The Witcher Twitcher 3 is awful

[cvv]

Game is bad because it's bad and boring. Also uninteresting. So that's why it's bad.

 

[NecroLord]

I never read the books but Witcher 1 (and Witcher 2 id im remembering things correctly)

Maybe it's because Sapkowski is a polack plagiarist fuck?
C'mon, let's tell it as it is. Witcher does not exactly ooze originality and authenticity.

why utter words for which you will have to apologize later

Apologize to the CD Projekt fanboi cocksuckers who faithfully consooom produkt?
Not on your life.

 

[Maxie]

I never read the books but Witcher 1 (and Witcher 2 id im remembering things correctly)

Maybe it's because Sapkowski is a polack plagiarist fuck?
C'mon, let's tell it as it is. Witcher does not exactly ooze originality and authenticity.

why utter words for which you will have to apologize later

Apologize to the CD Projekt fanboi cocksuckers who faithfully consooom produkt?
Not on your life.

you've found it in yourself to reference Sapkowski's nationality in a derogatory manner, as if this contributed to his being a 'plagiarist,' which is a grave offence against us Polish people of the Codex

 

[Bohrain]

11. A lone witcher is apparently better than a whole group of soldiers against a monster and acts smartass about it. Again, this makes no sense. While I get that a single soldier shouldn't be equal, 4 or 5 of them are still not a match for a monster, but a single witcher is?

Soldiers don't have superhuman strength, agility, endurance, reflexes and senses
They also can't use magic, they aren't immune to poison, they aren't fearless, they haven't trained since childhood to hunt, to fight and overall don't know jack shit about monsters

my take is that a group of soldiers may take on a monster but why risk your life/waste your troops if you can hire a specialist? in the books its implied that even peasants in numbers can take them on ( at least in the past of that world the peasants are reported to go even in the fields armed and armored). the witchers represent someting akin to special forces in our world, trained and equiped to deal with situations you cant/wont use your grunts.

In the books Witchers are basically fantasy version of professional pest controllers who have been becoming increasingly obsolete over time. The witcher schools were created when humanity was still expanding into untamed wilderness, but in the present timeframe they mostly just have to deal with the odd monster in some remote village that the denizens don't know how to handle.

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

TW3 is built upon the first two games and it assumes that you already know and care about the characters and lore. The first two Witcher games also somewhat assumed that you read the books since some things weren't completely explained either so these games should be taken as a package imo and as a trio they do offer a good experience.

I never read the books but Witcher 1 (and Witcher 2 id im remembering things correctly) never made me feel like i was missing out on context. Witcher 3 had it happening all the time.

What I did is definitely the worst route though. Knowing nothing about the books or anything that happens in the games, start with Witcher 1, then get whiplash by Yennefer and Ciri showing up and suddenly being the most important things in Geralt's life.

Fuck me that was jarring.

Even in 1 people who remember you mention a young lass and a sorceress being part of your group of companions. Several people mention a certain sorceress being Geralt's waifu, and since Geralt had Triss' tits suffocating him as soon as he woke up from his amnesiac coma, he assumed it was her.
1's whole thing is to be on Geralt's shoes as he gets his memories back. So it makes sense the narrative feels like it does. 2 is like a Game of Thrones episode. You are more "in control" but at the same time you're stuck in the middle of a conflict you have no part in. Fucking dragon.
3's whole marketing campaign was based on Yen and Ciri, though, so it makes sense that Geralt realizes those two from the beginning were them.

 

[Bohrain]

In the first game it was very apparent that they originally intended to have an original character for the protagonist and later opted for amnesiac Geralt. Yennefer and Ciri never get mentioned in the first game even though they were the most important characters to Geralt. Zoltan Chivavay is his dwarf buddy even though they met probably once in the books and Yarpen Zigrin was the dwarf he bonded with the most. And Triss wasn't really a major love interest in the books, it's another CD Project Red thing. Also it really struck out to me that the Wild Hunt is depicted as a purely mythical thing in the first game even though it was explicitly stated in the books that the Wild Hunt was the otherwordly elves kidnapping random peasants to be used as slaves in their realm.
In the second game they suddenly wake up to a fact that they probably have a trilogy in their hands and they try to bridge Geralt depiction in the first game with what he would be if he didn't die at the end of the book. So he starts searching for Yennefer. Finally in the third game it essentially feels like you are really lacking context if you didn't read the books, because just from playing the games you really have no idea who Ciri, Yennefer and Emhyr are.

