-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
The Witcher 3: What if everyone got together and give a game a pass for having shit gameplay?
- Thread starter Deleted member 3534
- Start date
Shit gameplay is just complete hyperbole. I can understand not liking it as much as other games, but come on. Especially the category of game that Witcher 3 is in, the gameplay is at the top of the heap. I mean look at games like Oblivion/Skyrim/Fallout and GTA. In my opinion Witcher 3 stands head and shoulders above those. It's not even a question. A lot of open world games and especially open world RPGs just aren't that great for gameplay.
But personally I loved Witcher 3's gameplay. I'd take it over Bloodborne any day of the week, but I suppose I'm the only one thinking that.
But personally I loved Witcher 3's gameplay. I'd take it over Bloodborne any day of the week, but I suppose I'm the only one thinking that.
Nah, I'm in that camp too. TW3 gives you tons of options with how to build Geralt and approach each encounter or quest.
Yeah I definitely agree OP.
As you point out, everything else is of such a high quality that it's really a shame the game plays as it does. Gerald controls in a very unsatisfying manner, being far too 'floaty' and 'light' in combat which takes any impact away from the moves and makes it pretty unsatisfying to fight enemies. The enemies don't respond to attacks convincingly and follow very repetitive patterns so it feels like you're just chipping away at a health bar (this is even worse when you try to kill higher ranked enemies). The lack of variety in how the enemies fight over such an expansive game really adds to the sense of repetitivity as you go further in the game. When you aren't in combat and are simply trying to navigate the environment it feels more like you're trying to drive a sixty tonne tank instead of controlling an actual person and it makes exploration feel frustrating and unsatisfying.
There are some nonsensical design decisions pertaining to the gameplay too. The single cool down timer on using signs is one of the biggest offenders for me. It dissuades the player from venturing from the 'simplest' path, as tying sign use to a single cool down timer actively discourages the player from using a variety of signs or combining them because Quen is of such utility (particularly on a higher difficulty) that it's rare you're better off using something else. You so quickly break the game's balance in levelling up the sword or alchemy paths (whirl just slaughters people, and alchemy just outright makes you unkillable) that it trivialises the combat and makes it seem pointless because you can just mash the attack button without any reason to go with less efficient routes (because why vary things when the alternatives aren't fun, are less useful, and just drag out the combat further). The quests actively expose flaws in the gameplay by making you engage in the outright dreadful fist fights and horse races multiple times over the course of the game. The quest design as you've noted quickly feels repetitive through the over-reliance on Witcher Sense which is not an engaging mechanic and just forces you to run down a path. The Skellige section serves only to emphasise how poor the crossbow is in the game and how slow traversal by sea is should you choose to try and clear the map; there's nothing fun or challenging about having to swim for fifteen minutes to land, slowly move a boat to a question mark, and shoot harpies with the game's shooting mechanics so why place such an emphasis on this?
Exploration is actively discouraged because if you do too many side quests or clear the map of question marks you end up over-levelled to the degree that, because of how EXP is awarded, you (ironically) come out of the game under-levelled as you're awarded less EXP overall. For being as big as the map is, it's filled with copy-paste level things to do (the aforementioned Skellige treasure chests, or the ridiculous amount of bandit camps, abandoned settlements, and monster nests) and very rarely are you actually rewarded with something interesting (especially given how frustrating Geralt is to control).
Gwent is very well-designed (even if towards the end of that quest line you can destroy people with ease) and is the first mini-game out of the second and third game which I've actually enjoyed, but aside from that there was very little in the gameplay which I enjoyed.
It's frustrating, because if the game just 'jumped' between NPC interactions, big moments in quests, and cutscenes, totally skipping any moment where you have control of Geralt aside from choosing dialogue responses, my opinion of the game would be a lot higher, but I felt it played so poorly (and there is so much time spent where you're actually controlling Geralt) that it left me overall really disliking the game in spite of how much it does fantastically well (simply because actually playing it feels like I'm going to work and doing a chore for eight hours until I'm finally rewarded with something interesting at the end of the day). I just couldn't recommend it to somebody when so much of it was so subpar to me.
As you point out, everything else is of such a high quality that it's really a shame the game plays as it does. Gerald controls in a very unsatisfying manner, being far too 'floaty' and 'light' in combat which takes any impact away from the moves and makes it pretty unsatisfying to fight enemies. The enemies don't respond to attacks convincingly and follow very repetitive patterns so it feels like you're just chipping away at a health bar (this is even worse when you try to kill higher ranked enemies). The lack of variety in how the enemies fight over such an expansive game really adds to the sense of repetitivity as you go further in the game. When you aren't in combat and are simply trying to navigate the environment it feels more like you're trying to drive a sixty tonne tank instead of controlling an actual person and it makes exploration feel frustrating and unsatisfying.
There are some nonsensical design decisions pertaining to the gameplay too. The single cool down timer on using signs is one of the biggest offenders for me. It dissuades the player from venturing from the 'simplest' path, as tying sign use to a single cool down timer actively discourages the player from using a variety of signs or combining them because Quen is of such utility (particularly on a higher difficulty) that it's rare you're better off using something else. You so quickly break the game's balance in levelling up the sword or alchemy paths (whirl just slaughters people, and alchemy just outright makes you unkillable) that it trivialises the combat and makes it seem pointless because you can just mash the attack button without any reason to go with less efficient routes (because why vary things when the alternatives aren't fun, are less useful, and just drag out the combat further). The quests actively expose flaws in the gameplay by making you engage in the outright dreadful fist fights and horse races multiple times over the course of the game. The quest design as you've noted quickly feels repetitive through the over-reliance on Witcher Sense which is not an engaging mechanic and just forces you to run down a path. The Skellige section serves only to emphasise how poor the crossbow is in the game and how slow traversal by sea is should you choose to try and clear the map; there's nothing fun or challenging about having to swim for fifteen minutes to land, slowly move a boat to a question mark, and shoot harpies with the game's shooting mechanics so why place such an emphasis on this?
Exploration is actively discouraged because if you do too many side quests or clear the map of question marks you end up over-levelled to the degree that, because of how EXP is awarded, you (ironically) come out of the game under-levelled as you're awarded less EXP overall. For being as big as the map is, it's filled with copy-paste level things to do (the aforementioned Skellige treasure chests, or the ridiculous amount of bandit camps, abandoned settlements, and monster nests) and very rarely are you actually rewarded with something interesting (especially given how frustrating Geralt is to control).
Gwent is very well-designed (even if towards the end of that quest line you can destroy people with ease) and is the first mini-game out of the second and third game which I've actually enjoyed, but aside from that there was very little in the gameplay which I enjoyed.
It's frustrating, because if the game just 'jumped' between NPC interactions, big moments in quests, and cutscenes, totally skipping any moment where you have control of Geralt aside from choosing dialogue responses, my opinion of the game would be a lot higher, but I felt it played so poorly (and there is so much time spent where you're actually controlling Geralt) that it left me overall really disliking the game in spite of how much it does fantastically well (simply because actually playing it feels like I'm going to work and doing a chore for eight hours until I'm finally rewarded with something interesting at the end of the day). I just couldn't recommend it to somebody when so much of it was so subpar to me.
Yeah its mostly a resetera specific fad. Witcher 3 has among the highest user rating totals on both steam and metacritic, winning awards left and right, and reviewed fantastically. Basically none of the reviewers mentioned the gameplay/combat in a negative light, so the narrative you see in this thread is especially bewildering. Coupled with the fact that the criticisms are often reductive, unspecific and often boil down to vague statements such as "clunky/unresponsive" when pressed, and it becomes really hard to take the hyperbole seriously. It honestly seems like it has become a self fufilling prophecy at this point.
I don't even think it's a big fad here. It was #3 on ERA's essential RPGs list. It's clearly well regarded by the majority.
Can't say I agree, OP. Finished the game on the highest difficulty, and had a pretty great time with it, going so far as finishing it twice and getting the platinum. It's not the absolute best gameplay out there, meaning, it's not Bloodborne level obviously. But that's to be expected if you have realistic expectations. And aside from that, it's completely serviceable at worst, and pretty badass at best.
This has become a hallmark of most if not all LTTP's. It's why I've started simply ignoring them.
I went and skimmed some of the 90+ score reviews on Metacritic.
Nick Diamon of Quarter to Three in a 5 star review said:
Dustin Chadwell of Gaming Age in an A- review said:
David Piner of Ten Ton Hammer in a 9/10 review said:
Emily Speight of Attack of the Fanboy in a 4 1/2 star review said:
The ease with which this anti witcher conspiracy narrative was just punctured is a little anticlimactic.
Omg the timing of this thread. I've started the Witcher and my initial feelings are not that great.
Controls on the PS4 feel like they were mapped by someone who never played an open world game on the console.
I've told my friends that I'll give the game in spite of the garbage controls and average gameplay.
Controls on the PS4 feel like they were mapped by someone who never played an open world game on the console.
