What does NMA think about The Witcher 3?

I felt great playing this game at first, I even went as far as saying "It's close to perfection...", but after awhile I am starting to notice little things I don't like:

-The horse is undeniably the most annoying horse in the history of video games(fuck you roach, I hope you fall off a cliff and land right into a fucking monster nest)

-Those question marks on the map, there is a whole lot of them and they all boil down to: a.monster nest, b.treasure c.bandit camp. Boring!

-combat on the horse is a joke

-you still have gibberish dialogue, something that has been plaguing the series since the first game

It's still a great game, but definitely not perfect.
 
The first Witcher game was one of the most pleasant surprises I ever came across in gaming. And that was before the enhanced edition. The opening sequence was nothing special, but as soon as I came to the outskirts, I was hooked. At first I was impressed by the tavern. Never have I seen such an atmospheric tavern in a video game. And all the side-stuff, the fights, the dice poker, getting drunk with random people, it was just the most believable medieval fantasy setting I had ever seen. Even the quests you get from leaflets (which I rarely do in other games) were a pleasure, because the locations were beautiful and fun to explore, and you fist had to learn about the monster you were hired to hunt. I've heard people bitch and moan about the combat system, which can only be explained by the fact that they were expecting an action RPG. And the world was intriguing, one of the rare fantasy worlds in a western video game which isn't entirely based on Tolkien's books. I love how the elves were fit into the world, how the Scoia'tael looked and behaved like a bunch of partisans living in the woods instead of some artist-archer-poet nonsense. The morality of the story was very well made because you knew there were negative consequences to each choice you made during the main quest.

And of course, the alchemy! I don't understand why no other game I know of has a system like this. It was also a big immersion factor in preparing to go on a hunt. Potions lasted for (in-game) hours, and there wasn't an immersion breaking timer in the middle of the screen.

There's no need to say that I was hyped as fuck for the sequel. It was one of the few games I bought immediately upon release, and I even bought a new graphics card just to be able to play it. I guess I wasn't yet smart enough to know that one should always be a pessimist, because they never get disappointed.

As soon as I got into the castle, I noticed a gigantic flaw. Two of them, in fact. The first was the hack and slash combat system, and the second was the fact that it was just plain bad. There are two ways to get through combat in Witcher 2 - the first is playing a tiresome game of hit an run with your opponents, and the other is spamming grapeshot bombs. I beat the game on the hardest difficulty without any problem just by using the latter.

The economy was also completely broken, hell, even the dice poker felt much worse and looked much uglier than in the first game. They tried so hard to make every quest feel more cinematic that it completely broke the immersion. The fistfights were quick time events and the arm-wrestling was far too easy except for the final opponent (unless you actually force him not to cheat). In the first game I felt like a monster slayer who (imagine that!) slays monsters for money and is trying to get the guy who stole the mutagens his order depends on. Which made perfect sense. In the second game I felt like the local idiot who does everything for everybody else because... I don't really know why. I did not find one single side-quest in the entire game memorable enough to know.

The world was also made to feel more like any other fantasy world. The new Scoia'tael didn't feel half as good as they did in the first game, and of course, they were all proficient archers! How original!

And the storyline just didn't feel right. So Foltest, a king and a jerk, gets assassinated, it is presented as something we should honestly give a damn about? Also, why should Geralt care that Triss got captured? I imported a save from my Witcher 1 game where I ditched Triss, went with Shani, and worked for Scoia'tael all the way and the only difference there is in the dialogue and game world is that I can tell Iorveth that I helped Yaevinn and he's still all like "Yeah, I don't give a fuck, Yaevinn was just an idealistic jerk who raised a successful revolt, played a role in destroying the Order, and brought the king to the negotiating table with a bunch of nonhuman rebels while I was busy playing my flute in the woods and playing revolutionary."

And I got attacked by a bunch of Order remnants in the final chapter. The whole save-porting thing was just a hoax.

Anyway, I grow tired of bitching about it at the moment, the Witcher 2 was worse than 1 in about every way I can remember, so unless I see some evidence that 3 is more similar to 1, I haven't the slightest intention of wasting my money on it.
 
