something I've noticed about open world RPG's is that the way the story is written isn't itself a whole lot different from how a novel is written. It's linear and a beginning to end affair... Which doesn't lend itself to an open world context where you get to diddle yourself around on pages 1-10 for 100 hours and then read pages 10-500 in like 3.

The pacing is inherently going to be fucked. I think if we're honest with ourselves, the reason we like open world RPG's is because we like the gameplay, but can't quite be persuaded to use that style as the means of storytelling.

We like novels and we like open worlds so put them together and some of the bits get squashed in ways that make the corners ugly, but hey, at least it's mostly good.

Skyrim did this the worst. It had a believable world, lore, location, but was filled with stilted characters that were basically just lore dumps or signposts for the next part.

The combat was offensively inoffensive for the most part, although I still think it was league's better than oblivion or morrowind despite the fact that fanboys will whine about some mystical complexity that makes it better.

 

[BreakfastMan]

You're fucking terrible at being uncritically unkind. XD

The problem I have with it is that it's a story driven open world RPG to begin with. So something I've noticed about open world RPG's is that the way the story is written isn't itself a whole lot different from how a novel is written. It's linear and a beginning to end affair... Which doesn't lend itself to an open world context where you get to diddle yourself around on pages 1-10 for 100 hours and then read pages 10-500 in like 3.

The pacing is inherently going to be fucked. I think if we're honest with ourselves, the reason we like open world RPG's is because we like the gameplay, but can't quite be persuaded to use that style as the means of storytelling.

We like novels and we like open worlds so put them together and some of the bits get squashed in ways that make the corners ugly, but hey, at least it's mostly good.

Skyrim did this the worst. It had a believable world, lore, location, but was filled with stilted characters that were basically just lore dumps or signposts for the next part.

The combat was offensively inoffensive for the most part, although I still think it was league's better than oblivion or morrowind despite the fact that fanboys will whine about some mystical complexity that makes it better.

I think a novel is the wrong way to think about stories in open world games. I tend to think of them more like a television show, like X-Files or Star Trek: A series of vignettes/short stories in one world (episodes in the TV show case, side-quests in an open-world game's case), that might have an overarching narrative (like the alien conspiracy in X-files).

 

[Euryalus]

I think a novel is the wrong way to think about stories in open world games. I tend to think of them more like a television show, like X-Files or Star Trek: A series of vignettes/short stories in one world (episodes in the TV show case, side-quests in an open-world game's case), that might have an overarching narrative (like the alien conspiracy in X-files).

That's the problem though. The story structure is written like a novel.

And even a tv series would be a bad way to structure a whole game in some ways because it would still be a linear story telling style in a non linear story acquisition... thing.

In an open world game I can approach parts of the story in a lot of different ways and at different times with a different level of knowledge about the world through the gameplay.

If the story doesn't somewhat mimic that then there are necessarily going to be parts that are either confusing or feel too "explain-ey"

Now not all games are non linear, so for those kinds of games my point is irrelevant. Portal, Zelda, and Half Life can pretty much be written similarly to a tv series or a novel. The pacing would need to be different, but it's similar enough that you can turn those kinds of stories into novels fairly easily you know? (e.g. The Halo series).

Essentialy for a lot of open world games, the way the story is told doesn't quite gel as well as other genres... although I still hold that game writing in general is pretty shit. So even if we don't get into any weird discussions about Gesamtkunstwerk, we'd probably improve a lot if game makers cared about writing slightly more... I personally tend to be more of a fan of strong level design and gameplay than storytelling now, so it doesn't matter to me as much unless the story is the selling point of the genre or the game.

 

[Imre Csete]

The combat was offensively inoffensive for the most part, although I still think it was league's better than oblivion or morrowind despite the fact that fanboys will whine about some mystical complexity that makes it better.

Well call me a fanboy and let's break into Skywalker Ranch, but removing spellcrafting was a mind-numbingly stupid move. Oblivion had some interesting power attack+move direction combinations, granted, I haven't touched Skyrim in a long time, but I don't remember any of that.

So yeah, we got dual wielding, but lost other options, which could have been easily included.

 

[Silence]

I've heard this game hailed as the pinnacle of the RPG genre (or ARPG, or WRPG or whatever the fuck we're calling these things now). I don't care enough to argue that, but if this is the best the genre can offer then it seems to me that the genre is in a very sorry state indeed.

You know, I pretty much praise Witcher 3, but I agree with this part. Very much.

