Perfect games don't exi-

Perfect games don't exi-

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=A1ZmTEtLs8A
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Memes that are still funny the 10th times you've seen them don't exist.

...

Although a very good game, TW3 is incredibly flawed. Not only in terms of gameplay, but its own design is inherently flawed because it conflicts with the main idea/focus of the game.

Name a few

Let this meme die please. And yes you are right OP.

>no character customisation
>perfect

FINISH IT!

Why is every single character a cuck in this game
>Geralt constantly cucked by Yennefer and vice versa
>Triss wants to maintain a loving, deceitful relationship with a guy that fucks everything from whores to vampires to vampire whores
>spend the night with Ves and she gets her hinge oiled

What's the difference between the standard edition with all the DLC and the GOTY edition?

>game
Interactive storybook

cos its the 13th century duh, get with the times

>fancy marketing ploy calling your product something other than what it is

No difference.

A mile wide puddle.

Should I go with Triss or Yen? I never slept with Keira Metz or anyone else btw.

I found it pretty boring. Played for a bit then stopped because it got repetitive. Any fight was feasible as long as you kept repeating the same routine that you knew worked. Also you can cancel anything into dodge, you piterally can't fuck up

Not him, but games are simply not a good medium for storytelling.

Storytelling is at its strongest when the storyteller has complete control over everything and can control how and when the reader/listener experiences everything. It is a linear narrative, with a starting point and an ending point, the reader is simply along for the ride, and maintaining that linear sequence is important.

Video games are unique in that they allow the player to influence what is going on around them. This conflicts with the structure of a linear narrative, and disrupting this structure causes the "flow" the narrative to be broken. The player can alter the story or the world around them, experience certain things out of order or not at all. It does not allow for that concise, contained experience that is necessary for a linear narrative to have the most impact.

What makes video games unique, their biggest strength, works against what makes a strong story. That is not to say you cannot have a game that both has good gameplay and a good story, however I'd argue most games don't and simply focus on the storytelling, often leaving the gameplay to be rather uninteresting and shallow.

>Call your game an RPG
>It's barely an RPG
The madmen.

For starters the game is open world, has tons of side quests and side things to do or places to explore, yet the main story heavily encourages you to rush instead of wasting time with side things. In the first act you have to find Ciri fast and Geralt and everyone around him who is related to the case is reminding you to hurry up and find Ciri fast, the fact she's being hunted by the Wild Hunt also encourages you to not waste time with anything else besides her search and after finding her the game continues to give you a sense of urgency and rush, despite being a genre that at the same time has inherently lack of focus and encourges players to go around, exploring and doing quests and many times disconnecting themselves with the main plot for some time. Games like Morrowind and New Vegas embrace their open world design and build their plots around it, while The Witcher 3 has a story, which is its focus, that creates dissonance with its game design. Doing things like witcher contracts, exploring or even many side quests feel like they are completly dissociated with the rest of the game, despite CDPR efforts in making them meaningful, it just feels weird to do them and creates dissonance with the rest of the game because you know Geralt has no reason for doing it and the story heavily encourages you not do it anyway.

Don't get me wrong, witcher 3 has amazing side quests compared to most WRPGs, but it's just that the game hardly gained anything from being open world aside from being arguably more immersive and pretty, while it lost focus and created dissonance between the open world style and the plot, which is why I find funny when people praise it for being a landmark in the open-world genre

Never played Witcher 3, is there any real consequence to not saving this Ciri woman immediately? Like, despite the game urging you to make saving her top priority, there's no downside to going around and doing whatever you want?

I could also mention the absolute brain dead combat, the mindless detective work that you do with your witcher senses and the pointless crafting system as gameplay features that are far from being perfect. I've my gripes with things like romance and some plot elements in this game as well, but I will leave that to another time.

>is there any real consequence to not saving this Ciri woman immediately?
No, there's no real consequences. I'm mostly talking about player immersion, which is extremely important in this type of game, and dissociation between the game design and its story.

fuck, obviously meant to

you can take as much time as you want
the story itself urges you to move quickly to the next story location but the game rewards you for going around and doing whatever you want so there's a disconnect.

Wrong pic you got there

>which is why I find funny when people praise it for being a landmark in the open-world genre
It's not a landmark in anything, RPGs, open-wold games or otherwise. It does so many of the same things games like Skyrim or DA:I did, but somehow gets a pass and is GOTY instead. It introduces nothing new to the genre and does nothing to push it forward while relying almost entirely on its narrative, not its gameplay, to drive the entire game.

