Incline Witcher game series is one of the hallmarks of gaming

[Volrath]

I think I quit W3 about halfway into the quest where I had to mark rat droppings in some abandoned warehouse with Triss.

 

[Curratum]

So, let's summarize. The edgy codexers who like to think they are monocled and educated hate W3 because it has everything BUT great combat. I'm a visual and exploration fag and think W3 is the best game (not RPG, game in general) of the past 15+ years, because the combat was passable.

So I suppose objectively W3 is somewhere in the middle - a great game with some issues. :joshsawyerhead:

 

[Valky]

So, let's summarize. The edgy codexers who like to think they are monocled and educated hate W3 because it has everything BUT gameplay. I'm a visual and exploration fag and think W3 is the best game (not RPG, game in general) of the past 15+ years, because the combat was passable.

So I suppose objectively W3 is somewhere in the middle - a great game with some issues. :joshsawyerhead:

 

[Funposter]

specifically because it allows climbing

tbf more games should have climbing

So, let's summarize. The edgy codexers who like to think they are monocled and educated hate W3 because it has everything BUT great combat. I'm a visual and exploration fag and think W3 is the best game (not RPG, game in general) of the past 15+ years, because the combat was passable.

So I suppose objectively W3 is somewhere in the middle - a great game with some issues. :joshsawyerhead:

It's a great game up until you finish dealing with The Bloody Baron's questline. After that point, the quality drops off and it becomes far less focused and a lot less fun. I enjoyed the game a lot on the first playthrough, but I still have a second playthrough sitting around where I'm at like Level 27 or something on Death March difficulty. I probably have about fives hours of gameplay left, and I just can't bring myself to go back to it. It was really beginning to bore me. It's too bad, especially since I wanted to play the expansions, which people claim are amazing.

 

[Excommunicator]

What the fuck? Fourteen people agree with this shit post? The Witcher games are complete garbage. A consoletard series that runs headfirst into the decline with each progressive game. They're literally third person Bethesda walking simulators. What did I expect though, half the people on this forum thought FO:NV was a great game.

I agreed with your post up until the New Vegas bit

 

[Machocruz]

It's a great game up until you finish dealing with The Bloody Baron's questline. After that point, the quality drops off and it becomes far less focused and a lot less fun.

I find this hard to believe. I dropped the game after this point, still waiting for greatness, for some character interaction or environment to be as interesting as those in the first game. I did like the questline with the swole Witcher bro and generally found the landscape pleasing and gorgeously rendered, but so far lacking in any memorable town content. I know there are bigger cities later in the game, so I find it hard to believe the game has already peaked. Vizima was the shit in the first game, and none of the shitty little settlements up until the point I quit have compared in the slightest.

 

[Funposter]

It's a great game up until you finish dealing with The Bloody Baron's questline. After that point, the quality drops off and it becomes far less focused and a lot less fun.

I find this hard to believe. I dropped the game after this point, still waiting for greatness, for some character interaction or environment to be as interesting as those in the first game. I did like the questline with the swole Witcher bro and generally found the landscape pleasing and gorgeously rendered, but so far lacking in any memorable town content. I know there are bigger cities later in the game, so I find it hard to believe the game has already peaked. Vizima was the shit in the first game, and none of the shitty little settlements up until the point I quit have compared in the slightest.

Novigrad is positively gigantic, and it's really fun to walk around it, but the quests aren't as enjoyable. I liked all of the Ladies of the Wood/Bloody Baron stuff a lot, especially since a few of the quests, the Whispering Hillock in particular, don't have obviously correct options to choose from. The environments are arguably better in the latter 3/4 of the game, but the main quest has already peaked by then and the side quests and monster contracts never really get more interesting.

 

[Silly Germans]

Most games have bad writting and bad gameplay. The Witcher 3 has good writting and mediocre gameplay. Id say that puts it above
the rest. If you give a shit about story/representation you are left with a mediocre game, if you take it into account you have a good game.
And they managed to make a fairly large world without turning it into a Ubisoft/Bethesda open world shit show which gets them huge
plus in my book.

