The Witcher 3 Wild Hunt: Official Thread

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,937
All relative to which the time you first played it.
Why would that matter? What was different when it came out in 2015? Any game you would compare it to was already out. DA:I, or Skyrim comes to mind. My expectations didn't change since then.

Nobody should be putting anybody's dissenting opinions down, but anybody who's even a little familiar with modern PC gaming is aware of Witcher 3's reputation, and it just seems like Flogger23m had mission to say contrarian things. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's definitely going to garner a certain type of response in a thread with over one hundred pages of people generally enjoying the game.
I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and assume his mission is not to say contrarian things, but his honest opinion. It is your own expectation that he should only say good things about it. You're disappointed that his opinion is not what you expected. That doesn't mean you should try and silence it.

Just because something is generally praised doesn't mean you can't notice flaws in it. In fact when I first started writing game reviews for fun, my mission was to disregard the general opinion. Because I was sick and tired of 'professional' reviewers just parroting each other saying what was expected of them. Like most recently with the ME:A debacle. It was decided by popular opinion based on nothing but hearsay that it was terrible. I didn't see a single favorable opinion piece on it. Well except my own. And I didn't do that to go against the popular opinion. I did it because that is how I saw the game.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,937
Indeed. I will say the game gets better. Finally got the whirling attack upgrade. Actually pretty slick. Just took far too long to get it. The game has pacing issues and can feel a bit repetitive, but I'm enjoying it the more I play. Still think its pretty average though. For all the praise I thought the cities would be life like. They're really not any different from Assassin's Creed Unity or similar.
I've played it for about 3 or 4 hours now. And it still fails to engage me. The gameplay is not good enough to play for that alone. If I'm honest it is terrible. Like DA:O but without the tactical elements and the squad. The story is uninteresting so far. The characters each and every one of them unlikable, starting with geralt himself.

There is nothing that would keep me coming back. I have to force myself to play each time. And I can stop at any time without regret. It's the easiest game to put down. And I Don't snap my fingers "I enjoyed that". Rather: "Well at least I made some progress".
 

Krenum

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
17,746
Why would that matter? What was different when it came out in 2015? Any game you would compare it to was already out. DA:I, or Skyrim comes to mind. My expectations didn't change since then.

Funny you say that, because any RPG that's came out after TW3 is compared to it.

The Witcher 3's environment is MUCH more immersive than either of those games, especially the cities & NPC interaction. They're not even in the same league in both character & environmental storytelling.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,937
The Witcher 3's environment is MUCH more immersive than either of those games, especially the cities & NPC interaction. They're not even in the same league in both character & environmental storytelling.
Why, because there are random NPCs awkwardly shouting at you from the side of the road? To me it felt uncanny, rather than immersive. Yes, conversations are better, but that's not enough to make a game without the gameplay to compliment it.
Still I fail to see what does that have to do with when you played the game.
 

Krenum

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
17,746
Still I fail to see what does that have to do with when you played the game.

It would be like playing Morrowind when it came out & being amazed, which it was. Then having a person tell you, eh, its not that great, 6 years later when they're playing Oblivion. All a matter of perspective & opinion.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,937
It would be like playing Morrowind when it came out & being amazed, which it was. Then having a person tell you, eh, its not that great, 6 years later when they're playing Oblivion. All a matter of perspective & opinion.
Don't double down, it doesn't do any good. I already said no other significant game came out in the genre since this came out 3 years ago. If I played it then it wouldn't be any different. Hell I often play games much older than 3 years and enjoy them much more than Witcher III.
 
Last edited:

Krenum

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
17,746
Don't double down, it doesn't do any good. I already said no other significant game came out in the genre since this came out 3 years ago. If I played it then it wouldn't be any different. Hell I often play games much older than 3 years and enjoy them much more than Witcher III.

I'm not trying to sway your opinion of the game, you either like it or you don't.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,937
I'm not trying to sway your opinion of the game, you either like it or you don't.
You suggested I don't like it because I play it too late. I just debate the validity of that.

This is not the first generally liked game that I don't like, and probably not the last. For example I didn't like Bioshock: Infinite much either. And I absolutely hated MGS:V and I played both right after they were released.
If it is any consolation Witcher III seems like a masterpiece compared to MGS:V to me.
 

Ryan7968

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
308
You suggested I don't like it because I play it too late. I just debate the validity of that.

This is not the first generally liked game that I don't like, and probably not the last. For example I didn't like Bioshock: Infinite much either. And I absolutely hated MGS:V and I played both right after they were released.
If it is any consolation Witcher III seems like a masterpiece compared to MGS:V to me.

I bought Bioshock infinite and MGSV too and just could not get into them. Actually there is a pile of games that I've bought with the best intentions to play but never get sucked into them properly.

