The Witcher worth it for gameplay?

[sXeth]

EDIT: Primarily in regards to the upcoming one, though the notes on the first two are appreciated (I might get through that much backlog playing, eventually, at some point)

See the topic. There's nothing else really on my immediate plate until Batman comes along. I don't know the story to have any interest or lack thereof, but "mature" themes are totally unimpressive to me, and that seems to be the thrust of its marketing that I've come across (pun unintended).

The gameplay trailer/demo I could find on youtube was sadly lacking in the combat meat, so does anyone have any insight into how it goes? (or a better video link) What I saw seemed pretty generic slash-slash-hand blasty magicheavy slash basic stuff. Perhaps I'm spoiled by Dragons Dogma, but when I'm playing a monster hunter, I dislike standing there swinging at with animations that don't even clip. I definately didn't like Inquisition's combat, if its anything like that.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I was soooooooo bored of the Witcher's gameplay I never got further than 2 hours into the first one. I think Yahtzee said it best:
"I don't care, I'm just not having fun!"

I'd play Dragon's Dogma, Skyrim or Dragon Age over Witcher any day. To me, the Witcher is what COD players think fantasy games are like: all tits and dragons and subtle Game of Throne references.

And its just a mess and not worth it.

 

[BarryMcCociner]

Depends.

If you're not into old style crpg type gameplay, stay the fuck away from number one.

Now, you'll only find the gameplay in Witcher 2 satisfying if you have some skill at analyzing gameplay and exploiting the rules of the game to your favor. People who don't have that skill tend to get confused by the animation speed compared to the actual speed of the input you need to be making.

As for three? I don't know if you'll find it fun. Grab it off GoG for 32 bucks, if you're not sure and see for yourself. It's honestly not THAT big of a risk.

Gamespot's review mentioned that it's ridiculously easy to get over-leveled if you do a lot of sidequesting, so the difficulty The Witcher is noted for is not going to be as much of an issue for newcomers.

 

[Metalmacher]

OP, are you talking about the original Witcher, or Witcher 3? Cuz, the latter didn't even come out yet, it's hard to form up an opinion about the combat as of right now...
Now, if we're talking about the original Witcher, well... Let's just say that if you're expecting a Dragon's Dogma-like experience you are gonna be dumbfoundedly disappointed. Combat is NOT the original Witcher's strongest suit, in fact, some might argue it it's worst. Is the game still worth it? I think so. It has it's problems, but it's unique.

 

[The Madman]

Which Witcher? Witcher 1 and 2 are both pretty different gameplay wise and 3 isn't even out yet so who knows?

Personally I kinda liked Witcher 1's combat. It wasn't thrilling but I disagree with the 'it's terrible' assessment I've seen thrown around a fair bit online. Similarly I thought Witcher 2's combat was just fine as well.

Would I play any of them purely for the action gameplay experience though? Probably not.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Dragon's Dogma is a hard act to follow when it comes to battling monsters for any game, let alone The Witcher.

I only played the second game and I fucking hated the combat. I don't mind when RPGs go for more of a traditional turn or menu-based combat, but when you go for direct action combat it would help to not make it totally shit. Though The Witcher games seem to hinge more on how much you like the story and characters.

 

[OpticalJunction]

if you're playing for the combat, it's not worth it, both witcher 1 and 2 have bad unintuitive gameplay mechanics. the games are good for the story and the graphics, but not gameplay honestly.

then again it's still better than dragon age inquisition which i STILL haven't finished. that game literally sent me to sleep

 

[Zhukov]

Which one?

The first one? Fuck no. Gameplay in that is garbage.

The second one? Maybe. It's nothing special, but I've seen worse.

The third one? Your guess is as good as mine.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Since you are all over the place OP I'll presume you mean Witcher 3.
And no the meat of this game isn't hack and slash, while it is much smoother in the third instalment then it ever was this does not translate to the standard button mash such as Batman. The Witcher always had a slow and deliberate combat which you need to learn very well before running into anything, flailing just gets you killed.
But ultimately the game has far far more content outside combat, it will take you hours on end before you get something to fight and you will need to prepare for that fight or face impossible circumstances.

Witcher series is absolutely not for impatient people, or anyone expecting a simple action packed ride.

 

[Pr0]

The first Witcher was somewhat surprising to me. Despite the adolescent approach to sex that it had, the game play wasn't bad and the story was relatively engaging...keep in mind that the first Witcher was kind of a semi-adult low end RPG that turned out better than expected.

The Witcher 2 was pretty good as well, incrementally better than the previous game. Still not a genre defining piece but still very good as well.

The Witcher 3 looks like a different animal entirely. I'm not sure what to make of it yet. It looks like CDPR went "what does everyone like about Skyrim, Dark Souls and Dragon Age? Okay put all that together in one game"...and that could be a hit or a miss, depends on the execution.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

Depends on how you like your games.

The first is an easy system that ends up being so overpowered that about halfway through the game you become almost unbeatable. The story is interesting but a little repetitive.

The second is the polished one with nice standard combat which is really easy but the enemies soon pile up damage if you don't fight defensively. The potion system is pretty much irrelevant and you never actually need to use potions unless you aren't very good at games and need a bonus edge. The story is interesting and has a significant choice on how you end up playing the second half of the game.

