Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

The Witcher Witcher 3 was too big and had bad pacing

JDR13

Arcane
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
3,938
Location
The Swamp
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.

Huh? It's the player's choice whether or not the monsters are level-scaled. You can change that in the options.

The loot system on the other hand does indeed suck balls. That was the one major negative for me.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
14,374
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.

Huh? It's the player's choice whether or not the monsters are level-scaled. You can change that in the options.

The loot system on the other hand does indeed suck balls. That was the one major negative for me.

Monsters weren't scaled to the player's level, but they were still level scaled. You met level 3 drowners in one area and then level 30 drowners in another area, with literally 0 difference between them aside from the level scaling.
 

JDR13

Arcane
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
3,938
Location
The Swamp
Monsters weren't scaled to the player's level, but they were still level scaled. You met level 3 drowners in one area and then level 30 drowners in another area, with literally 0 difference between them aside from the level scaling.

As opposed to most cprgs which would simply have all monsters of the same type being the exact same level. I fail to see how that's a negative.
 

shidder

Novice
Joined
Mar 4, 2019
Messages
25
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.

There is like 1/3 of the map on Witcher 3 that isn't even fucking used except for random trash mobs. Like what is the purpose of the southeastern (iirc) part of the map?

By that logic I guess we need to cut down all of our forests and pack them with shopping malls. Only pointless trees and animals there that serve no purpose.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
14,374
Monsters weren't scaled to the player's level, but they were still level scaled. You met level 3 drowners in one area and then level 30 drowners in another area, with literally 0 difference between them aside from the level scaling.

As opposed to most cprgs which would simply have all monsters of the same type being the exact same level. I fail to see how that's a negative.

Yes, other RPGs create new monsters for higher level encounters. TW3 doesn't. TW3 lets you fight and defeat the majority of the game's enemies in your first hour or so of the tutorial area, the rest of the ~100 hour game has next to nothing new to offer combat-wise. Every last bit of the skill, item, potion, etc customization and planning that players do isn't for defeating increasingly deadly monsters, but for chipping away at increasingly bloated HP bars of the same monsters they've already fought a hundred times.
 
Last edited:

Yosharian

Arcane
Joined
May 28, 2018
Messages
9,647
Location
Grand Chien
Monsters weren't scaled to the player's level, but they were still level scaled. You met level 3 drowners in one area and then level 30 drowners in another area, with literally 0 difference between them aside from the level scaling.

As opposed to most cprgs which would simply have all monsters of the same type being the exact same level. I fail to see how that's a negative.
It trains players to look at numbers above monsters' heads rather than actually analyze the monsters visually (or otherwise).

Witcher 3 is meant to be a role-playing game, but this mechanic is more suited to an MMO.

Think about a bunch of low level adventurers coming across a Beholder. Do they ask the DM what level it is? No, they shit themselves looking at its giant eye, it's floating eye stalks, its ability to fly magically through the air towards them.

A drowner should cease to be a threat to an experienced Witcher.
 

JDR13

Arcane
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
3,938
Location
The Swamp
Yes, other RPGs create new monsters for higher level encounters. TW3 doesn't. TW3 lets you fight and defeat the majority of the game's enemies in your first hour or so of the tutorial area, the rest of the ~100 hour game has next to nothing new to offer combat-wise. Every last bit of the skill, item, potion, etc customization and planning that players do isn't for defeating increasingly deadly monsters, but for chipping away at increasingly bloated HP bars of the same monsters they've already fought a hundred times.

That couldn't possibly be more false, and it makes me wonder how much of the game you've actually played.

TW3 has one of the largest bestiaries I've seen in a crpg, and you certainly don't come close to experiencing it within the first hour or so.

For reference, here's a list of all the monsters in the game -> https://witcher.fandom.com/wiki/The_Witcher_3_bestiary - And that doesn't even include the various human factions you might battle.
 

Whiny-Butthurt-Liberal

Guest
Your mom is too big and has bad pacing.

Witcher 3 has two problems: main villains (the eponymous Wild Cunts) are lackluster, and the combat is a bit wishy-washy. Beyond that, it's perfect. A modern-day Gothic.

Now, that being said, would I prefer it if the world was a little more compact? Sure, but that's a minor gripe at best.
 

Grampy_Bone

Arcane
Joined
Jan 25, 2016
Messages
3,720
Location
Wandering the world randomly in search of maps
I agree but only because the leveling system is too limited and Geralt's builds too basic. If there were multiple classes, or a class-change system, or a system to build and combine a truly diverse set of skills, different weapons and specializations, multiple party members with their own builds, etc., it wouldn't feel it's length so badly. Fighting for a dozen hours for +2% crossbow damage is a punch to the nuts.

I don't see why we have all this awesome tech for open world games but less statistical depth and class complexity than a fucking SNES Jrpg from the 90s.
 

JDR13

Arcane
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
3,938
Location
The Swamp
Witcher 3 has two problems: main villains (the eponymous Wild Cunts) are lackluster, and the combat is a bit wishy-washy. Beyond that, it's perfect. A modern-day Gothic.

Now, that being said, would I prefer it if the world was a little more compact? Sure, but that's a minor gripe at best.

I have to disagree. I think the biggest problem is the loot system which is downright terrible.

It's still a fantastic game regardless, but it would have been even better if the loot wasn't so damn random.
 

Open Path

Learned
Joined
Jun 25, 2017
Messages
67
Location
Hesperides
As opposed to most cprgs which would simply have all monsters of the same type being the exact same level. I fail to see how that's a negative.

Some (mostly bad) crpgs do that for sure, but I doubt that they are the majority and specially not a majority among best crpgs.

