-
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.
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
Nah, it couldn't be that it's just a great game, it must be some conspiracy against Japanese games.
Skyrim's combat was and is criticised, it's just that it's very similar to Oblivion's, which was also criticised all the way back in 2006. You can only bang the same drum for so long.
Well it's a good thing he never said the game was shit, only the combat (which it is)
Both of those games get a ton of hate here for their combat, there is no "Free Pass".
User warned: hostility, antagonizing another member
Your opinion is shit.
The reviews were pretty blatant about it:
"Terrible game, but at least it's not Japanese (10/10)"
This.
Every thread on ERA/GAF about Witcher 3/Horizon/Tomb Raider/Uncharted devolves into a chain of dumb hot takes -> people responding to it with an even dumber statement about another game, and in between the few folks trying to have a discussion about the game get swiftly ignored and the thread goes nowhere for 20+ pages.
The reward is you get through encounters faster.
You "can" ignore the options Witcher gives you, in the same way you "could" get through dark souls without ever rolling, but you're going to make it a far shittier experience for yourself.
If you need an enemy to be immune to everything except one specific spell to encourage you to use it, that's on you, you shouldn't expect to be babied like that in every single game, and it's not the fault of a game if it choose not to..
Dragon Age gets a free pass? That's one of the most hated RPGs when you talk about highly rated RPGs from this generation. I rarely see someone here speak highly of it. And usually people are critical of the quest design, it might drown out the complaints about the combat which is not great.
Which is why I have zero interest in playing them. TW3 was bad enough.
Combat is C tier eurojank shit, why can't some people accept that, how can they claim it's better than the games produced by Piranha Bytes? Witcher 3 is the poster child of bad gameplay in a rpg.
Just because everything else is good doesn't mean we should excuse how terrible the gameplay is, both the combat and riding Roach sucks and that's mostly what you do in the game.
It doesn't help that games with bad gameplay like Witcher 3 and Skyrim came out right after the masterpieces of FromSoftware.
Just because everything else is good doesn't mean we should excuse how terrible the gameplay is, both the combat and riding Roach sucks and that's mostly what you do in the game.
It doesn't help that games with bad gameplay like Witcher 3 and Skyrim came out right after the masterpieces of FromSoftware.
This so much. You can get stuck in the quen safe zone if you like, but you're deliberately making combat arduous as a result. There are four other signs to mix in, all with alternate abilities to invest in, and then there's the option to focus on light attacks or heavies (heavies all the way imo, combos so well with Ursine armour for those immensely satisfying well-timed attacks), bombs and concoctions if you invest in alchemy, and then the end game mutagens that Blood and Wine added (my god that ice aard is amazing).
You'd also think Bloodborne had boring combat if you stuck with one weapon type through the whole game and never bothered to learn another moveset.
Not only that but I believe OP is just a troll. I remember at least one thread where he was hating on Witcher's 3 side-quests or something.
Sure, but to compare it to an actual sidequest in any other game when half of it has the production value, time investment and care of a main quest (because it was) is disingenuous.
I guess the main frustration is that The Witcher 3, as the OP said, on all fronts is incredible, whereas the combat is... serviceable. (I found it weightless and unsatisfying).
A game this good deserves better combat.
A game this good deserves better combat.
I agree with OP in that the gameplay is really bad and boring but I still like Witcher 3 anyways. It's all about the value propistion.
There is a lot of "great story, shit gameplay" games out there because even if the story is good it's just not good enough to be worth slogging through the shitty gameplay. I found that Witcher 3 was rather shot gameplay wise but I just found that the story and world were worth it enough for me to slog through the gameplay, and after finishing Hearts Of Stone I was really glad that I did since it was a very good story.
If you find the gameplay that boring, dont even turn up the difficulty because it's not gonna become less boring. Turn down the difficulty so that the enemies die really fast so you can skip the gameplay and get to the good part of Witcher 3, at least that's my opinion.
There is a lot of "great story, shit gameplay" games out there because even if the story is good it's just not good enough to be worth slogging through the shitty gameplay. I found that Witcher 3 was rather shot gameplay wise but I just found that the story and world were worth it enough for me to slog through the gameplay, and after finishing Hearts Of Stone I was really glad that I did since it was a very good story.
If you find the gameplay that boring, dont even turn up the difficulty because it's not gonna become less boring. Turn down the difficulty so that the enemies die really fast so you can skip the gameplay and get to the good part of Witcher 3, at least that's my opinion.
And yet, for as bad as the combat is, I'd play through it a 3rd time before I ever touch FFXV again. I'll take lesser combat, better everything else over flashy combat, lesser everything else any day of the week.
And to people still crying that it won at the VGAs...get over it. It was the best game and it won. The tinfoil hat theories about it winning because it's not Japanese is because some of you put Japanese games and their makers on these absurd godlike pedestals and can't imagine anything not Japanese could possibly compare.
