Is The Witcher 3 really that good? Is it really one of the best games ever made?
Or is just another Skyrim bland RPG with subpar mechanics and "immersion" but no real sense of theme or message or integration with gameplay besides what other tripe 50+ hour RPGs are nowadays.
mmm baby put it in me shitta
The latter. It has much better presentation than Skyrim but it's still as shallow as a puddle.
no retard it's good
everyone knows it's good
It is unironically one of the best games I've played.
When you grow up and mature mentally a bit you'll realize that it's all opinions and other people liking it might not mean you do.
I would say a good portion of the side quests and locations of interest map points are about as shallow as Skyrim, but everything else is leagues better.
I guess what I'm asking is if it's another popcorn game like Skyrim or Uncharted, Portal 2, or if it's a Core Game like Undertale, Shadow of the Colossus, Portal, etc.
Great fucking story. Incredible graphics. Both much better than Skyrim. Shitty combat on par with skyrim, if a little more fluid looking. Both deep as a puddle.
No. The combat is just as shallow as what you'd see in Skyrim, there are few weapon types and skills.
It's shallow as shit, and there's nothing "core" about Undertale it's shallow as shit too and focused on sending a message instead of being a good game.
Core
mmm vsvy pozt if i my shozza
I liked Witcher 2 more, but yeah W3 is one of the best games I've ever played
I actually liked the combat. Unlike Skyrim you have to rely on your mobility to survive fights
lolno
Ive had it for several months now
played it for 1 hour
Havent played it again since
good keep us updated
It failed on the open-world aspect. Crafting and herblore were both complete shit, and the level-scaling of monsters basically made early exploration pointless. Wow you found a hidden cave? Too bad it has monsters 20 levels higher than you that you scratch for 2 damage. Just run past them? Oh too bad, this area is locked until you do X quest!
It's a good action-adventure game, but a dogshit RPG. In fact, even Skyrim is a better "RPG", since it allows some of the quests to be solved in an alternative, non-violent way, if your character is good enough in speechcraft.
But you know that level scaling is a retarded concept and should never be implemented?
I loved it
only main story and characters are good, combat is dogshit, most of quest is copy basted, maps are dull, exploration doesn't reward you as it should, monsters are copy pasted, itemization is pretty bad
>He thinks Undertale is a good game
It's only the defining achievement of this medium. If people didn't enjoy it, it's because its release pretty much negated any other game released that year. It's also the most awarded game of all time. I envy the fact that you've yet to play it. Its expansions are also the best expansions ever made.
It is truly outstanding.
Additionally, you can augment the middling combat mechanics via mods for a truly superiour experience.
...
It's generic. Like more generic than baldur's gate. none of the game mechanics are new, and they are all barebone, minimal, no depth or strategy is required to play that shit. And since it's from a fixed universe, it has no role play and custom value.
>popcorn
>core
fuck off to Sup Forums if you're gonna summarize the depth of a work from a medium in a single goddamn word.
Witcher 3 is "kino" if that helps
Its pretty fucking great, i logged as many hours on skyrim and did a new game plus. Both DLCs are excellent, as is the free content they added.
Dunno about one of the greatest of all time, but its very much worth playing.
>popcorn
>core
What the fuck is this arbitrary system of grading
Skyrim allows custom characters and a variety of builds, but w3 gives you much more freedom for making choices about game events
Neither are great for roleplaying
>variety of builds
You're fucking joking right?
You see, I don't think it's kino. From what I understand, it just has a "good story" and I guess lively towns? Is it the leveling up and sense of progression that's fun?
Also i hugely favor the way w3 handles conversations over Bethesda's tried and true method present in skyrim. W3 is more cinematic while still allowing a lot of freedom to make important decisions different ways
IMO the real point made with TW3 is that open world RPGs can have high production values and that it's not locked to AAA studios like bethesda to be making ones with actual big scope (not unambitious shovelware like, for instance, KOA). The story is good, the graphics are pretty, the gameplay is fun, there's TECHNOLOGY and attention to detail, and even the most cursory throwaway quests have effort and writing put into them.
Honestly, nothing about it was particularly mindblowing, but to have an open world RPG game be so solid and well made all around, from an indie developer that had sold maybe 9 million games total beforehand, is a nice development; whether the industry takes anything from that is another matter, but it's definitely a landmark.
