Explain to me why Witcher 3 is good...

[Hulk'O'Saurus]

Because I actually don't know.

To this day that still puzzles me when I think about it. I just don't know why people are so into that game. I did buy the whole series on sale about a year ago(good that I did at least that), and I couldn't finish either of them. I thought that with the last installment they would have really nailed a good game, but I proved wrong. At least personally speaking.

I could not get into that game at all. Got burned out after completing the Red Baron quest line--the one with the Heavy Metal Crones, those Bog Witches. And I liked those. But after finishing that I opened my map, saw how much more I needed to go through and just quit. Really couldn't keep going after that, despite acknowledging that the Witches fiasco was good.

One of the biggest disappointments I have with the title is that you can't really explore. The biggest asset they've created with the title remains a shallow eye candy. The open world lacks identity and depth, and everything I discovered when going around were just over leveled and reskinned varieties of enemies that I've already seen. And the scaling, in my opinion, helps absolutely nothing to make this a proper adventure. One of the most important features of a role playing game is to give you choice as to what your strong sides will be, or at least familiarize you with the ones that have already been given to you. In Witcher 3 you don't really have strong or weak sides. You can actually be invincible and the only thing they could come up with is just ridiculous over scaling, where if you're too early at a part of the game, you're one shot.

 

[zegh8578]

I felt the whole map had strong identities. I'll always feel lost and unsafe in the southernmost portion, because it is far from inhabited villages, and has an abundance of ghosts in ruins. The south-western coast is full of ship-wrecks and pirates that colonize several spots, as well as minor towns. Eastern edge is deep forest, with deep-forest-y things to explore.
I'm not sure what you mean by "nothing to explore". No, Witcher doesn't lay out explorable environments like Fallout 3 or Skyrim, it is mostly just environment, but the environment is exquisitely detailed. It seems to me like you've frustratedly just ignored the *level* of environmental detail, in your quest to discover Fallout-3-esque occupations and distractions. Yeah, you're right, there's none of that. At best you'll come across little mini quests, but otherwise you'll explore the map and fighting monsters by following actual quests and monster contracts.

As for role-playing, it's not really THAT much of a role-play game. You are Geralt, wether you want to or not. You're old, and you have a beard, and a gay pony tail, wether you want to or not. So... it's not gonna be like "thief class" "mage class" kind of thing. You can still specialize. I'll for example max out light sword chops as well as whirl-wind swinging, while underprioritizing magic as well as zero points to potions. My trade-off is that I tend to be prone to one-slash-deaths (due to my ignoring potions), so I have to dodge a lot when I fight. This ties with the whole levelling business - monsters *don't level with you*, it's not something THEY came up with, it's the same as in Fallout 1 and 2, the games we love. Don't we!
It's one of the "selling points", in my book: It offers enemies that have their own strengths, regardless of player strength. Enter the wrong dungeon at the wrong time, and you will die. Not almost, not maybe, but you'll die. There's no "secret option", no hidden hackable lock with some reward solution behind it, or anything like that. You just can't do it yet, you have to leave and come back later.

 

[PlanHex]

you have a beard, and a gay pony tail, wether you want to or not

Well, this is actually one of the few things you can do something about by going to a barber


And the level scaling is annoying. When you're fighting monsters around your own level, it's totally fine, but there seems to be added some kind of incoming damage resistance and extra attack damage for monsters 5+ levels above you (with the inverse for 5+ levels below you) which is really annoying. I think there's a mod somewhere that fixes it, but it's still silly.


I really like the games, I can't say much as to why OP doesn't, because there's not much of a frame of reference.
Do you really think it's a bad thing that you can't go everywhere at all times? Because it sounds like you want everything scaled to your level Oblivion-style from the way you're describing it.

 

[Walpknut]

My reasons:

1. Writing is really good.
2. Visuals are gorgeous.
3. The locations feel actualy alive.
4. Most quests are handcrafted and have some kind of story to them as opposed to most Open world games where you just complete "Activities" that are either Proceduraly generated or just repetitive activities sprinkled through out.
5. Combat is not amazing, but it offers a degree of challenge in asking preparation from you with the oils, the bombs and arrows. I always checked my bestiary before going to a quest to think what would be the best thing to prepare.
6. The free content is great.