And to people still crying that it won at the VGAs...get over it. It was the best game and it won. The tinfoil hat theories about it winning because it's not Japanese is because some of you put Japanese games and their makers on these absurd godlike pedestals and can't imagine anything not Japanese could possibly compare.
This criticism doesn't really work because there are games with combat that people extol that suffer the same thing, Metal Gear Solid 5, Bloodborne/Dark Souls. I agree, that ideally it's better when you are forced to use the other options but it seems that even the best combat systems struggle with that. You can ignore most of the options in Witcher 3 but you are doing yourself a disservice because it's usually going to be more unenjoyable while also being less efficient.
If only it was as good as that one amazing Dragon Age 2 quest
You know, the one where you went to that cave and shenanigans ensued
Even if the gameplay is bad, is there anything wrong with "giving it a pass"? Is it inconceivable that a game can be great in spite of a few weaker elements, maybe even better than more consistent games?
Obviously but if someone makes a lot of threads about one game and his opinions are "gameplay is shit" and "sidequests are boring" - for me it's a troll.
Yeah hearing all the negative mentions of the gameplay plus the length of the game has basically cemented me never playing it. It's a pity but yeah I'd end up resenting it and can't do that for 100+ hours.
Huh? It is better combat than games produced by Piranha Bytes and I love Gothic 1 and 2 and Elex to an extent. Obviously Gothic 1 and 2 were kinda innovative at the time but they've done very little to evolve that combat, and it's much jankier than Witcher 3.
Not by a large margin, no. Its probably tied with BoTW and Bloodborne for the best games this gen
Witcher sense got old and was very simple and repetitive.
I don't get the harsh criticism about the combat though. There are only a few huge rpgs with better melee combat, if any. I don't think it was great, but fine and I thought the combat was fun.
I don't compare it to Bloodborne because it's more of a combat focussed action RPG.
I don't get the harsh criticism about the combat though. There are only a few huge rpgs with better melee combat, if any. I don't think it was great, but fine and I thought the combat was fun.
I don't compare it to Bloodborne because it's more of a combat focussed action RPG.
Wait, but didn't you say it won because it was a western game? But if it is tied for best game of this gen, maybe... You know, it won because it's really good?
Gameplay isn't shit, but it is highly repetitive and doesn't hit above average action-RPG.
Regardless, characters, locations and visuals carry the game forward so it is okay.
Regardless, characters, locations and visuals carry the game forward so it is okay.
Indeed, because it's better than both.
It is long only if you want to. Jawmuncher rushed through it if I remember right from gaf days.
Jawmuncher I summon thee. How long did it take you to finish the game?
I'm kinda amazed how people always think that Quen totally breaks the game. I was only playing on standard difficulty and even with Quen there were more than enough instances where the first hit of an enemy combo broke quen and then the consecutive hits or another enemy immediately fucked my shit up. I always felt I had to be on top of my dodging game even when using Quen.
Combat clearly isn't the tightest and controls are kinda laggy in a weird way but yeah, it kept me on my toes just enough.
Also it sounds like maybe you're focusing on the not so great parts of the game a little too much, 80 hours is what it took me to finish up the main game, the most important sidequests and both DLCs. So all the "ok let's detectivision this shit I guess" parts might seem more cumbersome than they actually are if you're doubling down on side stuff.
To me it felt like on the main path there was always enough cool stuff in between for it to not bother me too much.
Combat clearly isn't the tightest and controls are kinda laggy in a weird way but yeah, it kept me on my toes just enough.
Also it sounds like maybe you're focusing on the not so great parts of the game a little too much, 80 hours is what it took me to finish up the main game, the most important sidequests and both DLCs. So all the "ok let's detectivision this shit I guess" parts might seem more cumbersome than they actually are if you're doubling down on side stuff.
To me it felt like on the main path there was always enough cool stuff in between for it to not bother me too much.
lol no.
I do agree with you OP though. The games damn great but I thought the combat was average but could be fun at certain points. The whole withcer senses thing was annoying but they chose to design the quests with the witcher senses as necessary.
Skyrim's combat has never ever gotten a pass.
Dragon Age 2 was widely criticized for the changes made to the combat. And Dragon Age: Inquisition, the combat isn't discussed as much because people are more bothered by the quest design in it.
To be fair , the OP makes about 9 threads a day about various games.
He's not a Witcher troll per se.......
Quen was way more broken in W2, where it exploded, doing a ton of damage to and stunning everyone around you. It got nerfed a lot in 3, enough to be useful but not quite broken.
The gameplay would probably have been good enough to sustain a 10 hour game. Maybe even a 20 hour game.
But it got awfully tired over the course of that 100+ hour monster.
Got to the point where enemies would show up and I'd be groaning, "Oh fuck OFF. Can't we just talk this out? My dodge-when-they-attack-and-mash-attack-at-all-other-times fingers are getting tired."
But it got awfully tired over the course of that 100+ hour monster.
Got to the point where enemies would show up and I'd be groaning, "Oh fuck OFF. Can't we just talk this out? My dodge-when-they-attack-and-mash-attack-at-all-other-times fingers are getting tired."