The third i've only seen the advert for and since there isn't any combat in it i think the game is probably going to be a step back (if they were proud of what they had created they would show you it, not deliberately hide it). My advice is wait for it to come out and then see how people react before you make your decision...

 

[Aetrion]

The combat is not the big strength of the Witcher series. The Witcher 2 is slightly better than the first one, but still not anything to get overly excited about. It has a lot of tactical depth, despite only playing one character. Which attacks you use and how you prepare for a fight can make a huge difference in the game. However, the fighting itself is relatively simplistic.

When it comes to the Witcher series the reason why some people love it and some people hate it is not the combat though, but the way it tells a story. The Witcher series is heavy on dialogue and piecing things together for yourself. The combat is actually fairly sparse in the game by modern RPG standards, and that turns a lot of people who just want non-stop action off. You have to enjoy listening to dialogues and just exploring the world and its themes to really get into the Witcher series.

 

[happyninja42]

I was soooooooo bored of the Witcher's gameplay I never got further than 2 hours into the first one. I think Yahtzee said it best:
"I don't care, I'm just not having fun!"

I'd play Dragon's Dogma, Skyrim or Dragon Age over Witcher any day. To me, the Witcher is what COD players think fantasy games are like: all tits and dragons and subtle Game of Throne references.

And its just a mess and not worth it.

Yep, that pretty much sums up my feelings on the game too. I played in that starting village, running around the circular track of a path for a few hours, and just realized I didn't know why I was doing these sidequests, aside from the fact that I have to for fantasy games. I didn't care about any of the people I was helping, and my character didn't seem to care either (Mr. GravelyFace McGiveaFuck), so I didn't care to play anymore.

 

[WarpedMind]

Keep in mind that the Gameplay of Witcher 1 and Witcher 2/3 are COMPLETELY different.

Now I liked both the first and the second one, but the first one is definitely weaker as far as combat goes, it gets to be quite a drag at times and it's not even really fun towards the end when you're hilariously overpowered.

The Witcher 2 is a really solid action game however, the combat is a lot less "RPGy" I suppose, but it's really fun and there's a lot of options to the combat.

 

[Link55]

I've heard very good things about and I've had some time to play the second installment and I got very much immersed into it. But it depends what you're looking for if you're looking for a game like the Elder Scrolls or Dragon Age games where you can get immersed in the scenery, gameplay, and story then I would definitely recommend it and say that it is worth it.

 

[sageoftruth]

Nah. If you're planning to gloss over the plot, the stuff left over is pretty mediocre or worse. The main draw gameplay-wise is the emphasis on being prepared before you go to take on a challenge, by bringing the right potions, coating your blade with the right oil, and learning about a monster's weaknesses beforehand.

However, IF you plan on glossing over the plot, you'll also find yourself pretty frustrated. This game really doesn't let you ignore the plot, and I'm having a hard time imagining what it would be like to play the game without giving any thought to what's going on in the story. By the second chapter, I have a vision of wandering from plot point to plot point in a bored fashion and making heavy decisions with a coin toss rather than careful deliberation over what seems like the best choice based on what has transpired. Anyway, the Witcher really isn't the Witcher without its plot.

 

[endtherapture]

The Witcher 1 is a very slow burning RPG game with old school RPG systems and a lot of lore. The atmosphere and world design is magical, and I personally enjoy the combat but I see why people don't. If you like games that last for ages and don't blow their load in the first few hours of the game, but build slowly and over time, it's a great experience. It's a long game you have to pay attention to and immerse yourself in the slow burn of the deep and engrossing, and highly personal, story.

The Witcher 2 is like Dark Souls-lite twitch combat. It can be tense and engaging but it has its flaws. The best part of the game in my opinion is its decision based storytelling. Whole swathes of the game will change based on what choice you make, giving it a lot of re-playability value. The game is fun though and it's a lot more modern than the previous game with more action packed set pieces, but still with a very deep and engaging story.

The Witcher 3...well we will see on Tuesday!

 

[asdfen]

witcher games are best after reading at least one of the witcher books. the gameplay is good old school rpg implementation with some action elements but nothing special. The story/quests are awesome in witcher 1 thought imo.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

It depends. Witcher 2's combat gets better once you leave the starting area(which can easily be between 4-9 hours of gameplay, depending on whether you just blaze through the main quest or if you do the side stuff too) when the swordplay, alchemy and sorcery trees open up.

PCGamer put it best: the early game is not about making Geralt good, but less of a shit fighter.

In terms of the other stuff, the quest design is fantastic, encroaching on sublime, since a poultry quest in the first chapter can lead to a huge conspiracy culminating in a secret dungeon boss in the third chapter.

The monster hunting aspect isn't too bad either, since there's a good variety of them, and using different spells to fight different enemies is a necessity: fighting humans is more about grace and countering whereas with monsters it's more about grouping and dodging, then spells/bombs.

It's a pretty good compliment to the story imo. The Witcher series isn't necessarily good for one single aspect, but how gameplay, story and writing mingle together. Choices flesh out the world and the writing reinforces the characterisation, etc. Taking out any single element and presenting them as a separate game wouldn't work.