I am baffled as to why its put up on such a pedestal, it was one of the least-engaging games I've played in a while. At least other shallow WRPGs allow you to actually role-play, Geralt is fucking boring. People just have no fucking idea what immersive actually means at this point when shit like this, TLOU or Uncharted are touted as the most immersive experiences the medium has to offer. It's all on the surface level, visual fluff and spectacle, there's little/no depth.

>I am baffled as to why its put up on such a pedestal
A massive advertising budget and droves of insecure yuropoors that are salty because US and Japan made all the good games.

It's a well-made game, but what they made just isn't very good in and of itself. Games, especially open world games, just do not work well as a vehicle for a linear narrative that requires a specific sequence of events to take place, in a certain way with little/no deviation.

You either have to remove most of the player agency and railroad the player with scripted bullshit and focus on the story, or you allow the player freedom which in turn hampers that linear narrative. The solution I think is to just stop trying to replicate the experience of watching a movie with video games.

>I am baffled as to why its put up on such a pedestal
Witcher does three things that new generation gamers care about, It has engaging story(at least for open world standards), It's pretty and It's open-world. Gameplay, roleplay or immersion are, as hilarious as that sounds, secundary aspects in the mind of most casuals who ''play games'' these days. It's all about presentation, it's about instant gratification and it's mostly all about something that's easy to get into, and TW3 is all that, which is why it's so successful.

I wouldn't go as far as you in saying that the game is bad though, I certainly think that's good compared to most modern AAAs and I certainly enjoyed my time with it. People just need to stop thinking that this game is some kind of messiah, the best game ever or any of this type of nonsense.

>Be me, purchase Witcher 3 because of hype and new video card.
>Story I don't care about because I didn't play the first two.
>Tons of tutorials, everything has it's own deep system I can't keep track of.
>Lame high fantasy.
>Bland environments anytime other than sunset/sunrise.
>Boring combat.
>GTA style over world, but nowhere near as interesting.
>8 hours in still can't get into the story, not interested in playing cards, going down wells and fighting ghost bitches.
>Stop playing.
>come back to give it second chance.
>Realized nothing has changed and get tired of remembering hours of tutorials.
>mfw.

You people seriously like this game? I really tried to like it, I tried to buy into the hype, but it's the most pretentious up it's own ass excuse for a game I've ever played. It's basically a horse riding simulator with pretty day-night, night-day transitions.

>It's a well-made game
It's somewhat polished but nothing about the game is well made. It is fundamentally bad.

Combat is incredibly monotone and repetitive
Quest design is repetitive and completely braindead, requiring almost no actual thinking skills
Witcher Senses is just Arkham Vision reskinned for the braindead fanbase
The story is poorly paced and works against the open world with its urgency
Open world is ubisoft-tier padded with boring filler literally no one likes doing.
Still glitchy as fuck animation wise
Velen is a boring fucking swamp and Novigrad (and the story) is just a "your ciri is in another castle" - spree
Skellige is 90% wasted space
Enemy reskins and monotone quest design persist in paid DLC

>Witcher
>high fantasy

It is.

What part of magical humanoids who can cast magic, track magical beasts and gigantic LOTResque wars isn't high fantasy?

Sup Forums is just the worst board, isn't it?

/thread

I actually think that Hearts of Stone is better than the main game. It has focus, it has a interesting, mysterious and frightening villain and good boss battles(at least considering the mediocre combat system they have to work with), which are things that the Wild hunt severely lacks

>Gameplay, roleplay or immersion are, as hilarious as that sounds, secundary aspects in the mind of most casuals who ''play games'' these days
It's fucking infuriating because they insist games like these ARE immersive and they don't know what fucking immersive means.

I unironically and genuinely liked Skyrim better than W3. They both have piss-poor combat, a giant, boring open-world and extremely shallow RPG elements, but I can at least properly role-play in Skyrim. It's not a glorified Telltale game in which I only get to play a voiced protagonist I couldn't possibly care any less about.

People also seem to assume that because a game has some dialogue choices, its automatically an RPG, completely forgetting that role-playing applies to the gameplay as well.

I would call it a bad game because it is designed badly, the gameplay is just bad and as someone else pointed out the open-world design actively works against the story it hinges itself upon. A good story means nothing if the gameplay sucks, just as the pretty visual effects in a movie don't matter if you're not engaged with the characters or anything else. It's just surface level spectacle.

>Pointing out actual flaws and not being a hugbox who dick sucks this game 24/7 somehow makes Sup Forums bad

this was a nice touch

The game honestly should have been completely linear for the main story, and the open world accessible after finishing the story. Bonus: You get Ciri/Yen/Triss to be with you for the open world part.

It's one of those things where mob rule decides it the best game ever and anyone who doesn't like it is a pleb because in the hivemind everyone must share the same opinion and play the same games. For me it had a dull story and the combat sucked, but that supposedly makes me a pleb.

So you're saying the game should have just been linear just to appease your autism about the """""stakes"""" of the story? Who gives a fuck if the game lets you PLAY it, cuz you know a video GAME should be about GAMEplay

the day-to-day sidequest stuff that let you feel like Witching was your actual job was the best part of Witcher 3, they could have dumped the Ciri stuff entirely t b h, the worst part of Witcher 3 is how adherent to the books it is

Triss for boys
Yen for real men

No, he said the open-world design conflicts with the tone and pacing of the story the game basically relies entirely upon.

>Romance in video games
That's where you went wrong.

Is Game of Thrones also considered high fantasy? It meets those conditions.

Still an autism complaint

if you want to do the main story fast, then do it. Nothing is stopping you

Have to redo the game from the island of mists because Ciri decided to kill herself and witcher followed her short after. All because of that retarded story triggers hidden behind dialog options.

GoT is more high fantasy than low fantasy.

Yes
>High fantasy is a subgenre of fantasy, defined either by its setting in an imaginary world or by the epic stature of its characters, themes, and plot.

I don't wanna make a new thread for witcher 1, but can someone tell me what the fuck 'Damage' means in this context?
Axes and clubs have damage written like "15-30" for example, but these swords have "-30%", so what the fuck does that mean? -30% of max health on each hit?
Is any sword other than witcher's steel one even worth using or upgrading? God 3 red meteorites so idk what to use them on

>Still an autism complaint
No, it's a perfectly valid and sound complaint. You're just dismissing it because you disagree rather than attempting to make an intelligent counter-argument detailing how you came to that conclusion.

I love this game, but it's definitely not perfect. Same with BioShock, Stardew Valley, Majora's Mask, Luigi's Mansion, and Resident Evil 4. Believe it or not, but it's actually possible to really like something while acknowledging its faults. It's a skill Sup Forums should really learn at some point

Jesus christus, what kind of toasters do you play with those shit tier textures

...

>You're just dismissing it because you disagree rather than attempting to make an intelligent counter-argument detailing how you came to that conclusion.

>if you want to do the main story fast, then do it. Nothing is stopping you

Seriously, this is just autism about the very concept of an open world existing in the game. There is N O T H I N G stopping a player from just rushing through the main quest to maintain the """"""urgency""""" or """""stakes"""""" or """"""immersion""""" or whatever bullshit buzzword you want to use

The game would have really been improved if it were just a series of hallways leading directly to Ciri, wouldn't it?

I just put everything on low because the swamp was lagging like shit at some parts, idk why

lost my motivation to play it when i got to skelliege
quests don't give good rewards, my shit breaks all the time, done with this game

Sup Forumss insane devotion to the Witcher series is so baffling. Its one of the most braindead game series of all time and barely requires any input from the player itself. The quest design is completely on rails and you literally have "tell me what to do" - button built into the game.

>get quest investigating a house
>see a note on the table that says that a wine bottle will open a secret door
>it says its an important persons birth year
>think to myself "oh shit, I might actually have to check up on that somewhere, I'm doing real detective work!"
>walk into the next room and use witcher senses
>the right bottle is highlighted in red

When Assassins Creed, Shadow of Mordor or even fucking Arkham games do it, its disgusting casual shit but when witcher does it its somehow great and in-depth game design.

youtube.com/watch?v=A1ZmTEtLs8A

post your favorite boss from the game or expansion, mine is the frog prince.

...

I agree that it causes some dissonance, but I feel that suspension of disbelief is inherent to enjoying any form of story telling; perhaps especially in video games

>witcher fags will defend this

>witcher series
>witcher senses which was only introduced in 3

>mfw found out you can save the kids and save the baron's wife

>if you want to do the main story fast, then do it. Nothing is stopping you
That doesn't change the way the game is designed. I can ignore half the mechanics if I don't like them, that doesn't fix them. You're just suggesting the flaw be ignored, not addressed, which is not a solution.

>how dare a game give the player choices! Why isn't it a linear moviegame!

oh fuck off, nigger.

...

No no, you have it all wrong, it's the MIND BOGGLINGLY-WONDERFUL STORY that makes Witcher SO AWESOME XD

Because all that matters is story and pretty graffix, apparently.

...

