Anyone else get the feeling skyrim was better?

[prodigydancer]

Number of mods make vanilla Skyrim better than TW3?

Are you really dumb as a rock or just convincingly pretend to be?

My point is that no matter what's your opinion on Skyrim you cannot deny it was outstanding at least as a modding platform. TW3 isn't outstanding in any fucking way. I'm tempted to say it's a shit game but for the sake of a serious discussion I'll tell you this: TW3 is an OK game - nothing less and nothing more. 7.5/10, good for one playthough. Yawn, forget and move on.

 

[RK47]

I enjoyed and I enjoy lot Skyrim, A LOT. Even with it flaws. But I think that The Fucker 3 is a more solid Action RPG in terms of "RPGish elements" than Skyrim.

You gotta be kidding me. It's precisely their attempts to be RPG that Witcher 3 ended up facing upscaled-by-zone Drowners, and Geralt not being able to kill Novigrad thugs who are level 20 with his level 5 sword and level 5 scaled Signs despite having able to solve a Griffin problem that plagues level 16 Nilfguard troops way earlier in his quest.

Witcher 3 attempts to incorporate RPG's leveling elements into a game that is clearly better as a third person action game is what's making the overall game weaker.
It should've been a simple: kill monsters, solve contracts, sell loot for gold - use gold to buy more gear upgrades and access to better alchemy instead of gating fucking 5% damage over level ups while getting 3 EXP per kill and gaining 50 XP for winning a card game.

 

[TheHeroOfTime]

I enjoyed and I enjoy lot Skyrim, A LOT. Even with it flaws. But I think that The Fucker 3 is a more solid Action RPG in terms of "RPGish elements" than Skyrim.

You gotta be kidding me. It's precisely their attempts to be RPG that Witcher 3 ended up facing upscaled-by-zone Drowners, and Geralt not being able to kill Novigrad thugs who are level 20 with his level 5 sword and level 5 scaled Signs despite having able to solve a Griffin problem that plagues level 16 Nilfguard troops way earlier in his quest.

That is not true. Doesn't matter the level of the enemies that you are facing on. Excepting if a red skull appears next to the enemy life bar, you always can defeat the enemies even if they have an higher level than you. And i think that the content, enemies and places restricted to a level is way better that the infamous level scaling of Skyrim.

 

[GrapeJam]

Just wondering what kind of Bethesda fanboy you need to be to srsly suggest that Skyrim is better than TW3.

Different kinds of games, really. TW3 is a story driven RPG with an open world attached to it, Skyrim is an open world sandbox with a story attached.

Althought I can't see myself playing through TW3 more than twice, while I spent close to a thousand hours with 5 different characters in vanilla Skyrim alone, replay value's just far better in TES games, even with the limited CnC.

 

[RK47]

I enjoyed and I enjoy lot Skyrim, A LOT. Even with it flaws. But I think that The Fucker 3 is a more solid Action RPG in terms of "RPGish elements" than Skyrim.

You gotta be kidding me. It's precisely their attempts to be RPG that Witcher 3 ended up facing upscaled-by-zone Drowners, and Geralt not being able to kill Novigrad thugs who are level 20 with his level 5 sword and level 5 scaled Signs despite having able to solve a Griffin problem that plagues level 16 Nilfguard troops way earlier in his quest.

That is not true. Doesn't matter the level of the enemies that you are facing on. Excepting if a red skull appears next to the enemy life bar, you always can defeat the enemies even if they have an higher level than you. And i think that the content, enemies and places restricted to a level is way better that the infamous level scaling of Skyrim.

I'm not saying you can't but it begs a suspension of disbelief if you think a witcher who could fight a griffin at level 5 that a squad of nilfgaard troops had to fucking listen to a bunch of story exposition for EXP before he can deal with lvl 20 thugs in novigrad.
But if you think that kind of world zone leveling is okay, nothing can be done to convince you otherwise.

Just another dude who thinks since he 'understands' how the system works, it makes it fine.

 

[GrapeJam]

That is not true. Doesn't matter the level of the enemies that you are facing on. Excepting if a red skull appears next to the enemy life bar, you always can defeat the enemies even if they have an higher level than you. And i think that the content, enemies and places restricted to a level is way better that the infamous level scaling of Skyrim.

One thug require you to whack him 3 times to die, one the other quest the same type of thug require you to whack him 50 times to die, totally not immersion breaking.

And I did finish level 24 weapon mastercrafter quest while I was level 15 ish BTW.

 

[AetherVagrant]

I think so many people are mad at the similiarities between this game and Skyrim/Assasins Creed/Mass Effect/DA and forgetting that even though we didnt get the rpg we wanted, got one we deserved -- it does *most* things better than each individual game it seems to copy, while staying true to the setting and spirit of the source material without compromising for grognards. This game would NOT have made it's money back if it was looking for a 9/10 codex review, and thus im delighted that it turned out as well as it did and seamlessly continues the world and story of the first two games with little disconnect.
The combat in skyrim was shit but for some reason didnt get as boring for me. It wasnt better in any way, it just FELT more dangerous and like epicbrutalz moments were more few and far between, whereas i dont feel geralt has much left to show me other than % increases.

also -- Geralt is level 1 only in the context of this chapter of his life -- he is good enough to defeat a griffin with help, and geralts specialty IS as a monster hunter, not a soldier or urban crusader despite what us players and cdp:r may have done with him over the last few years. he is way more powerful in this game in the beginning than he was in the first or second and at least this time he didnt have to lose his memory again.

edit: as a Point-and-Slit adventure 10/10 would point the slit again

Im not digging some of the Witchervision shit, It would be perfect if you had to use witcher senses to see quest markers (and didnt show up on your minimap), or that Witchervision should only show the beginning of a clue trail and not every little step along the way. I dont want to cartograph my way by hand, but this borders on Fable-level.

Most of Skyrim has slipped from memory -- i feel like it was a generic and enjoyable but unmemorable movie that one has difficulty distinguishing in the mind's eye some time later. All the major plot points that Ive played in witcher games have stuck with me and occasionally wondered what would have happened differently..

 

[TheHeroOfTime]

I'm not saying you can't but it begs a suspension of disbelief if you think a witcher who could fight a griffin at level 5 that a squad of nilfgaard troops had to fucking listen to a bunch of story exposition for EXP before he can deal with lvl 20 thugs in novigrad.
But if you think that kind of world zone leveling is okay, nothing can be done to convince you otherwise.

Just another dude who thinks since he 'understands' how the system works, it makes it fine.

It's too late to start claiming coherency in RPGs. It just a "sacrifice" for the gameplay, the level is planted to represent the progression of the player. If the game is coherence, the combat against mostly humans and monsters will be a easy walk for a Witcher because only fewer warriors and monsters can put him in a true trouble. And as i said, for me this system is way better than having a whole map filled with creatures and humans with your same level because potato.

And you can save that last line for yourself.

 

[GrapeJam]

It's too late to start claiming coherency in RPGs. It just a "sacrifice" for the gameplay, the level is planted to represent the progression of the player. If the game is coherence, the combat against mostly humans and monsters will be a easy walk for a Witcher because only fewer warriors and monsters can put him in a true trouble. And as i said, for me this system is way better than having a whole map filled with creatures and humans with your same level because potato.

And you can save that last line for yourself.

I'm pretty sure creatures in Skyrim only level up with you to a point. Also TW3 has leveled loot Oblivion style.

 

[RK47]

If the game is coherence, the combat against mostly humans and monsters will be a easy walk for a Witcher because only fewer warriors and monsters can put him in a true trouble.

And whose fault is that populating the open world with 50 drowners instead of dangerous unique monsters?

Even without layers of level and stats 'weakening' Geralt, players still need to learn how to dodge, parry, and use proper signs and use the right bombs in group fights - monsters don't just stand there and take damage. People would spend more time learning how to fight a certain group of monsters and humans that fights differently instead of getting EXP for the sake of higher levels = higher damage output, putting on better clothes and skill effectiveness. This is an action game, not RPG where you left click and a calculation happens between ATK VS DEFENSE for a hit. You can dodge, create opening, left click, damage. Or if you want to go further, try a 0 Sign Focused witcher winning all fight 1 v 1 by the virtue of Axii being non-resistable.