>that second image on the bottom
what the fuck
since when did rpg mean any game that lets me have a non violent playthrough?
Witcher 3 is a flick
Ultima is kino
I just finished playing the first story arc of Witcher 3 a few minutes ago (just met the emperor and unlocked the world map). I have no biases, I didn't know what to expect as this was my first Witcher game and I know little about the series.
As someone who has played Skyrim, Fallout 4, Dragon Age Inquisition, and discussed those games extensively, I can say with confidence that Witcher 3 dances circles around those games when it comes to storytelling.
If you dig the storytelling that early on you are in for a treat user. I highly recommend the DLCs too after you complete the core story. I haven't finished Blood & Wine yet but Hearts of Stone has an incredible story.
The gear progression is enjoyable, as you have to go on a treasure hunt to find the good stuff, and the appearance of all of the main armor and weapon sets changes as you upgrade those sets. However I find the actual leveling experience to be bland, only marginally better than Skyrim for example.
it's really well made and was heavily marketed, and actually mostly delivered on what was promised
the only thing it lacks is engaging/interesting combat
It's good, very good.
Not as good as Skyrim, but story telling, graphics, combat (for an rpg of that scale), are top tier.
Open world itself is garbage, only a few memorable quests, shitty "follow the red trail mechanic", way too consolised and downgraded on every level, poor alchemy.
DLC are god tier.
Witcher 1 was better despite having the worst gameplay ever created by mankind.
Part of it, yes.
Once you get to Novigrad, it's all downhill from there.
The main quest is largely awful and has the worst pacing, sidequests can be fun though, although the design of them gets very repetitive very fast, especially the monster contracts.
short answer is no, but it is really well made, and you can tell it was made by people who really care. it's really good, but a little repetitive. combat sucks and is a bit too difficult to master.
>the only thing it lacks is engaging/interesting combat
>All the Monsters need their own approach
>On higher difficulties even leveled bandit gangs start to be a real threat
Stop playing on easy, pleb
I enjoyed my time with it, for the most part, but I do think that a fair amount of the praise it received is unwarranted.
That said, as a game, it's pretty mediocre (mechanically speaking, that is). Shallow RPG elements, dull combat - which is, admittedly, improved by weaving together alchemy, signs, and bladework, but all the same -, jerky animations, and atrocious controls mar the otherwise (generally) solid visuals, soundtrack, and storytelling.
It's actually pretty inconsistent, too, as far as difficulty is concerned. Even on Death March, it ceases to pose any genuine challenge after the first couple hours, the difficulty of which is derived chiefly from the player's lack of gear/oils/potions/etc. The narrative dips pretty hard at times, too. It starts especially strong - I loved both White Orchard and the Bloody Baron's quest line. Hunting Dandelion and helping the mages in Novigrad, however, is horrifically dull (in its own right, and doubly so by comparison). Skellige, and the events leading to Kaer Morhen, on the other hand, return to form. The final act falls flat completely, as, ironically enough, the Wild Hunt actually manages to be the least interesting or compelling aspect of the game. Throw in the magic heat death of the universe that only Mary Sue Ciri can hope to stop and it all comes tumbling down.
Well more than w3.
You've got stealth archer, mage, or warrior
Or my favorite: all 3 in a single character because the game is piss easy and doesnt favor specialization
shitty, linear walking simulator. Being from shitty books doesn't really help. And every minute of this tripe is about a boring mary sue MC fucking bitches and being the chosen one with less subtlety than CWC in CWCville.
Let's face it, just because it's European doesn't make it good.
At a guess I'd say it means "does the player have meaningful interaction or potential for mastery or is is it just spectacle akin to watching an entertaining blockbuster".
>Is The Witcher 3 really that good?
No.
It's the best game ever made in the sense that:
1) If you were asked what game was better, you'd be hard pressed to give an answer that people took seriously.
2) Within the confines of what they did, they nearly hit every single mark perfectly. I can come up with a list of flaws or things I didn't like about the game but they'd either all be subjective, understandable given the limitations in game development we have today, OR completely overruled by what it does right.
3) It's literally the only game I would pay over $60 for. I know that sounds cheap, but almost none of the purported "triple A" titles to come out in the past decade I would say are worth that much. Their prices are inflated. For TW3, $60 is not only reasonable but a steal considering the overall quality of the experience.