 

[barghwata]

I get all the criticisms about the Witcher games, I will be the first to admit that they are far from great in the gameplay department in a lot of ways. But sometimes, you can't see the forest by analyzing the trees. Whatever you want to call it, atmosphere, writing, lore, the total package, these games are an achievement in this favorite hobby of ours. I've been bored lately, trying tons of different games, and none of them can keep my attention for long because they are just not very good, but I tried playing the Witcher games again (which I've already completed years ago), and right away I am hooked. They just have that something that few games have.

I am a bit of everything-fag, as I love great writing, and great exploration, and great combat, so this is not about that. It's just about recognizing greatness when it rarely shows its face.

Don't get me wrong The witcher series is great and all (well maybe not witcher 2) but i am genuinley unsure what you mean by "one of the hallmarks of gaming", what have the witcher games done that older games haven't already achieved way better? if we're talking about writing, lore and atmosphere, games like Fallout, Arcanum ,PS:T and VtMB had already done a much better job at that in my opinion, without heavily relying on pre-existing source material while also offering a much better roleplaying experience then the witcher games do.

So i am just curious on what makes you think the witcher is special, or is it because the first witcher was released in the midst of the decline era? i mean yea..... i guess back then i am sure it seemed like a huge achievement but that's a low bar to clear.

 

[Lios]

Witcher 1 dice poker is one of the hallmarks of mini-games

 

[Metatron]

It's just... dice poker. They didn't invent it.

 

[Lacrymas]

So i am just curious on what makes you think the witcher is special

Like I said before, I suspect it's because it's very cater-y (it checks boxes with surgical precision) to the average person who would play it and they confuse that with some kind of extraordinary quality.

 

[Necroscope]

The writing in TW3 is good but I didn't particularly enjoy it. It's not that there's something wrong about it, it just has this Hollywood vibe; everything is grand, awesome and characters have to utter cool lines on regular basis. Games like Torment or Mask of the Betrayer hold much higher artistic qualities in my opinion.

 

[Alphard]

Most games have bad writting and bad gameplay. The Witcher 3 has good writting and mediocre gameplay. Id say that puts it above
the rest. If you give a shit about story/representation you are left with a mediocre game, if you take it into account you have a good game.
And they managed to make a fairly large world without turning it into a Ubisoft/Bethesda open world shit show which gets them huge
plus in my book.

Why you play games with bad writing and bad gameplay?
If you played games with good gameplay and combat, you would notice how mechanically shit W3 is.
The combat is not passable, it is fecal matter, you cast shield, attack, dodge out and recast shield.
Exploration is useless. The best gear you can obtain without exploration.

When to an A (?) RPG you subtract combat and exploration, nothing is left.
If You wanted good graphics and a mediocre story you could have spent much less going to cinema

 

[Lord_Potato]

I get all the criticisms about the Witcher games, I will be the first to admit that they are far from great in the gameplay department in a lot of ways. But sometimes, you can't see the forest by analyzing the trees. Whatever you want to call it, atmosphere, writing, lore, the total package, these games are an achievement in this favorite hobby of ours. I've been bored lately, trying tons of different games, and none of them can keep my attention for long because they are just not very good, but I tried playing the Witcher games again (which I've already completed years ago), and right away I am hooked. They just have that something that few games have.

I am a bit of everything-fag, as I love great writing, and great exploration, and great combat, so this is not about that. It's just about recognizing greatness when it rarely shows its face.

It must be said loud and clear: the OP is right. Every game from the franchise has its faults, but every one is memorable and great. Personally, I love W1 most for its authenticity and boldness, then W3 for blending open world design with strong narrative(s), especially in the expansions, and then W2 for its reactivity and alternative storylines (still finished it twice and will propably do it again in a few years).