To make exploration, looting or fighting interesting and diverse, there are many options that TW3 developers for some reason decide to not implement: Adding new creatures and loot by level, or create truly high level zones filled with totally different high level minor enemies/loot, or maybe the most perfect but costly option: adding uniqueness in enemies and loot. There are many other hybrid options.

In the codex top 50-70 crpgs list, for example, most games (or all?) use some of the aforementioned options. And this independently of the game subgenre, later Ultimas, most blobbers, Infinity ones, Gothics, Daggerfall/Morrowind, etc.

The witcher 3 bestiary and enemy diversity is good, but they are always the same enemies (besides bosses) across the world and independently of the player level, and looting don't helps at all as you admit. It wouldn't be a good design even if the combat was on the Dark Souls level, looking the scale of the gameworld and quantity of content. And I think I understand one of the reasons for what developers made the game in that way... The general design and focus of the game was not that of a true open world crpg neither a character or party progression type rpg, but a heavily story and fixed character driven experience. All was build around Gerald and the stories. And from gameplay perspective the result of this design in minor enemies fighting, exploring and loot search it's a poor decision that affect negatively the experience. It's true that a Geralt that wasn't a superman/witcher capable to kill easily near every creature from the start, couldn't do much sense in lore perspective, but looking to game-play, it's a poor option.

An extreme example with Morrowind, very complex, far superior to TW3 model in this context, to mention a game with similar free roaming, a big world full of minor quests (far more than TW3...) in which combat is far from perfect and looting is not balanced at all, but you can see however many options used to make the exploration and minor fighting far more diverse, challenging and rewarding: Adding truly different high level zones, implementing a complex leveling system adding new, higher level creatures progressively but without remove completely the low level ones, including a huge amount of unique enemies (all 3000 npcs, many creatures or animals) and so many unique items, placing many loot in high places or way down underwater so the use of non combat skills and tools to reach them is mandatory, etc.

Might and Magics or Wyzardrys use a simpler enemy scaling and different creatures by zone model. Gothics use the most clear zones-by-level model in any game that I can remember, etc. Few games in the codex top 70 do it worse in these contexts than The Witcher 3 did, which loot and enemy scaling/placing is simply mediocre or bad. And that's even more striking looking to the attention put by CDPR in writing, script... and graphics.
 

Jenkem

その目、だれの目?
Patron
Vatnik
Joined
Nov 30, 2016
Messages
8,924
Location
An oasis of love and friendship.
Make the Codex Great Again! Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. I helped put crap in Monomyth
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.

There is like 1/3 of the map on Witcher 3 that isn't even fucking used except for random trash mobs. Like what is the purpose of the southeastern (iirc) part of the map?

By that logic I guess we need to cut down all of our forests and pack them with shopping malls. Only pointless trees and animals there that serve no purpose.

Yes, let's equate real world forests with digital ones. Oh boy, you sure owned me! You sure are smart!
If you would like to converse with other people who sure are smart, you should check out the following websites:

http://resetera.com
http://reddit.com
 

DalekFlay

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
14,118
Location
New Vegas
I thought the pacing was fine. You could do as much or as little side bullshit as you wanted, and if you mainlined the core story it went by pretty fast. My problem with the game was that it felt too interactive movie for me, the quests and combat seemed to simple and guided. I didn't finish the game because I found the gameplay super boring, as good as the story was.
 

Yosharian

Arcane
Joined
May 28, 2018
Messages
9,647
Location
Grand Chien
I thought the pacing was fine. You could do as much or as little side bullshit as you wanted, and if you mainlined the core story it went by pretty fast. My problem with the game was that it felt too interactive movie for me, the quests and combat seemed to simple and guided. I didn't finish the game because I found the gameplay super boring, as good as the story was.
Correct me if I'm wrong, and I could be wrong, but, from time to time, aren't you forced to do side content in order to be high level enough to do the main quests?
 

DalekFlay

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
14,118
Location
New Vegas
Correct me if I'm wrong, and I could be wrong, but, from time to time, aren't you forced to do side content in order to be high level enough to do the main quests?

To be at the recommended level I think yeah, though I don't believe it actually required it. Also I don't think a lot of side bullshit was necessary to reach said levels, as I didn't do anywhere near all of it and was really overpowered for the main quests pretty much every time.
 

Lord_Potato

Arcane
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
10,114
Location
Free City of Warsaw
It's an open world game with lots of sidequests. The pacing is entirely dependent on the player.

The itemization could have been better, I agree, but I do not agree about the game world being too big. Exploring it was pure pleasure for me and the less content intense regions provided a nice change to the sprawling Novigrad or other major settlements.

I prefer a game in which I can ride for several minutes in a forest, just absorbing the atmosphere, to a game which is basically a theme park packed with "attractions" every 5 steps. It's more realistic, more immersive and provides a moment to relax and think. Besides, umyou only need to go everywhere once - later you have fast travel system.
 

Whiny-Butthurt-Liberal

Guest
I think Wytczherscz 3 - Wild Cunt strikes s good balance between vastness and interactibility. Maybe skellige could be a big smaller, and fewer fetchquests in Velen.
 

adddeed

Arcane
Possibly Retarded
Joined
May 27, 2012
Messages
1,489
Your mom is too big and has bad pacing.

Witcher 3 has two problems: main villains (the eponymous Wild Cunts) are lackluster, and the combat is a bit wishy-washy. Beyond that, it's perfect. A modern-day Gothic.

Now, that being said, would I prefer it if the world was a little more compact? Sure, but that's a minor gripe at best.
Far from modern day Gothic, have you even played Gothic? Obviously not.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom