Explain to me why Witcher 3 is good...

Hulk'O'Saurus said:
One of the biggest disappointments I have with the title is that you can't really explore.
Click to expand...

Yeah. The thing with the "exploration" is mostly just finding the recipes you need for stronger potions, oils, and armor/weapon set pieces. After that the rest of the question marks on the map are filler and designed to nag completionists. I enjoyed the game so much more when I ignored all of that filler and just focused on the things that I needed.
 
BigGuyCIA said:
Yeah. The thing with the "exploration" is mostly just finding the recipes you need for stronger potions, oils, and armor/weapon set pieces. After that the rest of the question marks on the map are filler and designed to nag completionists. I enjoyed the game so much more when I ignored all of that filler and just focused on the things that I needed.
Click to expand...


What's your formula for enjoying Witcher 3?
 
It should never have been their intention. I remember having conversations here and at Bethsoft, that used Witcher 1 as example for bypassing the mundane traveling with an abstracted passing of time—until something of note or interest is meant to happen.

I can think of little more boring that having to walk from Kaer Morhen to Vizema in first or third person.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Don't treat it like a Sandbox game?
Click to expand...
Well, I agree at least for myself. If you want a sandbox game out of it that's also a thing you could do. It's got the Ubisoft filler content there if that's what you like in games.
 
Hulk'O'Saurus said:
What's your formula for enjoying Witcher 3?
Click to expand...

Disregard every question mark that isn't an oil, potion, weapon/armor recipe. I used a guide to figure out where to go for potion Superior versions of oils/potions and the Armor/Weapon sets usually have associated blips on the map which make finding them easy enough. I think in one playthrough I managed to get every point of interest on the first map (I forget the name), but once I get to Skellige(?) I immediately dropped any interest in trying to get visit them.

Gizmojunk said:
It should never have been their intention. I remember having conversations here and at Bethsoft, that used Witcher 1 as example for bypassing the mundane traveling with an abstracted passing of time—until something of note or interest is meant to happen.

I can think of little more boring that having to walk from Kaer Morhen to Vizema in first or third person.
Click to expand...

Red Dead Redemption 2 does something similar with their map fast travel. You select a location and a montage of travelling scenes play to illustrate your character moving to his destination. It's one way and you end up having to either ride all the way back by horse or take a train/carriage (which provide their own array of cutscenes).
 
It would have been funny—if it wasn't already true— had Witcher 3 parodied the overland travel in Hillsfar.

horsebackriding.gif
 
I havn't played Witcher 3 yet, but I sure as hell will one day, so I do not know if it's true or not. But I feared during the development of W3 that this 'open world' was done just for the sake of open worlds and not to actually push the game forward. So in other words, could the Witcher 3 also work as a game with a more limited and linear world? Like Witcher 1 and 2? What did the open world add to the narrative, the story telling and character development of them game? I think this is a lot more important, as I feel that Open World or Sand Box games, are a very pecuilar kind of game and style and do not necessarily work always with role playing games that relly on choices and consequences. I mean if I look at the Witcher 1, the fact that the game worked in chapters and cut you off from previous areas, meant that certain decisions had to be made and they felt natural, because you couldn't just return to the previous area.
 
Crni Vuk said:
So in other words, could the Witcher 3 also work as a game with a more limited and linear world? Like Witcher 1 and 2?
Click to expand...
Most definitely, in my opinion. It would have benefited from it. I think 1>2>3 and one reason I think 2's better than 3 because of its world/level design.
 
Crni Vuk said:
. So in other words, could the Witcher 3 also work as a game with a more limited and linear world?
Click to expand...
I agree with @Squadcar as well. A limited world would have more tighter focus and less junk strewn around (especially in Skellige).

That said, those random loot strewn about are useful for one thing: Selling for spare gold to get the Grandmaster stuff in Blood and Wine (and even that is not necessary if you know what you're doing). I do roll my eyes at comments on the Internet whining about how hard it is to get gold when there is so much junk to sell.
 
Eh, once I really got the hang out of the gambling in W1, money was like an issue that dissapeared like it was nothing. I think it even broke the game. Seroiously, In my first game I didn't gamble really and it was actually quite difficult to get money in the game which was awesome. But, once you advance far enough with the dice and get to the grandmasters you're swimming in gold.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Eh, once I really got the hang out of the gambling in W1, money was like an issue that dissapeared like it was nothing.
Click to expand...

Haha, reminds me of caravan in FNV. Once you figured out the gist of the game it was easy to make it to the strip with enough money to just buy out everything you needed.
 
BigGuyCIA said:
Disregard every question mark that isn't an oil, potion, weapon/armor recipe. I used a guide to figure out where to go for potion Superior versions of oils/potions and the Armor/Weapon sets usually have associated blips on the map which make finding them easy enough. I think in one playthrough I managed to get every point of interest on the first map (I forget the name), but once I get to Skellige(?) I immediately dropped any interest in trying to get visit them.
Click to expand...

I don't mind enjoying a game, but I don't think I could actually ever do something like that in Witcher... and now that I think about it, RDR2, as well.

Not that your advice isn't helpful, it's just that I think I've already spoiled the game for myself x).
 
I am not too big on card games, Yu-gi-oh is the most I can invest in learning one, and even that one I drop whenever any of the Post Zexal stuff crops up, so I just couldn't be assed to get invested in Gwent. It was like a Kneejerk reaction, everytime I had Gwent thrown at me I either rejected to play and delighted in their disappointed response or I gave up first turn to not have to endure it (like during the Wedding event in Heart of Stone) and you know what? I like the DOnkey ears, fuck you Dwarves, go play your magic in your mom's basement.
 
Last edited:
I couldn't be bothered to play it enough in game because I don't have time to build decks in games that aren't about building decks and playing card games.

I used to play the Gwent standalone game but haven't in a while. Otherwise, the only card game I've liked since I was 12 was Magic the Gathering and even then I don't play normal formats.
 
I'm not going to bother learning it. I really liked the dice game in Witcher 1, and couldn't understand how they managed to ruin it in Witcher 2.
 
I don't know why they had to change anything going from W1 to W2. Instead of always changing the gameplay and developing completely new combat, they should rather expand on it, keeping the things that worked well and maybe fixing a few smaller issues here and there. In other words, giving the mechanic more debth, while making it easier to get into it. The mechanic in W1 was in my opinion good enough and just required some fine tuning to be really good.
 
Crni Vuk said:
I don't know why they had to change anything going from W1 to W2. Instead of always changing the gameplay and developing completely new combat
Click to expand...
Console markets are where the money is man! They wanted to grow faster is what I'm guessing...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top