The Witcher Witcher 3 was too big and had bad pacing

[markec]

Witcher 3 was already too big. Cyberpunk will be also. More is not always better. If a RPG is longer than 35 hours and remains engaging it is truly exceptional.

Well not all games can be brilliant masterpieces like Pillars of Eternity.

 

[taxalot]

The Witcher 3 had zero gameplay besides being a wandering simulator.

 

[Mebrilia the Viera Queen]

I liked witcher 3 but is a game that have flaws.

The open world in witcher 3 works just like a movie set, once you finished the quests in that area the world turns static the activity on it aside questing become vey forgettable. The issue is in exploration yes the world of witcher 3 looks pretty but exploration reward is nearly absent.

Witcher 3 never had objective perks in being and open world game in fact the game could had been made in hubs like witcher 2 was and archieve the same result. Cd projekt has a nice writers and a great art team but in the end level design or gamelay wise is not in their strong part.

I won't expect more from cyberpunk 2077 being merely loosely based on a source material but the real issue is the dumbing down and make things gamey in order to attract a mainsteram audience.ùù

 

[Comte]

Witcher 3 felt like a GTA fantasy game in a big empty world filled with cutscenes for a story I don't care about. Filled with trash loot.

 

[Sigourn]

Witcher 3 was already too big. Cyberpunk will be also. More is not always better. If a RPG is longer than 35 hours and remains engaging it is truly exceptional.

Those are only too big if you have some kind of autism and need to go to every single pixel, doing every single mini-quest and beat every single enemy.
If you don't, if you just do the major quests and a few others, depending on what you feel like doing, they are just fine.

That's the mark of bad quests, those. If the quests are good, you wouldn't get bored. Take Morrowind for instance: the ocassional fetch quest is fine, but when you do all quests in the game you find there are an awful lot of those, and it gets annoying. You can blame it on the player for accepting them, or the developer for not putting more effort into the game. I blame it on the latter.

 

[thesheeep]

That's the mark of bad quests, those. Take Morrowind for instance: the ocassional fetch quest is fine, but when you do all quests in the game you find there are an awful lot of those, and it gets annoying. You can blame it on the player for accepting them, or the developer for not putting more effort into the game. I blame it on the latter.

Yes, you blame others for your mistake, we already established that.
Many do. It's the sign of a weak personality.

These many side-locations and side-quests are not made for you. Not everything in a game is finely tailored to suit your very specific needs. You are supposed to take from a game what you enjoy and leave out the rest (if possible, which it is in this case).
Yet you play "all quests", despite knowing its not for you. And then put the blame on the developers.
Twisted logic, right there.

You cannot blame the devs, because nobody can seriously expect both a world of a certain size and that world to be filled with quests of only the Bloody Baron caliber.
And you also cannot expect devs to just make the world smaller then, because the mainstream audience expects a large world.

If the quests are good, you wouldn't get bored.

What is or isn't boring to you is 100% subjective. What you find boring, another will find great. I find arcade games boring as hell, others can play them for hours straight. It makes exactly 0 sense to try and derive any kind of factual standard from that.
Stop taking your own opinion as some kind of fact and maybe people will start taking your take on this more serious.

 

[Sigourn]

Yes, you blame others for your mistake, we already established that.
Many do. It's the sign of a weak personality.

That has to be the weakest argument to defend awful quests.

These many side-locations and side-quests are not made for you. Not everything in a game is finely tailored to suit your very specific needs.

So there are no bad games because not every game suits our "very specific" needs. Got it.

 

[Incendax]

Filled with trash loot.

I’m not a loot whore, but holy shit was the loot bad in Witcher 3. Pick 1-2 Witcher School armor sets, and everything else but Excalibur-proxy was trash.

 

[Cromwell]

You cannot blame the devs, because nobody can seriously expect both a world of a certain size and that world to be filled with quests of only the Bloody Baron caliber.
And you also cannot expect devs to just make the world smaller then, because the mainstream audience expects a large world.

Thats why you say they can go and fuck themselves because you rather have a good game than whatever it is the retards want. In the End everyone was talking about the fucking baron only anyway.

 

[thesheeep]

You cannot blame the devs, because nobody can seriously expect both a world of a certain size and that world to be filled with quests of only the Bloody Baron caliber.
And you also cannot expect devs to just make the world smaller then, because the mainstream audience expects a large world.

Thats why you say they can go and fuck themselves because you rather have a good game than whatever it is the retards want. In the End everyone was talking about the fucking baron only anyway.

And that's okay, if the game is not for you at all, you don't play it.
But to play a game, especially parts you don't like (which are entirely optional), just to then complain about the parts you didn't like.
That's ridiculous.

Also, everyone talked about the Baron, because that was simply of a quality mostly unseen in games. It wasn't the only good quest in the game, not by far.

Yes, you blame others for your mistake, we already established that.
Many do. It's the sign of a weak personality.