Each of those games were a very ambitious undertaking. Each of those games (maybe with exception of W3)almost bankrupted CDPR, but finally proved to be a great success. It is one of the greatest RPG franchises ever. Even if individually, none of them has strong rpg mechanics.

 

[Necroscope]

It is one of the greatest RPG franchises ever. Even if individually, none of them has strong rpg mechanics.

 

[OctavianRomulus]

Yes, Gothic 1 and 2 are amazing games, but Witcher series is great in a completely different way. Gothics had amazing gameplay and detailed world, the Witcher games aren't nearly as good in those areas, but they excel on the writing, atmosphere, lore, character side, as well as graphics/physics in Witcher 3. And in the age of Bethesda, Bioware, and Ubisoft crap, that counts for something.

I don't think developers should separate gameplay from story. In the best games, they are actually intertwined.

Gothic 1 and 2 didn't have expensive mocap and voice actors and the story is still considered one of the high points of the game. It's not because the characters have particularly interesting backgrounds or have anything profound to say. They are really just normal people who are trying to survive in a brutal world, just like you.

I think the main characters in Gothic are interesting because they offer the player valuable things. For example, in Gothic 2, there is this part where you are with Diego in the Valley of Mines and you have to go through a horde of orcs. Normally you can't kill more than one at that point but Diego kills them with ease with his bow, which gives you a ton of XP, which strenghtens the friendship between the player and Diego because XP is very valuable but it's particularly valuable because the game is difficult. In my opinion, this is an important story moment. So without any cutscenes, expensive mocap and voice acting, the developers managed to strenghten the friendship between the player and Diego and portray how much of a badass he is. However, none of these things would matter if the world was not difficult. Diego is your friend because the world is brutal and unforgiving. The friendship would not mean anything if the player could take on 5 orcs at level 5. The orcs are scary because the have surrounded a castle and you can barely take out one at a time. It all comes down to it being a good game.

The story in Gothic is not great because of particularly great writing but because the story is driven by the gameplay. Gameplay is story. Atmosphere, lore and graphics are really just the cherry on top of the cake.

 

[Lacrymas]

Geralt is the opposite of the Nameless Hero, he's made to be as much of a badass as possible on every occasion and that makes him thoroughly uninteresting resulting in his journey not being something to cherish or take away from. I also hate his English voice.

 

[barghwata]

It is one of the greatest RPG franchises ever. Even if individually, none of them has strong rpg mechanics.

Someone already pointed this out but....... What?? what does that even mean? i get that the witcher series are good games with excellent writing and all but why do they have to be great RPGs as well? you said it yourself, their RPG mechanics aren't all that great; to be honest i would go as far as to say that the witcher being considered an RPG in itself is debatable but let's not get into that.

 

[OctavianRomulus]

Geralt is the opposite of the Nameless Hero, he's made to be as much of a badass as possible on every occasion and that makes him thoroughly uninteresting resulting in his journey being not something to cherish or take away from. I also hate his English voice.

That's true, Geralt needs to lose from time to time and the loss should be reflected in the story, not necessarily be "game over". Maybe there is an important side quest with a time limit where the fate of a villager is at stake (such as the bailiff's daughter or something) but Geralt is kind of unprepared for it. If you win, the villagers help you later on but if you fail Geralt returns exhausted and the villagers start spitting on Geralt and beat him up. Failure should be part of the experience.

 

[Lord_Potato]

Yes, Gothic 1 and 2 are amazing games, but Witcher series is great in a completely different way. Gothics had amazing gameplay and detailed world, the Witcher games aren't nearly as good in those areas, but they excel on the writing, atmosphere, lore, character side, as well as graphics/physics in Witcher 3. And in the age of Bethesda, Bioware, and Ubisoft crap, that counts for something.

I don't think developers should separate gameplay from story. In the best games, they are actually intertwined.