 

[zegh8578]

Writing is really good.

and

Most quests are handcrafted and have some kind of story to them as opposed to most Open world games where you just complete "Activities" that are either Proceduraly generated or just repetitive activities sprinkled through out.

Agree with both, and didn't think of it in my reply. In recent gaming, and I admit I haven't played that many games the past few years, but - Witcher 3 engaged me more than any. Some quests even stayed in my thoughts, the same way a good movie will. A handful of quests have alternate solutions where the dilemmas are truly difficult at times, it's not just down to "moral choice", "do I want to be evil - or good?" but "I want to be good, but either one of my choices will burn someone."

 

[Gizmojunk]

@Hulk'O'Saurus Why do consider it not? (...excepting your mentioned disappointments)

I have all three, and by a far margin I prefer the first one to either sequel. IMO they royally ruined the gameplay with the next two installments. Geralt went from being a pragmatic veteran professional, to becoming a player's hand puppet with the gawdawful new combat system, and the loss of the potion bandoleer.

Alchemy was ruined as well; as in the original, Geralt could learn and even discover alternate formulations that resulted in stronger potion effects if one paid attention to the details.

He lost the ability to jump (in combat), and IIRC lost the ability to change weapon tactics for fighting groups and large or heavy armored opponents.

 

[SquidWard]

I don't think Witcher 3 is bad. I think it's pretty good. I think it was the weakest of the three though. It had a better graphical fidelity and polish, sure, but there were things I look for in these types of games that 3 lacked. I'd say 1 > 2 > 3 for me. I liked 1 because it was more akin to a RPG whereas 3 was a very action based game, with RPG-lite stuff in it and dialogue/narrative choice. It isn't bad but it wasn't what I expected of it.

Also, compared to 1 which was small open worlds that usually didn't waste too much space, 2 that had confined and fairly well designed areas, 3 seems to lack that direction I want in an open world game and relies too heavily on quest markers. Though, running around in the open world is very fun to just do later on but not during the initial playthrough and early on imo. I have yet to play the DLCs though. If you don't like wandering through open space, 3 could annoy you.

3 also introduced a lot of filler content that reminds me of Ubisoft open world games. I know the quests aren't needed to enjoy any other content in the game, which I appreciate but getting those slapped on my list a lot would be a little bit annoying.

 

[Ediros]

The template was taken from DirtyOldShoe's review of Fallout 4.

16.25/20 points

81,25%



Interior/Clutter Design: 1.0



In Witcher 3 every location is believable and makes a lot of sense. The level of detail put in basically every single location makes every location different than the one before it. Of course there are similarities – caves or peasants' houses can't be that different from each other. That said, I thoroughly enjoyed looking at different villages and cites, which differed greatly from each other. The areas themselves made sense, like in the first village there was a peasant house, where there was a kitchen, some cupboards, three beds for three people and a homey feeling. Overall, no complaints here.



World Design: 1



The world is truly massive, even if it is split into a few different hubs. There are a lot of places with their own history and interactions. There are elven ruins, abandoned villages, huge living cities etc. The cities themselves look realistic and make lot of sense. There are people strolling around minding their own business, bandits, prostitutes, vomiting people (a lot of that) and many, many more. Compared to Skyrim or Oblivion, cities in the Witcher 3 are much bigger and offer much more than anything bethesda has done.



Atmosphere: 1



The atmosphere of the Witcher 3 is truly astounding. There are different sets of music for different areas, which add a lot of personality to the world. The storms, snow, sunny days all look truly amazing and I have found myself just admiring the scenery several times. The armour gets wet when it rains, the water splashes on your screen as you swim through the ocean. Just amazing atmosphere.



Suspension of Disbelief/Balance: 0.75



Here things get a bit icky. The balance in this game is okay, but it could have been better. I am not a hardcore RPG player, who goes and gathers everything he sees and then sells it back to merchants. However, after doing quite a bit of that I had 19k gold, which I had no clue what to do with. Maybe, that's because I have played on normal, but still it was very easy to sustain yourself. I also dislike the fact that sign based witcher is pretty bad all things considered. Some skill trees and perks like alchemy are pretty useless, while swords are much better than them.