No Skyrim is not better, though Skyrim does do some elements better than The Witcher, namely immersion (first person games with inevitably be more immersive than third person). As an overall experience though, TW3 blows it out of the water.
Combat IS a bit too easy, even on the highest difficulty. One skill, Gourmet, completely nullifies the regeneration penalty on the highest two difficulties as well as makes low level a breeze.
The Witcher 3 is a frustrating game in some cases, caused indirectly by the fact it is an open world game. This is not a flaw however.
What I mean is that you get pulled in to many different directions at once. The main quests nudge you in the general direction you should go, but you are as likely to encounter content that is both too high and too low for you all around, and you won't know whether the content is adequate for you until you actually walk up and discover it. This promotes exploration, but can be overwhelming.
Really, Witcher 3's main achievement in my opinion is that it proved your open world game, or as close as you can get to it, doesn't have to sacrifice story and characters for the sake of it. Just like Witcher 2 proved your RPGs don't have to look like ass simply because they're RPGs.
>two games about father figures dealing with their daughters get the most awards
BG2 of our time.
The addition of the abundant points of interests mixes up people with regards to how the game should be played.
In past iterations, people would just aim to complete every single quest and contract and the game was fairly linear in guiding you through.
Each Act was tuned to your level, and there were 'resting points' within the game where you felt you had 'completed' everything for a given region (e.g. leaving Flotsam, etc.)
The Witcher 3 being open world makes it hard for people who want to complete every single POI to play the game.
Not knowing the potential levels of monsters at those POIs can also be frustrating.
The game is fine if you only treat your MAIN QUESTS, SECONDARY QUESTS and CONTRACTS as mandatory, everything else optional or skippable.
You also have to get rid of the idea about completing a region and moving on to the next, because regions overlap in terms of content level. Instead you have to treat it more like an MMO.
I DIDN'T SNOWBALL
I DIDN'T EMIRIL DEGRASSI
SHE DIED
I DIDN'T KNOW
You deserve it for being a terrible father.
And you made Geralt suffer.
Shame on you.
...
Seeing Geralt sad always makes me feel sad, since you know that for Geralt to look sad he has to be really sad.
>EMIRIL DEGRASSI
what
I never got this ending, but I'm afraid to look it up. Fuck everything about it.
Do people really continue on to B&W after getting this ending?
emeril degrasse = emeril lagasse = Emhyr
>Geralt is so distraught that he actually loses his usual stony facade and breaks down
Jesus.
it ruined the game for me .
i'm legitimately sad and i don't think i can play it again .
i thought i was doing the right thing
rip
but you don't need to go to him for her to be alive, in fact if you don't shes better off.
It's nto about the fact of a non-violent playthrough, it's about a game having multi-solution quests where you can pick different ways to solve those quests based on how you've built your character. Even Skyrim does that to a very limited degree, since some quests have alternative, speechcraft based solutions.
Witcher 3 has none of that, any choices you make are completely independent of the way you've built your character. Alternative quest solutions do not open or close based on your skills and perks, so it's a shit RPG. It's literally an action game with stats.
But meeting with him is the second worst ending. It's the cuck ending, where you let a douchebag replace you in your adopted daughters eyes.
Witcher ending is the most consistent with all the characters, and is the proper dadmode ending.
then i don't know what the fuck i did to get worst korea ending . i think i stopped her from going with the lodge
>Is it really one of the best games ever made?
yes. definitely.
best RPG ever made, that's for sure.
>Alternative quest solutions do not open or close based on your skills and perks
That's wrong, but even I know that my answer is a copout.
Axii is a skill that can open up various solutions or endings.
>It's the cuck ending,
I hate that ending but you're a fucking moron if thats how you see it.
it's satisfying if you can be satisfied in ways other than a challenge
the same way a kirby game is satisfying even if it's super nothing
and isn't it fun when you get those?
"Oh hey my character choices are having an effect here!"
Snowball
(optional) don't take the money, dumbass
Let her speak to lodge alone
Go with her to funeral
Let her wreck that faggots girly cave
In essence, with Ciri dead, Geralt loses his shit. He returns to Crookback Bog to kill the surviving Crone, despite warnings that doing so will likely result in his own death. He ultimately succeeds in killing her before venturing into a nearby cabin, intent on retrieving Ciri's medallion, which had been stolen long ago.