>Completely unrelated strawman
>Still not making any actual arguments, just name-calling
Just stop.

I disagree. I don't think you're giving credit where it's due. To say it doesn't break ground in the WRPG genre is completely incorrect to me. No other WRPGs do characters, storytelling, atmosphere, or just straight up drama as well as The Witcher 3. It sounds to me that you just don't have any interest in those categories, and that's why you don't enjoy the game

>So you're saying the game should have just been linear just to appease your autism about the """""stakes"""" of the story?
You basically have two options when playing TW3
A)You try to get in the story, world and in the head of the character. In this case the side activities will bother you because you want to do them, but it makes no sense in the context of the story for Geralt or you to do them. This will either make you ignore them altogether, making the open world of the game almost pointless, or you will do them because you want to explore the game's content, but will feel annoyed by It due to their clear dissonance with the story.

B)You don't get in the story, world or in the head of the character. In this case TW3 becomes a utterly mediocre game that's basically just pretty. because its strong points are supposedly role play, story and characters.

>cuz you know a video GAME should be about GAMEplay
Which is mediocre in TW3
>he day-to-day sidequest stuff that let you feel like Witching was your actual job was the best part of Witcher 3
Except it makes no sense for Geralt to take Witcher contracts while he's searching for Ciri, it's literally filler.

>they could have dumped the Ciri stuff entirely t b h, the worst part of Witcher 3
Yeah, no. TW3 without its main story would never be as praised as it is.

Absolute kek. 3's witcher senses are just a more lore friendly variation of pressing tab in the first game, which has a map that helped you just as much. Witcher has always been a follow the dots game, its just that:

- Witcher 1's terrible combat actually makes it 'better' than 3's mediocre combat does, since on hard encounters will be doable based on how you use your potions and allocate your abilities, because you can't always dodge

- Witcher 1 gives you more freedom to complete quests in meaningfully different ways outside of the orders you're given officially and there are more things to actually investigate, especially per area.


Aside from that, Witcher games have always had consistently terrible gameplay.

>No other WRPGs do characters, storytelling, atmosphere, or just straight up drama as well as The Witcher 3.


I don't even technically disagree with you, but this is exactly where JRPGs actually blow WRPGs out of the water.

Would be perfect if roll didnt gave you iframes. You can dodge almost everything with it, game was no problem on death march and +enemy levels for me.

The story and characters are absolutely nothing special, at all. It did not do anything new, it did not break any ground. Just having good characters or atmosphere isn't new, what did it DO with those characters or that atmosphere? Witcher plays it very, very safe in terms of structure and design, both gameplay and story.

>It sounds to me that you just don't have any interest in those categories, and that's why you don't enjoy the game
They are not as important as the actual game design and gameplay, just as the visual effects in a movie are not as important as the actual writing, the cinematography, etc. Regardless of how well-done those aspects are, it's still a video game, not just a movie that is trying to present the viewer with a narrative.

Games can do more than present players with a story and characters. We do have generally agreed-upon, objectively measurable criteria for what makes a video game "good" or "bad" and I'd argue Witcher does not hit on enough of the "good" ones. Again, it's mostly visual fluff, spectacle with little/no depth or critical thought required from the player.

I disagree when it comes to atmosphere, unless you're talking about Dark Souls

What is atmospheric about Witcher though? It has well-detailed visuals?

I just feel like the open world in TW3 didn't quite fit with its style and it bothers me because that's exactly the area where it gets the most praise, It would work much better if The Witcher 1 was the one with open world in my opinion.

>unless you're talking about Dark Souls

Well I am. That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Well-detailed visuals, attention to detail when it comes to things like commerce functioning like it would in the real world, peasants leading their lives like they were real people, farms existing as means to feed people, detailed geography and so on.

The problem with Witcher 3 is that it plays like a single player MMO. Towns are just glorified quest hubs and the world is just a big empty environment with POIs. Tons of exposition tacked on doesn't make the quests any less shitty.

Look at games like BG2 where you start in a big sprawling city and in the very first inn you step into you can lead a slave revolt and take it over, uncover a secret passage into the sewer system being used to smuggle slaves throughout the city, get a magical shit talking sword by deciphering the mad ramblings of some weird old guy in said sewer, and then go onwards to battle a horde of pirates and snake people to free child slaves in a mansion built out of a pirate ship. All of this is discovered organically. Shitcher has nothing like this.

Ok, but that is not necessarily atmospheric, that's just having a detailed environment.

