next »

[s0]

IT IS A GOOD GAME.

[Raptor85]

IT IS A GOOD GAME.

eh, it's a shitty game....it's a fantastic fully animated "choose your own adventure" movie though...just wish i could skip the game part, lol.  Combat is really just mash roll until everything swings and misses you at the same time then counter attack, like Assassins Creed 1 combat but even worse because of the rpg system making things take a zillion hits when you can't be assed to grind levels.

[s0]

IT IS A GOOD GAME.

[_glitch]

IT IS A VERY GOOD GAME.

Fixed it.

[st33d]

Got bullied into buying this at work. The enjoyment of it is like some Kubler Gracie scale. The bugginess and shit combat is a complete turn off. Then you persevere at get to the excellent story-lines.

It's kinda funny how some people say using oils and bombs makes the combat better - that just illustrates how shit the combat is. You're encourage to cheat to bypass the combat. What's fun in the Witcher is not fighting. When you read up on a monster and find some cheese to bypass it, it's really rewarding. It makes me wonder though - if the combat wasn't shit, then would the cheese-dictionary work? Because the latter is definitely what I'm playing it for.

It's been fun enough that I'm trying to set up a game of the table-top RPG Mouse Guard - it has a similar gameplay structure to The Witcher in that you need to research how to defeat beasts otherwise they just eat you in one bite (it's not like RedWall - it's bloody and brutal with no magic to fall back on).

[s0]

I don't think the combat is that horrible. It's certainly better than witcher 2 combat which feels like it was designed by someone who has never played an action game but wanted to make one anyway. I found it shallow but pleasant in a mashy sort of way. I don't expect story driven RPGs to have great combat usually, and my favorite RPG is Gothic 2 which has much worse combat mechanics than TW3, so maybe that's why I didn't mind it.

Also, as you mention, it succeeds at adding thematic flavor to the game.

[J-Snake]

IT IS A VERY GOOD GAME.

Fixed it.

Here is a better game:

[s0]

witcher 3's storytelling is miles beyond any of the gothic games. world design is admittedly better in gothic 1 and 2 tho.

[st33d]

I'm tempted to pick up one of the books to see if the source material is inspiring in some way. I just worry I'll run in to the same problem I had with the Sword of Truth series. I managed about 10% before getting pissed off with the writing style.

[neutonm]

I've been bombarded by friends to play witcher 3 game since the game release. Everyone were impressed by graphics and storyline, but I gave it a try just recently.

Well, the game is beautfiul, can't argue here . Combat systems doesn't bother me, at least it's bit further from "click it till it dies" that usually persists in hack'n'slash games.

In gothic series combat was sloppy but you had the feeling that it requires some skill to beat it and sometimes one mistake could be fatal one. Even if player manages to beat orc one-o-one via carefuly fight, two orcs could probably wipe his arse within a second.

Here in witcher, if fight goes bad you can do rolls. Even if there are million hostiles attacking - there is always way to escape fights or roll till potions regenerate lost health.

[J-Snake]

Despite its "wooden" appearance, Gothic 1 & 2 has a rich (and charming) "npc-network". There are relatively rich dynamics going on in the world, yet unmatched by any fp/tp-rpg I have ever seen.

[s0]

[s0]

anyway neither tw3 nor gothic have good combat mechanics but they both succeed at being thematic in their own way.

in gothic the combat is horrible with a serious lack of feedback, nothing to keep you from mashing attack, a janky combo system for melee and random hit chance for ranged. BUT it succeeds at making the world feel dangerous. in gothic your character is just a normal dude (well mostly normal) who gets sucked into the game's events. you're not some kind of superhero and the combat reflects that. most(?) enemies can and will kill you and exploration is risky.

tw3's combat is relatively smooth but ultimately shallow, in the batman arkham/asscreed vein. the thing is tho, for all its mechanical faults, just like gothic's combat i believe it makes thematic sense. unlike gothic's "nameless hero", geralt is not an "average" person, but a mutated monster hunter with superhuman combat abilities who has devoted literally his entire life (he is hinted to be very old btw) to fighting. it wouldn't make sense for someone like that to have trouble with a bunch of trash mobs.

[st33d]

Nearly finished this. So...

I see the Hearts of Stone gets middling reviews and is basically Velen padding. (Although it gets 9/10 from IGN who score everything 9/10.)

But Blood and Wine is a new area, and I fudgekin love me some hiking across fantasy landscapes. But when I bought the DLC for Skyrim that promised that it were a brown and buggy shitehole. So... Blood and Wine, does it worth?

[_glitch]

The story of Hearts of Stone is better than the story of Blood and Wine imo, but the additional locations, the gameplay, quests and monsters of Blood and Wine are awesome and definetely better than the ones of Hearts of Stone.

[angrycactus]

I agree that combat could be better, but it's one of the games that actually makes you use all weapons and abilities in a combat (signs, bombs, potions, swords)