 

[Goldschmidt]

I quitted Witcher 3 during the prologue. Lucky for me I only spent 15 bucks.

Neverwinter Nights I played all the way through! That is like 20 years ago though. Loading up the game now, makes me vomit.

 

[BosanskiSeljak]

In the first game it was very apparent that they originally intended to have an original character for the protagonist and later opted for amnesiac Geralt. Yennefer and Ciri never get mentioned in the first game even though they were the most important characters to Geralt. Zoltan Chivavay is his dwarf buddy even though they met probably once in the books and Yarpen Zigrin was the dwarf he bonded with the most. And Triss wasn't really a major love interest in the books, it's another CD Project Red thing. Also it really struck out to me that the Wild Hunt is depicted as a purely mythical thing in the first game even though it was explicitly stated in the books that the Wild Hunt was the otherwordly elves kidnapping random peasants to be used as slaves in their realm.
In the second game they suddenly wake up to a fact that they probably have a trilogy in their hands and they try to bridge Geralt depiction in the first game with what he would be if he didn't die at the end of the book. So he starts searching for Yennefer. Finally in the third game it essentially feels like you are really lacking context if you didn't read the books, because just from playing the games you really have no idea who Ciri, Yennefer and Emhyr are.

And they should've kept on their own path instead of listening to book people crying about not yennefer or ciri because both those characters detracted from the games. Same with changing the wild hunt.

 

[KörangarTheMighty]

Yennefer and Ciri never get mentioned in the first game even though they were the most important characters to Geralt.

They're alluded to quite a few times, and once by Geralt himself saying he misses them during a cutscene. In TW1, it's clear the take-away is meant to be that they're either lost or dead and Geralt needed to get on with his life.

Spoilers for TW1

Something interesting to note is that we don't even really know if the "Geralt" that returns from the dead at the beginning of TW1 is even the same Geralt that died in that world, rather than some other version of himself from some other timeline that just happened to get tossed back into a world that mostly resembled his native reality as a sort of test to see if he was destined to reclaim his proper identity. We know this is possible because both Alvin and Jacques de Aldersberg occupy the same timeline at once, although they don't know it. The implication at the end of TW1 is that Alvin is doomed to ever become what he is regardless of how many times he returns to Geralt for guidance. There are other subtle differences in TW1, the dryad Morenn is still alive when she died in the novels, Black Rayla is called White Rayla and so on. Lots of little things like these don't square up if the assumption is that they're the same timeline. Would have been interesting if, in one of the games, there had been a quest to dig Geralt's grave, (if he even had a grave) and to see what might be found there.

Whatever the case, even though they've grafted the Ciri/Yennefer plot back onto it with TW3, I don't think that was ever the intention originally.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Witcher 3 is a masterpiece. The combination of world class writing, lore, graphics, giant world, amazing quests, engaging cinematics and characters with passable gameplay (Death March difficulty + combat mod make W3 combat better than most RPGs anyway, not that that's a high bar or anything) create a first class experience for people looking to immerse themselves into beautiful virtual worlds.

Of course I realize there are those of you who have no taste and would rather waste time theorycrafting munchkin builds or jump through developer hoops to show how "gud" you are, but Witcher 3 is what vidya games SHOULD be about.

 

[BosanskiSeljak]

world class writing

First point already shows anything you say should be disregarded. Decent attempt though

 

[NecroLord]

Witcher 3 is a masterpiece. The combination of world class writing, lore, graphics, giant world, amazing quests, engaging cinematics and characters with passable gameplay (Death March difficulty + combat mod make W3 combat better than most RPGs anyway, not that that's a high bar or anything) create a first class experience for people looking to immerse themselves into beautiful virtual worlds.