Maybe I'm just comparing the game to the only other swords/sorcery action RPG I've played lately (Skyrim), but I have really enjoyed the Witcher 3 so far and it has me looking forward to playing it again. I've never gotten around to playing anything in the series so this is my first experience with it and I've been pleasantly surprised.

I picked it up on friday and played all weekend. Literally couldn't help myself.

Some first impressions:

Looks: It looks beautiful, and the NPC animations and faces are quite good for the most part. The world is a little unbelievably designed at times with a group of bandits/deserters taking up a spot almost in sight of the townspeople and soldiers, but this seems to be common to this kind of open world game. At the very least the bandits are located near roads and other places where they would be preying on people, so it makes some sense. Other parts of the world as you get further from little towns are much better designed, and exploring has been a blast so far. I really like going into caves without a loading screen, and having it actually be scary and dark underground.

Combat: I'm not sure what good combat in one of these kind of games is, but I was challenged from the start and died a few times to enemies that weren't even higher leveled until I figured out how not to get swarmed, so it was a step up from Skyrim. I feel like I need to think about combat before I start it, and plan ways to come out on top using positioning or breaking up the groups into smaller more manageable chunks and kiting enemies away sometimes to deal with them one at a time. With the bigger monsters I've dealt with so far, I had a tough time with a few of them and died a fair number of times learning their weaknesses and attack patterns or which signs to use on them to break up their patterns the best.

I'm actually just stoked to see enemy AI that has attack patterns beyond running at you swinging. It makes for way more variety in the fights and keeps it a bit fresher than I'm used to.

At level 4 I died to packs of level 4/6 neckers a couple times, but was occasionally able to take out a level 6 bear. Same thing with human enemies. If they are in groups they are so much harder to deal with, but by singling them out I was able to take down some level 16 deserter guys at level 4.
To me it's nice to get killed and have to get better and plan better to do what I want, and not just wade in swinging.


Difficulty: I'm not playing it on easy and it definitely doesn't feel easy. Some of this is me learning the controls and how everything works, but I feel like the challenge is there.

The quests occasionally require some thought or at least a bit of perseverance so you keep searching for clues. While there is a quest marker to tell you where to go, occasionally it's not easy to find the thing you needed to do/discover at first glance.

In terms of enemies, I've run into a few things/groups that I just ran from because I could tell it would go badly. Came back with a higher level or a plan to deal with them, and this is refreshing for me in this kind of game. I don't want to be fearless all the time, and definitely not at low levels.

Some giant thingy I randomly happened across in the woods in Velen with ?? for it's level scared the pants off me to the point where I haven't been back to that bit of the map in a day or so.

The overall difficulty of the mechanics is refreshing to me as well. I have had to work for every level and major gear improvement and I'm only level 5 so far after a whole weekend of fiddling with the game. It doesn't feel like grinding for xp so much as it does that nothing is being handed to me on a platter, and I prefer this kind of feeling.

The crafting looks like it is the same way where you really need to look around to get certain items, or think ahead and not sell of something that may be useful later, because you can't always buy it where you are at. The character skill/stat system is mildly varied and seems to have a couple different builds in it that could increase replayability.

Quests: I love them. So far even the simplest ones were not just fetch quests, and things that I assumed would be "go here, find x, kill it" have turned into something else entirely on me a few times so far, pleasantly surprising me. The main storyline has pushed me along in terms of place, but rarely told me who I'm supposed to be, which, to me, is the right way to do main quest design. As I progress the main story I get the option to go to new places, but there's nothing stopping me from marching right off to my death in an area that I am not ready for.

One would expect a game about a sword wielding badass beast hunter to revolve around killing stuff with that sword, but the quests tend toward being a detective or solving problems for people, just as often as they do actually killing beasts. When the quest is actually about killing beasts, it's layered with parts during which you learn more about the beasts or why you should kill them, not just "go kill bad thing".

They all feel so well done and fleshed out, with reasons for me to care and such, when compared to the generic boring mmorpg stuff I've seen in action rpgs before.


Overall I think it's a very enjoyable game so far, and I hope it stays that way as I progress through it.
 