Instead, you're praising the Devs for creating an artifical gameplay that just went full retard on the whole 'progression' without understanding the setting and how to deliver a 'Veteran Witcher' gameplay that is expected from a hero of a Trilogy.
6 months ago, this guy beat a dragon 1 v 1 and dueled Letho, now a bunch of thugs are invulnerable to his sword cause they're more experienced because ... PROGRESSION!

Really Profitable Game label is necessary to sell a lot of games to fans like you it seems.

 

[AetherVagrant]

while above points are totally valid, focusing on level numbers is a red herring. Those levels are like "minutes and seconds" arbitrary divisions of an intangible progression. In witcher1 its more like Geralt is "level 1" as in "you the player are first encountering him at x ability level" or "youre ability to control this avatar is level 1" not that he is a noob to monsters and combat. in Witcher 3 he's not going back to level 1, or even losing his experience and abilities, its just a starting point based on the context of the game, just like Chapter 1 in a sequel doesnt mean the story is starting over again.
or maybe monsters have been gaining experience through blackmagickz being pumped through demondragon rifts and theyve all been leveling up as well in between games. those drowners went from looking like brian froud goblins into full fledged Cthuhlu. Geralt better save the world stone quicklike.

 

[deranged]

Instead, you're praising the Devs for creating an artifical gameplay that just went full retard on the whole 'progression' without understanding the setting and how to deliver a 'Veteran Witcher' gameplay that is expected from a hero of a Trilogy.
6 months ago, this guy beat a dragon 1 v 1 and dueled Letho, now a bunch of thugs are invulnerable to his sword cause they're more experienced because ... PROGRESSION!

That's an issue with most sequels, it's not specific to the witcher franchise. Also in Witcher 1 he single-handedly defeated a Bruxa, the head of the order of the flaming rose e.t.c. and he was still dying to random grunts in the beginning of witcher 2.

 

[TheHeroOfTime]

If the game is coherence, the combat against mostly humans and monsters will be a easy walk for a Witcher because only fewer warriors and monsters can put him in a true trouble.

And whose fault is that populating the open world with 50 drowners instead of dangerous unique monsters?

Even without layers of level and stats 'weakening' Geralt, players still need to learn how to dodge, parry, and use proper signs and use the right bombs in group fights - monsters don't just stand there and take damage. People would spend more time learning how to fight a certain group of monsters and humans that fights differently instead of getting EXP for the sake of higher levels = higher damage output, putting on better clothes and skill effectiveness. This is an action game, not RPG where you left click and a calculation happens between ATK VS DEFENSE for a hit. You can dodge, create opening, left click, damage. Or if you want to go further, try a 0 Sign Focused witcher winning all fight 1 v 1 by the virtue of Axii being non-resistable.

Instead, you're praising the Devs for creating an artifical gameplay that just went full retard on the whole 'progression' without understanding the setting and how to deliver a 'Veteran Witcher' gameplay that is expected from a hero of a Trilogy.
6 months ago, this guy beat a dragon 1 v 1 and dueled Letho, now a bunch of thugs are invulnerable to his sword cause they're more experienced because ... PROGRESSION!

Really Profitable Game label is necessary to sell a lot of games to fans like you it seems.

For some reason it is an Action RPG and not a cRPG.

And definitely you need to play more games, and more sequels.

 

[GrapeJam]

That's an issue with most sequels, it's not specific to the witcher franchise. Also in Witcher 1 he single-handedly defeated a Bruxa, the head of the order of the flaming rose e.t.c. and he was still dying to random grunts in the beginning of witcher 2.

Or we can just do away with levels and just use skills points and and gears for progression.

 

[TheHeroOfTime]

For some reason it is an Action RPG and not a cRPG.

And definitely you need to play more games, and more sequels.