Suspension of Disbelief – No complaints here. The world makes sense, people act like they should, the story is well thought out and not filled with plot holes. I have never found myself scratching my head or questioning the characters. Overall, another point for the Witcher 3.



Main Story Writing: 1



The story follows the events of the Witcher 1 and 2, but you can jump straight into it and you won't be confused. The story is explained pretty well and you can understand the characters and their motivations. Not to mention side quests affect the main storyline, which is something I haven't seen in a long time. You can fail the quests and even get a bad ending if you are not careful, which is great. We do not create our own character but Geralt is so well written that you just want to follow his story.



Side Story Writing: 0.75



As much as I love all the quests in the Witcher 3, I have to admit they got a bit repetitive after a while, especially killing the monster type of quests. That said, the quests themselves are well writing and deserve quite a bit of explanation.



First of all, you can come across quests by simply travelling or checking the notice board. There are different types of quests, all of which have got recommend level for your character.



There is monster hunting, finding treasures, taking on thugs and religion, helping the wizards etc. Solid content overall.



Faction Story Writing: 0.75



There are multiple different factions, all of which have got different goals and agendas in mind. You can see the struggle between three powers and how it affects life of ordinary people. The downside is that all you can do is help them, but you can never join them, which makes sense. What I missed was some quests that would let us push one side to win over another, which is why I had to take down a quarter of a point. Still, thoroughly enjoyed all of them.



Dialogue: 1.0



Rich, well written, amusing and straight out fun. The amount of responses, the quality of dialogue, even the idle talk is just incredible. It is really hard to compare but it reminds me a bit of Fallout 1 and 2, especially the darker parts.



NPC Design: 0.75



Different NPCs with different attires. Some of the patterns repeat like thieves look a bit too similar to each other for my taste. There are multiple different characters you can interact with, all of which have got distinguishing features. Also, the lip sync is top notch and I truly felt immersed when characters talked with each other. However I have only tested Polish version, so I can not compare it to other languages.



Combat: 1.0



Tactical, dangerous, no level scaling and a big diversity. Geralt can wield axes, swords, crossbows etc with a huge skill, allowing you to choose the one, which suits you the most. The enemies themselves often attack in group, which can quickly bring you down, if you are not careful. Many attacks can not be blocked, which means you can not just dance around opponents without care in the world or just turtle them out. Tactical use of potions, signs and terrain makes it possible to defeat even stronger than you opponents.



Ai: 0.5



This is one of the weaker aspects of the Witcher 3, I am afraid. Human enemies sometimes just stand in one spot, while your magical turret tears them apart. Sometimes they get stuck in corners, especially golems. However, these are pretty rare occurrences and most of the time you have to watch out for them. Also, many opponents go back to their territory if you go to far, so you can bait them and kill them slowly from a distance.



Weapon/Armour Design: 1.0



The swords and weapons all have got unique models and stats. Weapons and armour all look practical and fit the world. No complaints here.



Player Character: 0.75



As I have stated before, we do not create our own character and there are some limitations on what we can do. However, Geralt can be played in different ways like a cold killer, warm witcher or something in between. It reminds me a bit of mass effect, but it is really well done.



Atributes/Skills/Perks: 0.5



Solid, but not flawless. We can choose to play our witcher as a swordsman, sorcerer, potion addicted junkie or a hybrid of those. That said, some of them are worthless, while others too good, especially sword skills. The game wants us to specialize, but it makes it hard to play as an alchemist or sorcerer.



Loot: 0.5



This is a bit of grudge I have got with this game. The loot you get from quest or searching locations is pretty small, especially in Velen. In fact, you get more stuff by simply stealing from peasants who sleep on rare ingredients for whatever reason. There are too many unique weapons, which takes away from them feeling unique. In fact the witcher gear is probably the most unique.



The problem comes when it comes to gold, you get from quests and other activities. It is pretty much worthless most of the time. I had around 19k gold and I had no clue what to do with it. It is not like I can buy rare ingredients from merchants so whatever.