Dark Souls has atmosphere, and it's more than just the visuals. Everything else, the sound design, the world and level design, work toward creating that bleak atmosphere. It didn't accomplish this by simply having little/no music and the right visuals, it did it by utilizing those in certain ways together. It's not so much that the pieces be there but that they be used correctly.

You need to play some older WRPGs.

Sadly, Dark Souls is one of a kind in the JRPG genre, Dragon's Dogma is probably the closest that you will get to it.

I disagree. Fallout 1 does all that exceptionally better than TW3. You should play more video games.

Because Witcher is barely an RPG.

Modern players just think that cutscenes and dialogue choices with the absolute most bare-bones skill trees and/or progression system possible makes a GOTY RPG. All they want is fluff and spectacle, constant and instant gratification, the need to think critically and the presence of more complex systems and mechanics are all but gone.

The gameplay is flawed but serviceable. Exploring the map is fun, and crafting Witcher sets and useful potions is pretty fun. These factors make the gameplay actually fun for me. The other factors I described are what brings it to another level in the medium. The execution isn't flawless, but there's heart in it and also a style to the setting that's really satisfying. I can't think of one game out there that offers what the Witcher 3 offers but better. That's not to say it's the best game ever. It just means it gives an experience that nothing else does, and it does it well.

Who are we to compare? Skyrim and its terrible dialogue, cardboard characters, boring story, terrible quest design, and broken leveling system?

Dragon Age Inquisition with its bad writing, horrible animations/cinematography, and incredibly boring side quests?

Honestly, if you can tell me about a game that does better than what the Witcher 3 does best, I'd play the hell out of it

>swords
goes from like -30% to fucking +200% and additional effects like bleeding
your actual damage depends on style (strong / fast / group) and is based on your stats + skills in in skill point tree
So if u go to your skill tree, you can actually see the numbers in these styles and then u apply the % from the sword to that number.
>anything else
Fixed damage, use it just as a coin booster at vendors

>pro tip1
Level up your yard for the stuns: one hit kill is always good
>pro tip2
ALWAYS level up strong and fast styles main points (it adds damage, additional effects aren't worth it)
>pro tip3
Try to use torch on "vegetables" until you unlock fire attack

I agree that Dark Souls is better in terms of atmosphere, but TW3 is still better than most JRPGs in this aspect.

I would also argue that the story and side quests in TW3 try their hardest to maintain atmosphere and immersion if you actually ignore the conflict between its side stuff and the main story.

Here is "pro" tip for you - forget about everything and level igni only, you can faceroll all game content on max difficulty by spamming it.

I played Fallout 1 and enjoyed it, but it's a completely different game from The Witcher 3. To compare the two seems silly as hell to me

>Exploring the map is fun, and crafting Witcher sets and useful potions is pretty fun. These factors make the gameplay actually fun for me
Ok, but to what end are you exploring and crafting? That's part of what I don't like, there's little/no incentive to actually do any of this, the systems and mechanics in the game don't really reward the player for doing these things. If you explore, you just find the same enemies and randomized loot, just look at the backdrop is not real incentive. The combat is so shallow and simple you don't need potions at all, again removing a lot of the incentive there.

I'm not saying there isn't stuff to do, just that said stuff isn't terribly well-designed or implemented and isn't all that engaging.

>Who are we to compare? Skyrim and its terrible dialogue, cardboard characters, boring story, terrible quest design, and broken leveling system?
Almost all of that applies to the story, and not the gamplay. Skyrim gives you a lot more room to actually role-play, both in the story and in combat. I find the story and characters in Witcher to be pretty fucking boring too, but the gameplay is just awful and again I have little/no room to role-play. It's a glorified storybook with some awful action combat. Skyrim is also a shitty RPG, but it at least has more and better RPG elements than Witcher. The skill trees still offer more depth and variation than what you get in Witcher, I can use more than two kinds of swords, I can make my own character and backstory, etc.

Except that, you know, I have, and none of them reach the quality of feeling of the best JRPGs despite what they achieve mechanically. It's precisely the creativity of presentation that makes the JRPGs that are good worthwhile in the first place, I've not seen any WRPG with the quality and variety of music typical of Japanese games.

>If you explore, you just find the same enemies and randomized loot, just look at the backdrop is not real incentive. The combat is so shallow and simple you don't need potions at all, again removing a lot of the incentive there.

I agree. I dropped the game completely when, on looking at my inventory, realized I had a bunch of powerful, high end stuff that I simply couldn't use because I just hadn't leveled enough. So anything I could get in the meanwhile would simply be something I'd replace with that eventually, so there's no reason to try to explore to get great shit early and say, try to take on tough enemies at lower levels.