I've told my friends that I'll give the game in spite of the garbage controls and average gameplay.
Compared to Witcher 1 and 2's gameplay, Witcher 3's gameplay is masterclass.
I've certainly played games that had better gameplay, but Witcher 3's gameplay is just fine.
I've certainly played games that had better gameplay, but Witcher 3's gameplay is just fine.
Of the hundreds of reviews you can find online, obviously you will find a handful that will say something negative, and even with that in mind, two of those you mention didnt specifically adress combat as a whole, but specific parts of contextual movement , so even the cherry picked content you chose to a large part doesnt adress my point. As a whole, the reception was overwhelmingly positive on most of the elements of the game, including combat.
After the tutorial and the first hour or so, I turned the difficulty of The Witcher 2 down to the easiest so that I could just rush my way through the combat without bothering about magic and other stuff. I think that this game, despite some interesting characters and what not, would have been mostly ignored if it didn't have good graphics like it happened to the first one. I decided not to play the third game.
Witcher 3 has it's issues, and frankly I can understand why people dislike it. Me personally I enjoyed it largely because I enjoyed the systems that surrounded combat. having to plan ahead for battles, and use oils, signs effectively was quite fun.
It's far from perfect but it was good enough that it didn't ruin my experience with the game unlike with Skyrim.
It's far from perfect but it was good enough that it didn't ruin my experience with the game unlike with Skyrim.
I didn't read hundreds of reviews, I skimmed 10 or so very positive reviews to make the point that even many reviewers who enjoyed the game had issues with its combat and controls. You made a specific factual claim that just isn't true.
This Gaf/era meme shit needs to stop. The gameplay is fine, the combat is better than elder scrolls/fallout.
I personally preferred Fallout's gameplay more than Witcher 3, and do think the mechanics in Witcher 3 did break the immersion for me in multiple points, especially in dungeon-like sections of the game. That's fine if you don't agree, but please don't act that like we don't find fault with it by dismissing it as a meme.
it really is the absolute worst gaf and era 'meme' at this point.
When it's been posted over and over again on these forums, I view it as a meme, just like $30 Italian meal.
Meme:
1. an element of a culture or system of behaviour passed from one individual to another by imitation or other non-genetic means
Agree with OP. What you actually do on a moment to moment and how that feels during non-dialogue sequences absolutely sucks. Great writing though.
This is a game for those that want story above all and are willing to endure mind numbing gameplay for it.
Gave up on it during the "find dandelion" questline. Not even the dialogue could save this part of the game for me.
This is a game for those that want story above all and are willing to endure mind numbing gameplay for it.
Gave up on it during the "find dandelion" questline. Not even the dialogue could save this part of the game for me.
Which you in turn say that people who swear that Witcher 3 is the best game this generation or best RPG of all time as memes? I don't hear Witcher 3 being talk about all that much outside of GAF and maybe a few subreddits.
The only complaint I have about the battle system is that CDPR didn't flesh out the magic system more. I wanted to play Geralt as a walking nuke. Other then that the battle system is ok. Nothing special just ok in my opinion.
I would agree combat is shit IF the potions system wasn't the main driver behind it. You can spend 3 hours swinging and using Quen on a Golem OR you can use potions for increased critical damage and scaling attack power as the battle goes on. Also there is a Bestiary that is extremely helpful in making battles easier, smoother, and much more fun. Your literally not playing the game the right way, and I think that's your real criticism, is the game won't let you play the way you want to.
the crossbow on boat or in water alone means that the gameplay can't be considered good. even the developers clearly realized it's utter shit so your typically useless crossbow suddenly insta-kills everything in water. can't believe they didn't just choose to remove 90% of the question marks around skellige.
The funny thing about this meme nonsense is that the endless overblown Witcher praise really is a full-blown meme in some corners of the internet.
So the word is not repetitive. It's monotone
which is of course still arguable. I myself like the gameplay, sometimes clunky i admit but it doesnt retract me from liking it
I don't really feel this addresses the issues behind the combat at all; using alchemy adds to the combat being a slog because of how ridiculously unbalanced it is. Alchemy near the end point trivialises the combat to the degree that you wonder why you're even forced to deal with combat since you can chug potions and dedoctions and mash buttons on the highest difficulty mindlessly because you can tank hits.