Voice Acting: 1.0



One of the best aspects of the game. The characters sound just great. You can sense emotions when you deal with desperate couple or a band of bandits. Not to mention, main characters, which truly felt alive thanks to the voice acting.



Player/NPC interaction: 0.75



You can interact with a lot of people, but there is a huge number of people, who will just say a one line and then go away. That said, if you say betray one person or fail to protect someone you will see that NPCs actually react to your actions. You can even lose some money and get attacked, if you steal in front of the guards. Still very good.



Replay ability: 0.5



You can replay this game a few times, but after that there isn't much to do. There aren't many faction specific quests and I found myself not wanting to play once more for some marginal changes in the plot.



Exploration: 0.75



Three huge places you can explore, all of which are filled with hidden treasures, places of power, bandits etc. There is actually so much exploring, especially in the later part of the game, that I couldn't give a damn anymore about every single one of them. I wouldn't mind if there were less places, but with a bit more treasure and more enemies.



Sound/Music: 1.0

The sound and sound effects are truly amazing. Combat music is just great to hear and there is huge diversity in it. It also fits the world and is easy on the ears allowing you to listen to it for hours. Overall, no complaints here

 

[CerberusGate]

My own reasons:
1) Good writing (some quests have stellar writing with the 1st expansion pack DLC, Hearts of Stone having some of the game's best).
2) Visuals are quite a spectacle even for an open-world game.
3) Combat is like a poor man's Dark Souls on the harder difficulties (Death March and the one before it). It's not too impressive but it is an improvement over 2 by having the camera be further back and via the hop move. Plus the prep work for monster fighting does seem more essential on those difficulties
4) Characters (the main ones do feel fleshed out though that's more likely due to having the source materials. Some of the original characters are alright though). Plus helps that their voice actors are good.
5) Quests do seem handcrafted when compared to other open worlds and their randomly generated crap
6) The locales and how real some of the interiors were (I found a lot of amusement in entering houses and at night, seeing where each member of a household slept ).
7) Free DLCs that were worth a damn and the ones you paid for were worth the prices of admission (I am not ashamed for buying the season pass for the vanilla game, the DLCs were worth it)

Another reason why I think I am favorable towards 3 is how much it seemed to improve from 1 and 2 (went through the two games before I started on 3). I enjoyed 1 and found 2 lacking (though 2 is still good) so going from 1's clunkiness (due to their use of the outdated Aurora engine of Bioware) and 2's initial foray with the RED engine to 3's refined state probably won points with me.

 

[Mr Fish]

Explaining why it is good is a bad way to put it. Asking people to explain why it is the holy grail of games and why nearly everywhere you look people are fellating the game devs because they need to express their gratitude for such a marvel of gaming history is more appropriate.

It's good because it is a competently designed game. Everything works the way it is supposed to work and the story and characters are quite well written and voice acted.

But is it the second cumming of Christ? Hah, absolutely not. Repetitive as fuck, simplistic combat, potions feel pointless as it just forces you to go into your menu and applying the appropriate one which means additional micromanagement for the sake of additional micromanagement. The world, while beautiful, feels dull as it is just the same shit over and over again most of the time. The looting is quite frankly annoying as I'd rather have big chunks of rewards than constant miniscule rewards spread out all over the place. (Any game that has "junk" that is solely there for the player to auto sell at a vendor: Fuck you. Just gimme the god damn money instead of pretending like the junk I'm looting is anything but an additional little step of micromanagement.)

Like, it is a competently designed game. Everything in it works the way it is supposed to work. And so long as you turn off your critical thinking and turn on zombie mode when it comes to combat or travel you can definitely enjoy the game. But amazing? Hell no. If all a game needs is a damn good story and characters then what you're looking for is a movie or a tv-show, not a game. The actual gameplay portions of the game is quite frankly just padded which can make the game quite exhausting unless you turn on your zombie brain and just enjoy the flashy colours like a retarded seal.

It's good.
It's definitely good.
But considering the amount of people gargling down on CDPR's collective cocks (and clits) I find it extremely overrated.