(un)Holy necromancy, batman!

Anyway, while I greatly enjoyed TW3, it has some pretty big flaws that keep me from seeing it as a nigh on perfect game like so many have.

The combat isn't very good. Quen slash dodge. Here's 90% of what you do. Parrying is only useful against lone humans, all Signs except Quen are situational, the sword special attacks are too slow (hell even Strong attacks are). Bombs don't scale anywhere near enough to be useful all game long, either. The only special attack I used is the upgraded Igni against crowds of humans.

It has few choices in the main campaign. You get to decide the fate of the Baron's family, but after that the story is very on-rails. You can do extra fluff like finding Sigi's treasure but the main story arc has few important choices. Chosing Skellige's new ruler isn't even part of the main quest.

I also hated the loot system. So much trash thrown at you, and random Novigrad Swords eventually scaling to be better than your ''Relic'' blades sucks a bit. Speaking of scaling, I hate how enemies 5 or more levels than you magically have 10 times more health than usual, that's a pretty bad way to design such things IMO.

The third act is also wrapped up quite quickly and the ending isn't very good. ''And then Ciri stopped the White Frost with the Power of Love because Good Guy Geralt had a snowball fight with her and went on to become the bestest Witcher ever''. Mmmkay.
 
This is perhaps the best idea for a mod ever: http://www.nexusmods.com/witcher3/mods/953/?

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy some of your open world RPGs (and "RPGs) but constantly having to nonconsensually inject pieces of metal into the bodies of others gets old in a hurry. So why not replace it with a card game that gets tiresome much less quickly.
 
Walpknut said:
Because of the Internet, cultural osmosis. I know "You know nothing Jon Snow" is a Game of Thrones joke, but I have no idea the context in which it was said or why it turned into a meme. I have seen exactly 0 seconds of the show, and read 0 words from the books.
Click to expand...

You've done well. If you think Beth has done poorly in F3 and/or F4, what HBO did to the Chronicles of Ice and Fire (aka, GoT), is simply outrageous and borders imbecility.
 
Except, if you're like me, a Game of Thrones tourist, who has never read a single Ice&Fire book :V
 
Witcher 3 is fantastic, all hail wither 3. The end.

And I actually like the combat but it does take some getting used to, a lot of getting used to in fact. I've also rebound the signs to hotkeys and mouse buttons for quicker casting and it makes a world of difference, there's a mod for it.

If you really nitpick you could argue that the world is a little bit empty once you stray off the beaten path. That is when you're not doing main quests or side quests or contracts it's extremely rare for you to stumble over something that is actually interesting. There are a lot of mapmarkers but they all feel the same... kill bandits, loot chest of fight big monster pretty much. You pretty much never stumble over something worthwhile if you're just exploring. Unless you just want to enjoy the scenery that is. For contrast if you wander around Skyrim you can find things like this:



It's a NPC which isn't indicated or associated with any quest but she's out there doing her thing and yeah.... small touches like that really brings the world alive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, screw that guy who was dissing witcher!
*gets pitch-fork*

If I were to DIG for any annoyance, it would be the endless, needless boob-focus. I get it, we like boobs.
 
I have all three installed; I've not finished #2 yet, so #3 is a while away; though I've played the tutorial.

IMO CDProjekt ruined the gameplay after Witcher #1. They seem to have actually gone through it, and cherry picked the worst aspects of the gameplay ~to KEEP [either/or] rather than retain the gameplay of the original as a saving grace despite their change in format to snare the action/twitch gamers. :(

As for the art, ~aside from Geralt's own appearance; and messed up face in the sequels, the game gets better and better; and the stories seem decent [quality]; though the NPCs were better in Witcher 1 IMO. I did not see conversations the like with Thaler in Witcher 2.

IMO they screwed up the dice game with #2.
 
Yeah, Thaler was awesome. And as much as I like Witcher 2, I really missed a quest and situation as like with Raymond Maarloeve (Christ who gives them those impossible to remember names ...) and Salamandra. The way how that one worked, with finding clues, books and geting to the depths of the secret with that dead body! I have never really encountered something quite like that in Witcher 2. And I have a feeling Witcher 3 won't either, in favour of a more easily understood story.
 