Of course I realize there are those of you who have no taste and would rather waste time theorycrafting munchkin builds or jump through developer hoops to show how "gud" you are, but Witcher 3 is what vidya games SHOULD be about.

Not this shit again...

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

The truth hurts, I know. But video games aren't really about beating bosses, or optimizing builds, or C&C. Ultimately, they are exactly the same as the other great entertainment media (literature and movies), in that their goal is to immerse you into a cool alternate world where you can do all the amazing things you cannot do in real life.

Of course to make these alternate worlds believable, you do need challenge to your combat, and C&C helps to create the illusion of a real living world. But a game like Witcher 3 is far further along this goal (even with all of its massive flaws) than most of the other crap I see fellated here.

 

[NecroLord]

Ultimately, they are exactly the same as the other great entertainment media (literature and movies), in that their goal is to immerse you into a cool alternate world where you can do all the amazing things you cannot do in real life.

I agree, but any self respecting RPG enthusiast should love to see those game numbers go up, to create the build he desires and to experiment.
Numbers, skills, attributes, choices.
You sure do fellate Witcher 3 a lot. Explain to me, again, its supposed virtues?

 

[OSK]

Ultimately, they are exactly the same as the other great entertainment media (literature and movies), in that their goal is to immerse you into a cool alternate world where you can do all the amazing things you cannot do in real life.

I agree, but any self respecting RPG enthusiast should love to see those game numbers go up, to create the build he desires and to experiment.
Numbers, skills, attributes, choices.
You sure do fellate Witcher 3 a lot. Explain to me, again, its supposed virtues?

You're talking to someone who thinks Assassin's Creed is a good RPG.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Ultimately, they are exactly the same as the other great entertainment media (literature and movies), in that their goal is to immerse you into a cool alternate world where you can do all the amazing things you cannot do in real life.

I agree, but any self respecting RPG enthusiast should love to see those game numbers go up, to create the build he desires and to experiment.

No, I disagree. You CAN have a great immersive RPG with various builds possible, but you can also have one without that stuff. You are just getting caught up in semantics, what is an RPG, etc.

Numbers, skills, attributes, choices.
You sure do fellate Witcher 3 a lot. Explain to me, again, its supposed virtues?

I listed them above. Great writing, characters, lore, setting, graphics, art style, music, quests, huge world. It is a bit lacking on the gameplay side, with cookie trails, map markers, the loot system, etc, but with some settings and a combat mod, the combat can be decent by aRPG standards. So the total package is amazing.

 

[BosanskiSeljak]

Great writing, characters, lore, setting, graphics, art style, music, quests, huge world

Great Writing - the story is the worst of the 3 games, there's a bunch of awkward exposition in dialogue (despite people's claims it's perfect), long winding dialogues with boring NPCs, can't even see exactly what Geralt is going to say when choosing an option, etc.

Characters - has more unlikable characters than the other games. Ciri herself is terrible, then there's what they did to Radovid. Yennefer is jarring to me as someone who never read books but played previous games

Lore - brings in more book people, but considering the previous games it's quite jarring when new information pops up that's shoehorned in

Setting - same as the other games, but more diluted, loses the atmosphere especially from witcher 1. Becomes a lot more generic/high fantasy

Graphics - I'll give you that one

Art style - see setting, the loading screen art is out of place with the setting. Witcher 1's was better

Music - it's good, not as good as witcher 1 though

Quests - worst of the things you listed. You went on to talk about the problems in gameplay, which are basically 95% of what you're doing in quests. There's some good quest chains and HoS is well done, but that's it. Add onto the fact the side quests are very disconnected from the main story (and not fun because of the aforementioned mind numbing gameplay loop)

Huge World - this isn't a "good point". Notice how you didn't say "huge world brimming with content and executed well".

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Great writing, characters, lore, setting, graphics, art style, music, quests, huge world

Great Writing - the story is the worst of the 3 games, there's a bunch of awkward exposition in dialogue (despite people's claims it's perfect), long winding dialogues with boring NPCs, can't even see exactly what Geralt is going to say when choosing an option, etc.