At a low level, the blade oils are totally insignificant as 10%/25% of damage (when you only have a very limited number of uses, so need to continuously go in and out of the menu to reapply it when playing on Death March to get through even a single enemy) is really not enough to off-set how much you need to go into the menu. The dedoctions can be significant (particularly Archgriffin, which you won't get until very late in the game) but this comes into play more when you've an alchemy build in which case you don't need the minor 5% additional critical hit chance of the Katakan dedoction because you're a walking tank with a near limitless health pool. To try and say you'd spend 'three hours' using swords and using Quen but suddenly you'd be going through that same enemy in minutes is vastly overstating how much additional damage is done and how extensive the bestiary is in the game.
The core of the combat boils down to the sword play, which the OP feels to be sluggish and not very satisfying. Using alchemy most certainly is not going to improve this feeling for the OP, nor is trying to state that it's 'playing the game the wrong way' to focus on using signs and swords (literally two out of three paths available). Particularly at the lower levels a sign and sword build is one of the more encouraged ways to go through the game on Death March, because Alchemy doesn't really pay off until after about level 18 when you've the skill points and materials needed to unlock some of the more absurd abilities and push yourself into a situation where you can completely steam-roll anything.
Last edited:
The Witcher 3 offers a heap of ways to approach fights. There is plenty of depth there. Plenty of different builds. Many of the complaints against the game are vastly overblown, as though some gamers feel the need to violently stand against something that is near universally praised. The combat is mildly clunky at best and damn satisfying when you start to correctly use potions and sidesteps.
Does W3 have the best game play in the genre? No. But to listen to some posters you'd think that the developers pasted a Oscar-winning narrative onto Superman 64 and called it a day.
Does W3 have the best game play in the genre? No. But to listen to some posters you'd think that the developers pasted a Oscar-winning narrative onto Superman 64 and called it a day.
OP, i used to be like you. i used to be the biggest witcher 3 hater on gaf.
But then i decided to give it another shot and focused on enjoying combat and making myself stronger. I ended up loving how various different armors enhanced my DPS, how oils and potions complemented by build and how upgrading weapons and finding new swords made me stronger and better. I have no idea how you have gone 80 hours without dabbling in mage abilities or unlocking some really great and fun combat skills like whirlwind and Rend. i spent hours researching how to maximize my DPS, how to weaken enemies and dispatch them faster and with style.
It's more fun than Skyrim's combat, and while it's not as thrilling and refined as bloodborne or souls games, the number of moves available are definitely more than souls games. i had a lot of fun experimenting with different builds and settled on a whirlwind and igni build with dismemberment which cut and melted them in pieces.
The best thing about it all was how the game rewarded you for exploring by giving you more powerful gems, potions, swords and armor. i used to google and go on adventures just to get a better sword or armor that gave me better perks. compared to Zelda botw which gave players the shittiest fucking rewards for doing shrines, it was a breath of fresh air.
your biggest mistake is doing side quests instead of story quests. some of the bigger side quests and especially the story quests dont have you follow the witcher sense. you just go and kill stuff while some story events happen.
No. Not all quests in games are just following a marker/breadcrumbs trail to a X spot for a scene.
Depends on how you define "quest". Is, say, the Pilgrims of Dark covenant quest in Dark Souls 2 something we can define as a "quest" even if it has no journal entry or marker? I'd say so, and I'd count that as more than just, "talk to NPC -> follow markers to place -> do a thing -> end quest", it's far more than that.
Also, Fallout New Vegas (Beyond the Beef, Come Fly With Me, etc.). Bloodborne (Eileen side-quest, the umbilical cords side-quest, + all the optional/secret areas are arguably "side-quests"). Deus Ex and Dishonored games also have a few cool and/or interesting side-quests that go beyond the simple formula. Sometimes it's about the writing being good enough to support what is a simple quest gameplay wise, but sometimes it's in the gameplay itself.
Totally feel the same way as the title implies. Witcher 3 is the biggest example of story and graphics over gameplay getting massive awards. It's a great game but something with gameplay that poor should never be mentioned as an all time great game. It's the moment I realized people don't care about gameplay like they used to.
Compared to what though? Compared to Bethesda or even Rockstar's open world games Witcher 3 feels fucking brilliant. GTA 4 has hands down some of the worst shooting in any game and 5 was only marginally better. Fallout 3 was janky as hell and, again, 4 was only marginally better mechanically. Oblivion was crap for gameplay.
Disagree completely. All those games allow for actual emergent gameplay, the game has a world that you can mess with, manipulate and play as you want. Everything in Witcher 3 follows extremely strict rules. Every big enemy stays in a small arena where you have to fight it. You can't lure big enemies out of their programmed space and have them interact with other enemies. Every thing in witcher is go here, do that, no freedom. Unless you think picking between dialogue choices in a menu as gameplay freedom.