I wanted to edit that message but it doesnt work so:

It is not because progression, it is because challenge. If you want to put Geralt in a fight with a couple of thugs and you want to make that fight challenging you can't just put them a OP gear to them and just run away because that destroys the sensation of progression of the player. That is what Oblivion does with its bandits with daedric armor. The best way to make that fight with common thugs challenging is making that thugs a bit stronger than the others before. And that is what the game does, create a stronger version of thugs. This can be said of all the level enemies variations of the game. Because it is a game, and aside of presenting you a story of a mutant guy who kills monsters it wants to be challenging, and not only be challenging in battles against giant monsters. There is no coherence between Lvl 5 Griffin and Lvl 20 thug? Who fucking cares? It is for the gameplay, not for the story. Is the same shit in a lot of RPG games and nobody cared about it. And now you will pay attention for this "issue"? Fuck this shit

 

[RK47]

best way to make that fight with common thugs challenging is making that thugs a bit stronger than the others before. do more damage, have more hp, take less damage but cosmetically look the same, act the same, fight with the same manner and vulnerable to the same pattern employed at level 5.

 

[treave]

The best way to make that fight with common thugs challenging is making that thugs a bit stronger than the others before.

No, the best way to make fights with thugs challenging would be to have them fight dirty with bombs, traps or poisons. Coincidentally, it also provides for more interesting and varied gameplay than being surrounded by half a dozen weaponmasters with the same moves every time you are scheduled to fight human foes.

 

[TheHeroOfTime]

best way to make that fight with common thugs challenging is making that thugs a bit stronger than the others before. do more damage, have more hp, take less damage but cosmetically look the same, act the same, fight with the same manner and vulnerable to the same pattern employed at level 5.

I have to admit that what i said wasnt very accurate. I dont want to say that the high level enemies are just HP and attack bloat versions only. The reason because there is high level enemies is to estimulate the resolution of secondary quest and stuff like that. Level and experience always were an excuse to estimulate the player to do things and the witcher 3 is not exception. As i said before, thugs stronger that the tutorial griffin is not very important. After all, the objetive is equilibrate the game according Geralt is getting more powerfull with each level.


Its just i cant imagine a the witcher 3 without the rpg elements that the game have. Eliminating the level system doesnt look as a good option, i think it is necessary to bring the player the perks. And a game based in gear quality only just dont sounds good for me.

Im satisfied with the game as a Action RPG, and i consider that it is better driven than Skyrim. Just that.

 

[deranged]

Or we can just do away with levels and just use skills points and and gears for progression.

The mechanics of progression is another matter and almost irrelevant to how a sequel can achieve continuity by ensuring that the uber character you end up with during the first part will still have to work his way to uberness with the sequel.

 

[Renfri]

Number of mods make vanilla Skyrim better than TW3?

Are you really dumb as a rock or just convincingly pretend to be?

My point is that no matter what's your opinion on Skyrim you cannot deny it was outstanding at least as a modding platform. TW3 isn't outstanding in any fucking way. I'm tempted to say it's a shit game but for the sake of a serious discussion I'll tell you this: TW3 is an OK game - nothing less and nothing more. 7.5/10, good for one playthough. Yawn, forget and move on.

Yes, Skyrim is good as modding platform. But I still fail to see how number of mods done for Skyrim is making actual vanilla Skyrim better game than TW3.

 

[Jools]

From what I remember, there are spellcasting segments in the mage guild quest chain where you have to show that you have spellcasting skills, and the same goes for the thief quest chain. There *are* checks for progression. You *do* sneak around and steal in the thief quests, and go around casting spells in the mage quests. It's just that you're allowed to abuse the game system eg by slaughtering the quest NPCs instead. That's sand box for you.

Oh yes, the initial "test" and then the lesser ward "lesson". Neither requires any actual proficiency in magic. And the little scripted thing in the fight VS Eye of Magnus. As for the Thieves, again the first "initiation" involves some minor lockpicking, sneaking and pickpocketing, and can be solved with all those skills at their base value. Not really what I'd call a "check". It wouldn't have been hard to raise the bar, eg only allowing the player to pass those test with a specific skill of 50 or more.