Geralt loses his characteristic cool upon finding it, burying his face in his hands as the building is surrounded by ghouls and drowners, leaving Geralt's fate unclear.
shit combat. fuck western rpgs
Actually, in every case it's a lazy copout for people who don't want to figure out dialogue.
Pretty poor design. It nearly always subtracts from content and player experience.
Ok, if the use of a certain skill opens up alternative quest solution paths, it's fair. I will now officially consider Witcher 3 as good as Skyrim in the role-playing department and will no longer call it an action game with stats, just a shit RPG.
Still, don't get me wrong, I do not consider Witcher 3 to be a bad game, I just hate when people put the RPG label on anything with stats.
Is this one of the sad endings? What happened?
>Be adopted father for most of life
>adopted daughter always calls you by first name
>6 months of living with Big Dick Emhyr
>already calling him papa
Cucked.
>did everything right because i know geralt and ciri
>ciri becomes a witcher
>nilfgaard wins the war
>cerys rules skellige
best ending possible. i've never been this satisfied with a game ending.
See
By that logic, Baldur's Gate 2 is a shit RPG.
Not every RPG needs to have skill checks like an Obsidian game.
You'd get a much better answer by playing the game for yourself instead of opening up the Meme Machine on Sup Forums. Fucking sheep.
>in every case it's a lazy copout for people who don't want to figure out dialogue.
So you think having an otion to sneak into a location rather than just beating up the doorguard is a complex dialogue system that needs thought?
Without it, you just gotta punch, with it, you have other options
>Baldur's Gate 2 is a shit RPG
It is. It's extremely overhyped on Sup Forums. It may be a good and memorable game, but it's a shit RPG that can't even hold a candle next to Fallouts 1/2 and even NV.
Reminder that because CDPR went full jew and broke their promise to release full mod tools, you'll never make it so Ciri can show up in Blood and Wine in addition to you romantic choice.
never have kids
I GOT KEKED
KEKED I TELL YOU
Your definition of a role playing game is super neo-Sup Forums.
There is more to life that stat/skill influenced dialogue options.
Like creating a personal character narrative, or having your choices affect how the story moves forward or the people around you.
>skill checks like an Obsidian game
Skillchecks are not something Obsidian invented, m8. They were present in PnP RPGs before even the first computer RPG was made.
Just wait til you meet the baron. Oh my fuck will you be loving it by that point.
It's as good as an RPG with a preset character and background can be.
The only things I really dislike in the series (books included) are Ciri's mary sue shenanigans and the wild hunt, but even despite them the game was immensely entertaining.
I just hope we get a witcher title sometime where you can do your own character, Geralt's personality had enough complexity so that all the choices felt in-character in the series, but it would be nice to play a mage in the same setting.
>having your choices affect how the story moves forward or the people around you
This does not have anything to do with role-playing, when the choices you make are not based on previous choices pertaining to how you've built your cahracter. If the general presence of choice&consequence was the main aspect of RPGs, then VNs would be the best RPGs ever made, but they're not, because you do not define your character in those games and your choices do not depend on how you have defined your character.
The presence of general C&C is a universally good design choice and enriches any game, but it doesn't make that game a RPG.
>It's as good as an RPG with a preset character and background can be.
No, it's not. PS:T is way better at that, because the stats you have open and close various ways to solve quests and there are a SHITLOAD of statchecks in PS:T and these are not just WIS/INT checks, but CON, CHA and STR as well.
what
he wants you to fuck in the arse
Roleplaying is not limited to a role the player has complete control over. In fact, it's pretty much impossible to implement such a system.
A player can play the role of an established character, and make choices in that mindset. A role is being played, it's just not a solely player defined one.
This isn't actually an argument over what is and is not an RPG.
This is a multiple decade old argument that boils down to JRPG vs WRPG.
Witcher 3 is a western RPG in game design with JRPG style roleplaying. It's that simple.
>not just WIS/INT checks, but CON, CHA and STR as well.
Come the fuck on ,8 we both know that Con and Str are pretty much useless and that INT/WIS is by far the way to play the game.
Combat is shit, setting and characters are great.
probably one of the most memorable i have had in my entire life. combat still shit tho. why can't all dev do Dragon's Dogma combat