Witcher 3 should not be the pinnacle of RPGs. It should be - the standard, from which you can improve upon. Many, many RPGs (looking at you, Dragon Age) fuck the basic things up. The impressive thing about Witcher 3, is that it does not fuck basic things up. It has story (and I'm seriously saying that most RPGs fail at that. Even though it's the most important thing for these games), it has alright combat, it has non-generic optional stuff. All things that are rare. And there is no reason why they should be rare.

 

[Euryalus]

The combat was offensively inoffensive for the most part, although I still think it was league's better than oblivion or morrowind despite the fact that fanboys will whine about some mystical complexity that makes it better.

Well call me a fanboy and let's break into Skywalker Ranch, but removing spellcrafting was a mind-numbingly stupid move. Oblivion had some interesting power attack+move direction combinations, granted, I haven't touched Skyrim in a long time, but I don't remember any of that.

So yeah, we got dual wielding, but lost other options, which could have been easily included.

The first bite

Bethesda and some other companies definitely have an annoying habit of removing things instead of working on them if they have to do too much, but in general the way actually using spells and the dynamics of combat in Skyrim felt smoother and better, albeit a bit boring because it was only smooth and not particularly tactically varied within a class.... So I'll definitely agree there regarding spells, but my main point is really the idea that the complexity and variety itself is what makes it better, when it's way more nuanced than that.

Variety is dumb when it changes the gameplay experience without really changing it all that much, and complexity and variety themselves are dumb when there isn't a sort of... flow to it.

With each game the Elder Scrolls has been moving towards a smoother combat interface and interaction which is good I feel. And it does make the combat better if less exciting than it could otherwise be if the whole system was "updated" as well.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

I thought the game was the absolute perfect length. By the time I was ready to go ahead to the last mission, I was level 33, so I did another quest or two to hit level 34, finished my Mastercrafted Wolven Armor, and then went off to battle the big bad.

Pretty much any RPG is "padded" to some degree, but one thing I liked about Witcher 3 is that, even when you're sent off to do a somewhat ridiculous quest (like the aforementioned Dwarf section, or an earlier part where you have to find some guy's goat) Geralt actually comments and makes light of how ridiculous it is, so I sort of saw it as a little bit of tongue in cheek joke on CDPR's part. And c'mon, that Dwarf quest took like 10-15 minutes in a game that takes damn near 100 hours for a playthrough.

I thought the combat worked well enough. It wasn't as good as, say, Kingdoms of Amalur, but it was much better than the weak combat of Skyrim or DA:I.

 

[happyninja42]

Eh, I have The Witcher 3 but I've not played much of it. I don't find Geralt very engaging as a character and I wasn't really absorbed by it.

Not a surprise, since he's one of the most bland and Marty Sue characters around. So bland and empty that it's super easy for the player to dump themselves into him as an empty vessel.

 

[Phasmal]

Eh, I have The Witcher 3 but I've not played much of it. I don't find Geralt very engaging as a character and I wasn't really absorbed by it.

Not a surprise, since he's one of the most bland and Marty Sue characters around. So bland and empty that it's super easy for the player to dump themselves into him as an empty vessel.

Eh, I have The Witcher 3 but I've not played much of it. I don't find Geralt very engaging as a character and I wasn't really absorbed by it.

I'm torn on Geralt himself.

On the one hand he's a professional monster hunter and a tragic outcast, the best swordfighter ever who also knows magic, has exotic hair and mutant cat eyes, has a badass facial scar (vertical slash scar over the eye for extra cliche points), is a complete chick magnet and of course is a hardened loner who bows to nobody. Jusus Christ, fucking please. Could that be any more Mary Sue nerd bait?

On the other hand, at least in the third game he comes across as a polite and reasonable guy, which is rare for video game action heroes. He's also given a distinctively wry sense of humour, which helps make him feel more grounded as a character.

He gets a few good moments too. There's a bit where a shapeshifting character shows him what what Ciri, his surrogate daughter who he hadn't seen since she was an adolescent, looks like as an adult for the first time. He gets severely choked up. Actually made me feel for the guy for the first time in the entire series.

Yeah, I think you've both sort of hit the issue on the head. I think I would have an easier time engaging with him as a character if he seemed more real to me. And he kind of doesn't. Don't get me wrong, he's not a terrible guy it seems and he has his moments.

But I just don't really buy him as a real person, he has too many Mary Sue qualities.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks to me is that so many women apparently want him to take them to the Bone Zone.

Spoiler: This is basically me whenever a woman is being drooly at Geralt

It might be a petty complaint, and I may find myself warming to him if I ever get further in the game (which I'm sure I will when I get round to it), but y'know sometimes a character just makes you go `meh`.