It's like people have been eating shit for such a long time that the moment some homecooked mashed potatoes and fishsticks (gameplay) is presented to them with a side of a delicious desert (story and writing) then all of the sudden they act like it is the food of gods.

No, it just means your standards have been lowered to such an extreme that just a damn good game will seem brilliantly amazing to you.

 

[Norzan]

Yeah, i enjoyed the game and i think it's a really solid game, but it gets overpraised. It's like people looked at it as "Skyrim but it's not a terrible game made for babies" and a lot of people went apeshit.

 

[TheGM]

Yeah, i enjoyed the game and i think it's a really solid game, but it gets overpraised. It's like people looked at it as "Skyrim but it's not a terrible game made for babies" and a lot of people went apeshit.

Its contemporaries were Fallout 4 and Dragon Age so that can explain why it appears people generally overate it.

 

[Mr Fish]

Then again, I've seen similar gushing over Skyrim. What were its contemporaries?

 

[Hulk'O'Saurus]

I've read all the replies thus far. Thanks for joining in, guys.

Yeah, this really is my own subjective opinion. I feel divided about the Witcher 3, because while it is important for other companies doing different things than the AAA shite we're so used to to succeed, I just can't get into that particular game. I also think in some ways Witcher 3 moves closer to the AAA than it does to differentiate itself from them. And while CDPR are hailed for what they are, only time will tell...

No, Witcher doesn't lay out explorable environments like Fallout 3 or Skyrim

It's a bit ironic that you mention these two games. Almost as if there couldn't be any other way of doing things. I feel exploration is weak in the Witcher 3 because it presents a rather weak barrier to new areas. You're supposed to be a specialist, you should be able to go anywhere from the get go. Not saying the game shouldn't have progressions because of that, but it's just absurd that there can be something that will take the 'Butcher of Yabadabadoo' down in a single shot.

I remember I did a quest involving a ghost of some sorts... in a tower on an isolated island. It was good. But until I got to that, I needed to grind too much. And I think whatever good content there is in the game(for the replies to the thread have indicated there is,) it's hidden behind this artificial grind wall. Why? Why not just be damn good from the get go.

In the case of the Witcher 3, I want to remind everybody that sometimes less is more.

I really like the games, I can't say much as to why OP doesn't, because there's not much of a frame of reference.
Do you really think it's a bad thing that you can't go everywhere at all times? Because it sounds like you want everything scaled to your level Oblivion-style from the way you're describing it.

It's a fair point raised here.

And actually, I really, really wouldn't like an Oblivion style here at all.

I am thinking something more down the alley of Onimusha and Metriodvania type games, albeit retaining more freedom of exploration due to the open world, but still being able to take on a very tough enemy, even with beginning gear. Some areas remaining well hidden and/or locked. You committing to an attack, rather than being able to dodge at any time and also having to move more tactfully in order to evade, cast, attack, ect. Enemies not being bullet sponges, but rather having irregular weaknesses to damage types, poisons and/or oils, perhaps stunning bombs. Maybe a brick system which will allow an enemy to become weak to a certain damage type, but you will have to hammer on for a while.

Another game that I had the luck of playing recently was Baldur's Gate. There's only about ten(yes, your character reaches about level ten in party) levels for the whole game, and they really feel earned. But the game also gives you a meaningful arsenal of spells, consumables and abilities, and it comes down to how you will prepare and what choices you will make in combat. It also sports a somewhat open world as well, which will actually translates quite well into the design of the Witcher 3, because in both you have areas with weaker enemies closer to your starting point, steadily growing stronger and stronger, with loot improving, as well. The difference is that in BG you can do more to tackle harder enemies than you can do in the Witcher due to that atrocious scaling.

Yeah... there are weaknesses as it is, but that feels rather contrived. It feels like it's there because it sounds nice to have it, rather than being an actually interesting idea well explored.

@Hulk'O'Saurus Why do consider it not? (...excepting your mentioned disappointments)
I have all three, and by a far margin I prefer the first one to either sequel.

I do think the first Witcher possesses the most identity out of the 3. There is more challenge. The player is left to discover more on their own and you need to actually educate your character about various different enemies in order to be strong, which is a very interesting take on progression.