I think I'll never play W3. Bought first Witcher in v1.0 shortly after release, just to support brand new studio, was slightly disappointed by consoletardeous shit as QTE, corridors, numerous loading screens, and small shitty dungeons. Bought W2 on GoG sales for 2.5€ just to find that it has more than 10 GB, haven't downloaded it yet due to laziness. Right now I'm occupied by excellent indie RPGs flooding from everywhere, plus old games as King of the Dragon Pass, or Stonekeep for instance, so I don't feel any temptation to buy or play W3. :look:
 
I don't remember any QTE in Witcher 1. AFAIK that crap didn't infect the series until Witcher 2; when they ruined the bar fighting with it; among other things.

If I had to rank the three, then Witcher 1 stands as #1 ~so far. And Witcher 1 is my top RPG of the last decade; also: especially for the combat.
 
I'm pretty sure that you have to slash your opponents in properly timed sequences in order to finish the combo - to get the series of three or five slashes granted by style chosen. (W1)
 
That's not a QTE [afaik]. QTE is the "Whack-A-Mole" minigame in the dragon scene, or the bar fights in Witcher 2; the ones with letters appearing in the air that prevent the player from actually watching the fight.

You have to watch the letters, and peck the keys ~or lose/die/repeat.

The timing in W1 ~that orange flash (of opportunity) is optional gameplay; (as well as being one of my favorite parts). What bugs the hell out of me with W2 & 3, is that unlike W1, Geralt is an idiot with the sword and in a fight he will swing blind at whatever is in front of him ~including walls and scenery. This is out of character for an expert swordsman. Where in W1, the player selects his target, and Geralt (being an expert swordsman) does what he is trained for; combat.
 
Last edited:
What about jumping in W3, can he jump finally? I was surprised that Geralt cannot jump over board fence, whilst rolling smooth salto in fights without any problem. Perhaps he's afraid of ripping off his ballsack on those fences or what..
 
I dunno; the only jump I recall was in W1, when you had him dodge. Jumping wasn't an option in the Aurora engine. I didn't see jumps in W2, and I assume W3 doesn't have them, but I don't know, I've only played it for about 15 minutes.
 
He can already jump in TW3. There's actually a quest where you have to scale a whole mountain as some kind of challenge.
 
Gizmojunk said:
That's not a QTE [afaik]What bugs the hell out of me with W2 & 3, is that unlike W1, Geralt is an idiot with the sword and in a fight he will swing blind at whatever is in front of him ~including walls and scenery. This is out of character for an expert swordsman. Where in W1, the player selects his target, and Geralt (being an expert swordsman) does what he is trained for; combat.
Click to expand...

Urm, I take it you've never read a single Witcher book or something about the lore? They've actually used the very same swordsman for motion capture like in TW1. The reason his fighting style is so "swinging" and dancery/spinny is because a lot of the monsters that witchers fight are too strong to parry with any weapon or counter, or employ unconventional fighting methods (wraiths being ethereal for example). Most of the time witchers have to dodge attacks or wrap around enemies using pirouettes because of this. This is why their fighting style is more like a dance than anything else.

Think of it this way, witchers are the equivalent of jedi. The light saber need only touch the opponent in order to do do damage and therefore maximizing agility and dexterity in your fighting style is more important. The silver sword need only touch the 'flesh' of magical creatures in the witcher world in order to do damage, and so witchers fight in a dexterous extravagant manner similar to the jedi.

Witchers try not to fight humans which is why this style of fighting is very risky and might look odd to people outside the witcher combat expertise but witcher senses and reflexes allow them to time attacks so precisely that they can afford to put all their momentum into a spinning attack. The actual reason for the spinning attacks etc. itself is because witchers usually only strike after a successful pirouette dodge (The book Blood of Elves describes this in detail).

If anything, the way Geralt fights in TW2 and TW3 is actually much more faithul to the original source (the Witcher saga books). It's really supposed to be like that, which is why you see the key difference between how normal soldiers/guards fight and when you or other Witchers battle.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top