That has to be the weakest argument to defend awful quests.

These many side-locations and side-quests are not made for you. Not everything in a game is finely tailored to suit your very specific needs.

So there are no bad games because not every game suits our "very specific" needs. Got it.

So nice of you to build so many strawmen for me!
Could you wrap them up nicely so that I can add them to my collection?

 

[Sigourn]

So nice of you to build so many strawmen for me!

Your words, not mine. Something isn't necessarily bad because it doesn't suit your tastes, ergo: nothing can be bad because we just can handwave it as "it doesn't suit your taste, bro". Game quests have absolutely nothing to do with taste, I don't even know how you can even say that. A quest is either deep and compelling or is just another generic "go there, kill that, return" or "go there, fetch thing, return". Are you seriously saying that it is my taste whether one of the many generic quests in Morrowind are "good" or "bad"? It's stupid.

 

[Dedicated_Dark]

Witcher 3 has a main quest that asks you to ignore all the fckn side quests. It has mechanics and systems that undermine each other, it has repetitive awful combat system that gets incredibly stale by the end. And to top it all off, even the narrative seems butchered at points. It certainly has a lot of content, but presentation and writing alone does not dictate the overal quality of content.

It's an okay game that could've been so much more. Luckily mods fix some of the balancing issues so it's kind of fine now I suppose. Though the console fags will forever be lost and retarded.

 

[thesheeep]

A quest is either deep and compelling or is just another generic "go there, kill that, return" or "go there, fetch thing, return".

Yes. And you are the one saying that one of them is inherently good, while the other one is inherently bad. Which is nonsense. You just like one more than the other.
Something can only be rated as "good" or "bad" in relation to what it tries to achieve. Intention of the creator is key. Everything else is opinion and thus irrelevant in objectively rating anything.

A simple fetch quest can be good, if it fulfills the purpose of prolonging the gameplay experience by making the player... well, play more. No deep and compelling writing is needed to do that.
Repetition, grind, etc. can be very enjoyable. Hell, some can play games doing nothing else. I don't get it, but its their taste, not mine.

That doesn't mean I like it. Usually, I don't, certainly not if it is forced upon me at a high frequency (which it is in neither Morrowind nor Witcher 3).
I think we like and dislike the same or similar things in the games, but the big difference between us is that I do not assume my taste to be an objective standard. Because I know better.

Are you seriously saying that it is my taste whether one of the many generic quests in Morrowind are "good" or "bad"? It's stupid.

I think that some of Morrowind's quests fail to achieve what they set out to do. So yes, some of them are bad.
But this is a topic about Witcher 3, so... in Witcher 3, I don't think many quests fail to achieve what they set out to do. Hell, even simple fetch quests often (not always) have more to them than the standard MMO fare.

 

[Sigourn]

Yes. And you are the one saying that one of them is inherently good, while the other one is inherently bad. Which is nonsense. You just like one more than the other.

What's nonsense is that you are essentially confirming what I'm saying: there's no bad game because every game is suited to some people's tastes.

Something can only be rated as "good" or "bad" in relation to what it tries to achieve. Intention of the creator is key. Everything else is opinion and thus irrelevant in objectively rating anything.

• Bethesda achieved exactly what it set out to do.
• The market demographic absolutely loved it.
• It was a massive monetary success.

By the three metrics that count ("the game is good because the developers achieved what they wanted", "the game is good because people loved it", "the game is good because it was a success"), Skyrim is now the best game ever made. Is that what you are saying?

 

[OldNorseSaga]

By the three metrics that count ("the game is good because the developers achieved what they wanted", "the game is good because people loved it", "the game is good because it was a success"), Skyrim is now the best game ever made. Is that what you are saying?

That's what my brother is saying...He didn't played Witcher 3 yet.

 

[Mebrilia the Viera Queen]

I still think is useless to make an huge open world if your only focus is storytelling. A great story and sidequest is nice to have but videogames and rpgs are never supposed to be movies the open world in witcher 3 never brought something actually valuable to the series again is just a huge space filled with pretty visual things and nothing else.

 

[thesheeep]

Yes. And you are the one saying that one of them is inherently good, while the other one is inherently bad. Which is nonsense. You just like one more than the other.

What's nonsense is that you are essentially confirming what I'm saying: there's no bad game because every game is suited to some people's tastes.

You are either trolling hard or truly retarded.
I'll try it one last time, as simple as I can make it: There are good and bad games, but if people like them or not has nothing to do with their quality. Just like movies, music or any other form of media.

Something can only be rated as "good" or "bad" in relation to what it tries to achieve. Intention of the creator is key. Everything else is opinion and thus irrelevant in objectively rating anything.

• Bethesda achieved exactly what it set out to do.
• The market demographic absolutely loved it.
• It was a massive monetary success.

By the three metrics that count ("the game is good because the developers achieved what they wanted", "the game is good because people loved it", "the game is good because it was a success"), Skyrim is now the best game ever made. Is that what you are saying?