Gothic 1 and 2 didn't have expensive mocap and voice actors and the story is still considered one of the high points of the game. It's not because the characters have particularly interesting backgrounds or have anything profound to say. They are really just normal people who are trying to survive in a brutal world, just like you.

I think the main characters in Gothic are interesting because they offer the player valuable things. For example, in Gothic 2, there is this part where you are with Diego in the Valley of Mines and you have to go through a horde of orcs. Normally you can't kill more than one at that point but Diego kills them with ease with his bow, which gives you a ton of XP, which strenghtens the friendship between the player and Diego because XP is very valuable but it's particularly valuable because the game is difficult. In my opinion, this is an important story moment. So without any cutscenes, expensive mocap and voice acting, the developers managed to strenghten the friendship between the player and Diego and portray how much of a badass he is. However, none of these things would matter if the world was not difficult. Diego is your friend because the world is brutal and unforgiving. The friendship would not mean anything if the player could take on 5 orcs at level 5. The orcs are scary because the have surrounded a castle and you can barely take out one at a time. It all comes down to it being a good game.

The story in Gothic is not great because of particularly great writing but because the story is driven by the gameplay. Gameplay is story. Atmosphere, lore and graphics are really just the cherry on top of the cake.

Story in Gothics? Are you serious?

Story in 1 was escape the prison colony with a few twists. Quite fresh, okayish thanks to likeable characters but nothing great. Strengths of G1 lays elsewhere.

Gothic 2 has the most boring and cliched "dragons are coming to conquer the world" story. The fact that no serious conflict was resolved within the game (paladins vs ex-prisoners; ex-prisoners factions; paladin expedition to Valley of Mines) was retarded. And the endboss... undead dragon from Heroes of Might and Magic 2. Now that was "fresh"...
Again, strength of this franchise was not in strong stories.

 

[OctavianRomulus]

Story in Gothics? Are you serious?

Story in 1 was escape the prison colony with a few twists. Quite fresh, okayish thanks to likeable characters but nothing great. Strengths of G1 lays elsewhere.

Gothic 2 has the most boring and cliched "dragons are coming to conquer the world" story. The fact that no serious conflict was resolved within the game (paladins vs ex-prisoners; ex-prisoners factions; paladin expedition to Valley of Mines) was retarded. And the endboss... undead dragon from Heroes of Might and Magic 2. Now that was "fresh"...
Again, strength of this franchise was not in strong stories.

That's kind of what I said. People remember the story of Gothic for being really good when in fact it's really simple. I merely explained why people think so. A simple story can be great if told well and I think the best way to tell a story in games is through gameplay. Brothers a Tale of Two sons did this very well too but in a different way.

And since we are talking about story Witcher 3 is basically "find this person so you can find that other person so you can find Ciri". It's quite dull but you don't notice because of the high production values. Sure it has a few standout moments but those moments don't carry on through the whole game. Let's not forget the boring villain either. They had been building him up for three games but he's just really dull.

 

[barghwata]

A simple story can be great if told well and I think the best way to tell a story in games is through gameplay. Brothers a Tale of Two sons did this very well too but in a different way.

Well said, an average story told though interactive gameplay > a good story told through cut scenes and voice acted dialogue.

 

[Necroscope]

There are many games with silly stories that I enjoyed because they're worked in a game, and a game is a separate medium from books and movies. Sure, a game can have high quality writing and plot, but it can work without it if there's a solid gameplay, genuine art direction, atmospheric locations to explore etc.

That said, in terms of narrative qualities Witcher 3 it the equivalent of Marvel movies. A person with good taste treats them as entertainment, but many people get emotionally invested in the characters even though their personality is shallow as a puddle and completely detached from any person that ever existed.

Witcher 3 is a very solid peasant experience and that is the reason for its popularity.

 

[DalekFlay]

You can't bash the Witcher games on story and writing. Especially 2 and 3. They are far above average in those areas. Even quest design itself is pretty good, it's just very hampered in 3 because of "go to marker" design, IMO.