As for the third one... I just think it's rather directionless. It's akin more to TV series with drama and relationships than to a game. But fashions do change, and perhaps as time moves on they will start making more movie-y games. I mean people are excited about some pretty shitty entries, so I wouldn't be surprised.

Combat: 1.0
Tactical, dangerous, no level scaling and a big diversity.

There's taste and taste... but this here really puzzles me. Are you really saying this? About Witcher 3 ?

...

I like your answer .

Maybe a bit cynical, but it's right down my alley and I understand where it's coming from.

 

[SquidWard]

I remember I did a quest involving a ghost of some sorts... in a tower on an isolated island

That was one of my favorite quests I think.

In the case of the Witcher 3, I want to remind everybody that sometimes less is more.

Agreed. A YouTuber I like has a video on this.

You're supposed to be a specialist, you should be able to go anywhere from the get go. Not saying the game shouldn't have progressions because of that, but it's just absurd that there can be something that will take the 'Butcher of Blaviken' down in a single shot.

Agreed. There's a better way to design this. A guy who earned the name Butcher of Blaviken by killing 8 people by himself should be someone people don't just pick on like a dweeb. I know someone will want to jump in with, "8 peepull aint nuffin, i killd 34 in dis won town." But in real life perspectives, even for a mutant Witcher, 8 people with anywhere between leather armor to chain mail to partial plate all using swords and possibly a shield here or there getting slaughtered by a single dude in leather and possibly light chain mail with no shield is insane. You better avert your fucking gaze when this dude looks even slightly grumpy walking down some piss filled street, not antagonize him for being a mutant.
It's one thing that always bothered me in Witcher. You get smartass people talking shit to a guy that apparently can kill monsters they can't kill in hunting groups, can cast basic spells (fire, force push, mini mind alteration, shield, trap), uses only armor that allows mobility, and rocks just a sword at a time, and can drink mixtures that would rot your stomach out. I know in groups and in heavily monitored areas Geralt can't do much but if he's out in a tiny ass village, does he really have to fear much? I guess so seeing as

Spoiler

a peasant stabbed him with a pitchfork in a riot was enough to be his demise.

 

[TheGM]

Then again, I've seen similar gushing over Skyrim. What were its contemporaries?

Fuck if I know. To me it felt like I was playing the world's loneliest MMO and I think the only reason for its continued popularity is do to all the weirdos with the creepy porn mods.

 

[Kohno]

Because I actually don't know

It's not [good], really. It's a carefully and sometimes cleverly masqueraded attempt at an interactive movie.

It looks, sounds and reads nicely, but gameplay itself is simply shit.

 

[Mr Fish]

Another thing that perplexes me is why people think Cyberpunk 2077 or whatever it is called is going to be third cumming of christ.

 

[SquidWard]

Another thing that perplexes me is why people think Cyberpunk 2077 or whatever it is called is going to be third cumming of christ.

Because people see CD Projekt Red as the savior of modern video games. If you use reddit you can see the impact Witcher 3 had on r/gamingcirclejerk because they used to make fun of praising Geralt and Witcher 3 so much with PRAISE GERALDO and a few other memes about it. People wouldn't stop praising the game as if it were nearly revolutionary in gaming.

 

[Kohno]

Another thing that perplexes me is why people think Cyberpunk 2077 or whatever it is called is going to be third cumming of christ.

There's a lot of promise in the Cyberpunk franchise. It's a rich and interesting setting. And people are waiting for another "Witcher" from it, just like everyone (who mattered to the studio) expected Fallout 3 to be another Oblivion... and it seems to be en route to deliver.

So of course, inspite the source material having relatively well executed rules and gameplay ideals in place already, CDPR chose to make it as uninteresting as possible gameplaywise; again. Or so it would strongly seem thus far.

Perhaps, after the corporate shills and massmarket sheeple have gotten their way and the game has sold like hot cakes, there will be some kind of an indie-style spinoff that works like an actual RPG... maybe not, but just perhaps. I mean, Witcher got Gwent and Thronebreaker and that boardgame simulation.