Your second point is irrelevant, see above.
Your third point is the same as the second one, at least usually.

Only the first point is relevant.
And to objective rate Skyrim, one would have to break it down into its pieces and check how well each of them achieved what their goal was. Needless to say, that would be quite the epic writeup and I have no desire to do that right now.
I'd estimate they achieved much of what they set out to do, so at least it's not a terrible game. But best game ever? Ehh, unlikely.

 

[Sigourn]

I'll try it one last time, as simple as I can make it: There are good and bad games, but if people like them or not has nothing to do with their quality. Just like movies, music or any other form of media.

Your words:

Something can only be rated as "good" or "bad" in relation to what it tries to achieve. Intention of the creator is key. Everything else is opinion and thus irrelevant in objectively rating anything.

Bethesda set out to make something. Bethesda agrees they succeeded: you don't see Todd Howard saying they didn't achieve what they wanted with Skyrim. People agree they succeeded. In other words: they made the best game ever made. Again:

Something can only be rated as "good" or "bad" in relation to what it tries to achieve. Intention of the creator is key. Everything else is opinion and thus irrelevant in objectively rating anything.

It's the Codex's word against the word of Bethesda and the millions and millions who enjoyed Skyrim. I repeat:

Intention of the creator is key. Everything else is opinion

 

[OldNorseSaga]

Nevermind though

 

[vonAchdorf]

TW1 > TW2 > TW3

 

[Average Manatee]

TW3 has bad core gameplay. 70% of the time is spent killing level-scaled monsters with level-scaled equipment to drop new level-scaled equipment and thereby kill new level-scaled monsters in the same fashion, while 20% is spent picking up flowers, selling shit to merchants and deciding between a sword with +2% damage +1% attack speed and +1% damage +2% attack speed. This isn't a problem with pacing, the pacing would be fine if combat and preparation for combat was actually interesting.

 

[OldNorseSaga]

TW3 has bad core gameplay. 70% of the time is spent killing level-scaled monsters with level-scaled equipment to drop new level-scaled equipment and thereby kill new level-scaled monsters in the same fashion, while 20% is spent picking up flowers, selling shit to merchants and deciding between a sword with +2% damage +1% attack speed and +1% damage +2% attack speed. This isn't a problem with pacing, the pacing would be fine if combat and preparation for combat was actually interesting.

In my book that's great pacing.

 

[thesheeep]

I'll try it one last time, as simple as I can make it: There are good and bad games, but if people like them or not has nothing to do with their quality. Just like movies, music or any other form of media.

Your words:

Something can only be rated as "good" or "bad" in relation to what it tries to achieve. Intention of the creator is key. Everything else is opinion and thus irrelevant in objectively rating anything.

Bethesda set out to make something. Bethesda agrees they succeeded: you don't see Todd Howard saying they didn't achieve what they wanted with Skyrim. People agree they succeeded. In other words: they made the best game ever made. Again:

We're getting closer here, maybe not all hope is lost on you.
This is gonna sound weird at first, but read to the end: "Bethesda" is not the creator of Skyrim. It is an entity with hundreds or thousands (?) of people working for them, it is far too abstract a thing to even talk about any intention beyond the financial (which, again, is irrelevant to rate any piece of media).
Just like "Disney" does not make a movie. A movie is made by the director, the actors, the writers, FX artists, etc. Those are the creators whose intention is relevant.
You cannot even ask "Bethesda" what their intention was quest X, town Y, game mechanic Z, etc. Why was this decision made, what was the intention? I mean, you can ask Bethesda, but you'll only get Todd Howard to tell you sweet little lies.

Bethesda, just like Disney, is a house under/for which the actual creators work.

 

[Chippy]

The major flaw for me is that I autistically did just about everything and hit max level before half of the game content. Then I started again, and installed a load of mods that expanded the class slots, traits (whatever it was called) and still maxed out almost before then end, and before I tackled the vampire DLC set in France. It might still be interesting because I've yet to get access to the mutagens.
If you're gonna do a massive single player game, content isn't an issue, you need to keep people' interest with the XP bellcurve as well.
I really need to get back to that game...

Is that really a flaw though? Games have to be designed so that even people who don't do a ton of side-quests can still acquire enough XP to be able to finish the game.

Most people aren't OCD about trying to complete every single quest in games like this.

When they threw enemies at you that could 1-shot you, I decided to go full retard and treat the game seriously. Then I reached the level cap and could breeze through everything. I enjoyed the game greatlyand still need to complete blood and whine, but thought they could have done better with the levelling - maybe mutagens with benefits and negatives...

 

[JDR13]

When they threw enemies at you that could 1-shot you, I decided to go full retard and treat the game seriously. Then I reached the level cap and could breeze through everything. I enjoyed the game greatlyand still need to complete blood and whine, but thought they could have done better with the levelling - maybe mutagens with benefits and negatives...