The writing is not great because of the plot (though by video game standards, the plot is pretty good too), it's great in the dialogue. If you think it's long winded and awkward, maybe the problem is with you, because most people fully recognize its greatness.

Characters - has more unlikable characters than the other games. Ciri herself is terrible, then there's what they did to Radovid. Yennefer is jarring to me as someone who never read books but played previous games

None of what you said makes any sense. Should great movies and books only have likeable characters? Radovid was a great character, and Yennefer and Triss felt like actual people. Maybe you are looking for cardboard cutout characters like in the simplistic RPGs that you like?

Lore - brings in more book people, but considering the previous games it's quite jarring when new information pops up that's shoehorned in

It seems you just set out to hate W3 no matter what, and you are shoehorning all the great stuff about it into your hate. W3 has amazing lore, from the politics to the war to the different nations.

Setting - same as the other games, but more diluted, loses the atmosphere especially from witcher 1. Becomes a lot more generic/high fantasy

Literally same exact lore as W1, but a lot more of it.

Graphics - I'll give you that one

Art style - see setting, the loading screen art is out of place with the setting. Witcher 1's was better

Music - it's good, not as good as witcher 1 though

A lot of your whining seems to do with W1. W3 is a far greater game, and I like W1. W1 was a much smaller game with literal fences every 2 steps so you could barely move, compared with a vast open world masterpiece. And obviously the combat is a million times better. While a few things might be better in W1, the majority of things have improved a lot in W3, so you should really let it go.

Quests - worst of the things you listed. You went on to talk about the problems in gameplay, which are basically 95% of what you're doing in quests. There's some good quest chains and HoS is well done, but that's it. Add onto the fact the side quests are very disconnected from the main story (and not fun because of the aforementioned mind numbing gameplay loop)

Fake news. Quests are amazing in W3. You literally run into small side quests everywhere that have more complexity of writing and better characters than main quests in most RPGs. You don't like the basic gameplay loop? Maybe you shouldn't have played on storymode difficulty. The gameplay is fine on Death March with a combat mod, no worse than most other RPGs, it's just not a strength for W3.

Huge World - this isn't a "good point". Notice how you didn't say "huge world brimming with content and executed well".

You are wrong again, it is brimming with content and some things are executed well. The only stuff that isn't executed well is the map markers/cookie trails, the loot system, and the bandit/monster camps.

 

[BosanskiSeljak]

The writing is not great because of the plot (though by video game standards, the plot is pretty good too), it's great in the dialogue. If you think it's long winded and awkward, maybe the problem is with you, because most people fully recognize its greatness.

It's mostly empty, especially outside of main quests. Good job using the opinion of a bunch of dorks as a point. It says more about you and others that production value and good voice direction makes you think the dialogue has substance.

None of what you said makes any sense. Should great movies and books only have likeable characters? Radovid was a great character, and Yennefer and Triss felt like actual people. Maybe you are looking for cardboard cutout characters like in the simplistic RPGs that you like?

Unlikeable in a bad way. Radovid became typical "crazy evil man". It's funny how you see that yet claim I want cardboard cutout characters. Ciri is a mary sue to the max who was shoehorned in. It wasn't done well either. I understand if they want important characters from the books in the game, but it doesn't mean it was executed well. I had to spend half the game getting Yennefer to fuck off just because after 2 full games, the writers decided that Yennefer is important. The beginning dream with him and Yennefer was railroading to the max. I hated the beginning of Witcher 2 as well, when they decide Geralt and Triss are fucking no matter what happened in W1.

W3 has amazing lore, from the politics to the war to the different nations.

Politics was done better in W2. Different nations was done better in W2. The war is Nilfgard was fine, but diluted by the fact that the main story is focused on space elves.

Literally same exact lore as W1, but a lot more of it.

That point was about SETTING & atmosphere, not lore, both of which are unmatched to W1.