I played the game with very specialized characters. With any of them, I was able to complete all the guilds' questlines, without ever having to "abuse the game system" (cit.).

 

[MasPingon]

This thread is a nice retards detector. Thanks.

 

[Carrion]

I think one flaw that TW3's levelling has is that the power curve is insane. It only takes a few levels until Geralt has doubled his initial damage just with the equipment alone, and with the correct skill and mutagen choices and synergies he can triple it. I'm guessing you can get to some pretty broken numbers by the end of the game if you heavily specialize in one thing. Of course this doesn't go well with the idea of Geralt being a fairly legendary professional to begin with, but it doesn't fit the open-world approach that well either since it puts too much focus on the character level and serves as a disincentive for exploration. Low-level mobs can't provide any kind of a challenge past a certain point whereas some enemies are practically just walking game over screens (although I have killed a fair number of enemies 5+ levels above me). Sometimes this leads to pretty silly situations, like shirtless dock guards being able to take a dozen sword blows but killing Geralt with one or two hits, while armored soldiers a few levels below them are about as threatening as wet paper bags.

The lack of level-scaled enemies is definitely a great thing, as is the fact that a low-level character will get his ass handed to him if he wanders into the wrong area unprepared, but I think a flatter power curve with more horizontal progression (new attack types, alternative modes for signs etc.) would've fit the game better, having Geralt start as a fairly strong character but not letting him develop into a demigod. Instead of having level requirements the game could put more focus on preparation, like making potions, bombs and oils more powerful or even a necessity for beating certain enemy types, which would still create tension while facing powerful or unique enemies and allow the devs to prevent the player from hitting certain areas too early, without having the fairly artificial "you can't do this now, come back 10 levels later" requirements for quests, enemies and gear. Similarly crafting could require more money and hard-to-get components rather than just a high enough character level, making it harder to acquire that high-level armor early in the game even if you happen to find the proper diagram.

tl;dr: The Witcher 3 is too much of an RPG, needs more focus on player skill and not character skill.

 

[baturinsky]

I think CEO having little skill, or even understanding of what his underlings are doing, is quite realistic.

 

[Doktor Best]

I enjoyed and I enjoy lot Skyrim, A LOT. Even with it flaws. But I think that The Fucker 3 is a more solid Action RPG in terms of "RPGish elements" than Skyrim.

You gotta be kidding me. It's precisely their attempts to be RPG that Witcher 3 ended up facing upscaled-by-zone Drowners, and Geralt not being able to kill Novigrad thugs who are level 20 with his level 5 sword and level 5 scaled Signs despite having able to solve a Griffin problem that plagues level 16 Nilfguard troops way earlier in his quest.

That is not true. Doesn't matter the level of the enemies that you are facing on. Excepting if a red skull appears next to the enemy life bar, you always can defeat the enemies even if they have an higher level than you. And i think that the content, enemies and places restricted to a level is way better that the infamous level scaling of Skyrim.

I'm not saying you can't but it begs a suspension of disbelief if you think a witcher who could fight a griffin at level 5 that a squad of nilfgaard troops had to fucking listen to a bunch of story exposition for EXP before he can deal with lvl 20 thugs in novigrad.
But if you think that kind of world zone leveling is okay, nothing can be done to convince you otherwise.

Just another dude who thinks since he 'understands' how the system works, it makes it fine.

Those guards have a powerlevel of 16 compared to Geralt, because they are war veterans and were trained to fight and kill humans. Geralt is a Witcher, someone who is professionally trained to fight monsters so ofcourse he has better cards against a griffin. He can track them down, he knows their weaknesses and their behaviour. Rock paper scissors, easy as that. So who said levels are an absolute value? They are an abstract number to determine the likelyhood of an outcome of a fight between you the player and your enemies.

Also he didnt defeat a dragon single handedly. He managed to survive the fight until the dragon took off with him and then he landed a fucking ultra lucky punch. Its like with luke skywalker versus death star. Does that fact that he landed the ultimate lucky strike also tell us that a single x-wing fighter has more firepower than a death star? No? Following your logic, it should have.