Plus skyrim, oblivion allows for so much variety in combat. You can be full made, you can be a thief, you can use stealth, you can be a brute, you can combine all of them. I had epic battles in skyrim where I battled a giant at the top of a mountain, fought it for like 10 minutes as I tumbled down the mountain, into a giant camp, run from like 3 of them, run into some bears have the Giants fight bears; it's organic, it allows me to invent crazy strategies, it's freedom in gameplay.
And don't even compare to GTA any one car chase in GTA is way more compelling than any fight in witcher.
This is so wrong but is also what I see come up the most. I think that it's a particular problem for the Witcher 3 because it's a game that allows you to play poorly and yet, through attrition of dodging and getting those 1-2 hits in, still eventually succeed, unlike other games where you have particular gimmick enemies that just can't be defeated at all unless you use specific abilities. Quen is actually the worst sign to use against the large majority of enemies because it doesn't (normally) do any damage, doesn't interrupt enemies, doesn't crowd control, doesn't give you instant kills, and (on higher difficulties) doesn't last that long, often only absorbing 1-2 hits. What it does is give you is a very brief opening to get a couple of swings (or whirl) in before it goes down and you have to go back to dodging until you can use Quen again. Igni and Aard are almost always better to use because these DO interrupt a wide arc of enemies and DO crowd control by lighting them on fire or knocking them down which leaves them open to your attacks or instant kill finishers. You say that Whirl just slaughters everything. How does Whirl do against human opponents? They typically block the large majority of it and, eventually, a couple of swings get through. It takes so long and is frustrating to be constantly blocked. Whirl also uses your stamina which means that you aren't able to Quen right away which also means that, if you're still facing multiple opponents, you might not be able to safely Whirl again for awhile. Instead of just brainlessly Whirling up against blocks or waiting for stamina, you could have just blown them all up with grapeshot bombs or knocked them all down with Aard and finished at least 2 of them instantly. Keep hitting them with Aard or Igni to knock their guard down which makes them open to attacks. Hitting fire-susceptible enemies with Igni or Dancing Star bombs lights them on fire which crowd controls them and makes them open to your attacks since they can't block or gang up on you, simultaneously eliminating any need for Quen (since no one can attack you), does damage, and gives you openings for your sword strikes. Combine that with Tawny Owl potion and your "single cool down" goes down to ~3-4 seconds which leads to a nice rhythm of sign, 2-3 swings, maybe a dodge to reposition, sign, and repeat, throw bombs as needed.
Bombs are another thing that a lot of people completely underestimate. You think Whirl is good with Quen? Try Whirl after you blind everyone with Samum or freeze them all with Northern Winds which locks everyone down for 4+ seconds. Not only do you remove everyone's guard, but you prevent them from ganging up on you and interrupting your Whirl. As the bestiary highlights, Quen is mostly for large enemies that cannot be crowd controlled and have slow, high damage attacks where you just need to bypass their one swing to get your multitude of strikes in before you roll out, Quen up, and attack again. The fact that you CAN kill pretty much everything by using Quen, dodging, Whirling, and having patience doesn't mean that it's the most effective way of doing so.
I will concede, however, that by end game when you've got lots of skill points and witcher gear and out level pretty much everything, the combat does become pretty trivial... which is pretty much standard for any RPG ever.
The Witcher 3's combat is nowhere near as big of a problem as the whole section of the game where you have to track down Dandelion. That part drags on for way longer than it should, then just keeps going.
Still a phenomenal game though.
Still a phenomenal game though.
My biggest problem is how repetitive the combat is.
The game has a big enemy variety, but you fight all those moster the same way. aside from a couple of animations being different.
And I played the game for like 80 hours, but the only good gameplay moment I can remember is chasing the Gryphon. All of the other good memories are just conversations/videos.
Well, thats the problem, you sepnd probably like 20-30% of the game in combat. thats like 20 hours of "basic but functional combat", when it feels like its a filler.
The game has a big enemy variety, but you fight all those moster the same way. aside from a couple of animations being different.
And I played the game for like 80 hours, but the only good gameplay moment I can remember is chasing the Gryphon. All of the other good memories are just conversations/videos.
Well, thats the problem, you sepnd probably like 20-30% of the game in combat. thats like 20 hours of "basic but functional combat", when it feels like its a filler.
"Super Mario Brothers: What if everyone got together and have a game a pass for having clouds and bushes be the same sprite"
He whooped that birds ass so hard rigamortis set in instantly.