W3 is a far greater game, and I like W1. W1 was a much smaller game with literal fences every 2 steps so you could barely move, compared with a vast open world masterpiece. And obviously the combat is a million times better. While a few things might be better in W1, the majority of things have improved a lot in W3, so you should really let it go.

Nope, just telling you the ways in which both the other Witcher games were better than W3, but you're not claiming them to be masterpieces (which you're doing with W3 only because of its production value, which I've already touched upon). W1 had hub worlds, you could freely move around in them, it's not a claustrophobic experience. You're being disingenuous.

Fake news. Quests are amazing in W3. You literally run into small side quests everywhere that have more complexity of writing and better characters than main quests in most RPGs. You don't like the basic gameplay loop? Maybe you shouldn't have played on storymode difficulty. The gameplay is fine on Death March with a combat mod, no worse than most other RPGs, it's just not a strength for W3.

The gameplay loop has nothing to do with the difficulty.

Talk to Generic NPC --> Tap Witcher Senses (basically a quest marker) --> Fight (maybe youll have to use one potion that's different than the other 20 fights).

What a masterpiece that is.

Either way, even on Death March the combat is the same boring shit rolling around.

The most complexity you'll get is the very rare one such as when another Witcher murders an entire village, which actually gives a choice. If you like that, go play ME1, because most sidequests provide worldbuilding AND a choice at the end, despite repetitive dungeons and gameplay. What a masterpiece that is too.

You are wrong again, it is brimming with content and some things are executed well. The only stuff that isn't executed well is the map markers/cookie trails, the loot system, and the bandit/monster camps.

There's entire sections of the map that have literally nothing but the aforementioned shitty bandit camps, you're being disingenous again. It's empty. Either way, all those things you listed that aren't done well are literally the meat of the game.

I did literally everything in that game (including every shitty map marker) so you can't gaslight me into thinking I missed the greatness. I know what the majority of my times spent playing that game was like.


You can spam shit reactions all you want, doesn't make you any less of a pleb. If you were to claim W3 is a good modern, generic fantasy game I could at least agree, but if you're going to claim it's a masterpiece then you really didn't do a good job. Unless you'll claim W1 and W2 are masterpieces as well, then you'd at least be consistent considering W3 isn't even the best Witcher game, let alone one of the greatest of all time (which is what masterpiece entails).

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

The writing is not great because of the plot (though by video game standards, the plot is pretty good too), it's great in the dialogue. If you think it's long winded and awkward, maybe the problem is with you, because most people fully recognize its greatness.

It's mostly empty, especially outside of main quests. Good job using the opinion of a bunch of dorks as a point. It says more about you and others that production value and good voice direction makes you think the dialogue has substance.

You are just digging the hole deeper, kiddo. Very first village in the game, there is a small unimportant quest with a local dwarf being hated for supplying Nilfgard soldiers with armor/weapons. The quest is written well enough that you feel both for the dwarf and the tough position he is in, but also for the locals who hate him, since he is helping the hated foreign army who killed their loved ones. And the writing supports various moral positions in that quest. Nearby, there is another small unimportant quest where you have to help a sick woman, and you can choose to do various things, and with some of them she might end up brain dead, in others dead, etc. The game is LITERALLY FILLED with such side quests, in every corner of the world, and if you think that is empty, long winded, generic writing, then you are ... well, I am gonna stay all gentlemanlike and shit.

None of what you said makes any sense. Should great movies and books only have likeable characters? Radovid was a great character, and Yennefer and Triss felt like actual people. Maybe you are looking for cardboard cutout characters like in the simplistic RPGs that you like?

Unlikeable in a bad way. Radovid became typical "crazy evil man". It's funny how you see that yet claim I want cardboard cutout characters. Ciri is a mary sue to the max who was shoehorned in. It wasn't done well either. I understand if they want important characters from the books in the game, but it doesn't mean it was executed well. I had to spend half the game getting Yennefer to fuck off just because after 2 full games, the writers decided that Yennefer is important. The beginning dream with him and Yennefer was railroading to the max. I hated the beginning of Witcher 2 as well, when they decide Geralt and Triss are fucking no matter what happened in W1.

If you think Radovid just became a crazy evil man, then all the nuance of W3 went over your head. Him going crazy with power and "defense" sets up one of the more interesting dillemmas of the game: do you go with a more "civilized" invader (who caused all this shit in the first place), or with the insane local tyrant who is trying to defend the land? It's that shades of grey stuff like this that makes Witcher games so good, including W3.

W3 has amazing lore, from the politics to the war to the different nations.

Politics was done better in W2. Different nations was done better in W2. The war is Nilfgard was fine, but diluted by the fact that the main story is focused on space elves.

Fake news... W3 politics are as good as or better than those in W1 or W2, while being in a game many times larger in size and scope.

Literally same exact lore as W1, but a lot more of it.

That point was about SETTING & atmosphere, not lore, both of which are unmatched to W1.

All Witcher games have great setting and atmosphere and lore, the only difference is W3 is much larger and has better gameplay.

W3 is a far greater game, and I like W1. W1 was a much smaller game with literal fences every 2 steps so you could barely move, compared with a vast open world masterpiece. And obviously the combat is a million times better. While a few things might be better in W1, the majority of things have improved a lot in W3, so you should really let it go.

Nope, just telling you the ways in which both the other Witcher games were better than W3, but you're not claiming them to be masterpieces (which you're doing with W3 only because of its production value, which I've already touched upon). W1 had hub worlds, you could freely move around in them, it's not a claustrophobic experience. You're being disingenuous.

Open world games are by default much better than hub based games (other things being equal), because as I mentioned before, the ultimate goal of games is to immerse the player into wonderful alternate worlds, and when you are running around fences, invisible walls, and tiny areas, that's not very immersive at all.

Fake news. Quests are amazing in W3. You literally run into small side quests everywhere that have more complexity of writing and better characters than main quests in most RPGs. You don't like the basic gameplay loop? Maybe you shouldn't have played on storymode difficulty. The gameplay is fine on Death March with a combat mod, no worse than most other RPGs, it's just not a strength for W3.

The gameplay loop has nothing to do with the difficulty.

Talk to Generic NPC --> Tap Witcher Senses (basically a quest marker) --> Fight (maybe youll have to use one potion that's different than the other 20 fights).

And how is that different from gameplay in W1 or W2? Except that the combat improved significantly.

What a masterpiece that is.

Either way, even on Death March the combat is the same boring shit rolling around.

You've never played W3 with a good combat mod (I suggest Enemies of Rivia) that improves AI, and on Death March. Try rolling around with that...

The most complexity you'll get is the very rare one such as when another Witcher murders an entire village, which actually gives a choice. If you like that, go play ME1, because most sidequests provide worldbuilding AND a choice at the end, despite repetitive dungeons and gameplay. What a masterpiece that is too.

Other than a few things such as:

W3 = 300 hours, ME 20+ hours
W3 far better combat
W3 far better writing, lore, atmosphere
W3 far better graphics
W3 open world, ME hubs

Otherise, yeah, exactly the same.

You are wrong again, it is brimming with content and some things are executed well. The only stuff that isn't executed well is the map markers/cookie trails, the loot system, and the bandit/monster camps.

There's entire sections of the map that have literally nothing but the aforementioned shitty bandit camps, you're being disingenous again. It's empty. Either way, all those things you listed that aren't done well are literally the meat of the game.

I did literally everything in that game (including every shitty map marker) so you can't gaslight me into thinking I missed the greatness. I know what the majority of my times spent playing that game was like.

Lies, there are large areas with bandit camps, but you always run into something interesting and unique too, quests, ruins, settlements, etc.

You can spam shit reactions all you want, doesn't make you any less of a pleb. If you were to claim W3 is a good modern, generic fantasy game I could at least agree, but if you're going to claim it's a masterpiece then you really didn't do a good job. Unless you'll claim W1 and W2 are masterpieces as well, then you'd at least be consistent considering W3 isn't even the best Witcher game, let alone one of the greatest of all time (which is what masterpiece entails).

If you post shit, you'll get a shit rating, stop crying about it...