Witcher 3 was almost one of those games for me. Bought it at release, didn't get sucked in right away and shelved it until I picked it up almost a year later. Eventually I had multiple playthroughs and Steam shows that I have 400 hours in game. Just offering up my own experiences, Witcher 3 is a very successful game but that doesn't mean it has to be universally loved.
 

Colonel Sanders

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 26, 2001
Messages
4,608
I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and assume his mission is not to say contrarian things, but his honest opinion. It is your own expectation that he should only say good things about it. You're disappointed that his opinion is not what you expected. That doesn't mean you should try and silence it.

Just because something is generally praised doesn't mean you can't notice flaws in it. In fact when I first started writing game reviews for fun, my mission was to disregard the general opinion. Because I was sick and tired of 'professional' reviewers just parroting each other saying what was expected of them. Like most recently with the ME:A debacle. It was decided by popular opinion based on nothing but hearsay that it was terrible. I didn't see a single favorable opinion piece on it. Well except my own. And I didn't do that to go against the popular opinion. I did it because that is how I saw the game.

JFC, I never tried to "silence" anyone. All I was saying is, expect some comments in the opposite direction if you go into a Witcher 3 thread saying "meh, actually it's pretty lame." *I* don't even give a shit personally what anyone says about it, it's a fucking game. I just find it amusing that someone would clutch their pearls just because someone argued their own points against yours.

cFniOdE.jpg
 
Last edited:

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,937
JFC, I never tried to "silence" anyone. All I was saying is, expect some comments in the opposite direction if you go into a Witcher 3 thread saying "meh, actually it's pretty lame." *I* don't even give a shit personally what anyone says about it, it's a fucking game. I just find it amusing that someone would clutch their pearls just because someone argued their own points against yours.
Your point that you made in the post I Was replying to was literally an appeal to the game's reputation. "But everyone likes it!"
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,510
Is it me, or does after level ~22 or so result in a big slow down in decent sword / armor upgrades? Takes a long time to find something better
I bought Bioshock infinite and MGSV too and just could not get into them. Actually there is a pile of games that I've bought with the best intentions to play but never get sucked into them properly.

Witcher 3 was almost one of those games for me. Bought it at release, didn't get sucked in right away and shelved it until I picked it up almost a year later. Eventually I had multiple playthroughs and Steam shows that I have 400 hours in game. Just offering up my own experiences, Witcher 3 is a very successful game but that doesn't mean it has to be universally loved.

Yup. I'd put Witcher 3 up there with Zelda Breath of the Wild as being some of the most over rated titles in video game history. Zelda edges out because it is far more sterile, but Witcher 3 certainly is a noteworthy contender. Both are playable but don't deserve the praise they get.

Just by reading reviews and people posting about Witcher 3 you'd think there were no fetch quests or low quality, run back and fourth quests. But that has been proven false time and time again when actually playing it. Most of the side quests are of low quality. One such quest I recently finished more or less was about running back and fourth to five different places to kill a few enemies, and then run back. Practically the same dull set piece action in each of them. I spent more time riding a horse than anything else. There was a second part of the quest, which surprise, was almost exactly the same. Five more areas of the same few enemies to clear.

There are dozens of similar low effort quests littered throughout the game. Side quest quality is similar to something like Assassin's Creed Unity. Some good ones, some really low effort ones.

But to claim Witcher 3 is like Mass Effect 2 in terms of quality side quests spread about through 50-80 hours of gameplay is outright wrong.

The other issue is the quest quality is often placed in awkward places. For example, too much time spent on the Bloody Baron arc and too little on main story points.

Also finished my ending recently. Finale was underwhelming, and the post mission ending lasted about 8 minutes. Talk about a letdown for the end of the game. I checked youtube and saw alternative endings. The one in which Ciri left to become Empress was at least 20 minutes long. Neither were excellent by any stretch, but when you fail at writing a decent thought provoking story you can always fall back on tugging emotional strings. At least the Empress ending did that. Kind of like the live action Ghost in The Shell, where they missed the point of the anime entirely and tried to make up for it in the end by trying to grab the viewers emotions. Similar situation here.

Yeah, Witcher 3 is playable. Decent enough. But far from excellence. Trying to go through a DLC right now but the low effort quests, awkward camera angles, bad horse controls and similar / boring quests are just grating on me. Not horrible, but certainly a lot of been there done that in Blood & Wine.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,510

Eh, if you like bland generic games then all the more power to you. I think the fact that you couldn't articulate any reasoning or justification for the low quality side quests is all we need to know. Personally, I think "run there kill this 5 times over, then run back" meaningless side quests shouldn't be a thing in 2015. But the quality (for the DLCs) degrades a bit further which isn't abnormal. But some of generic characters you meet in these quests have some truly awful voice acting which can be fairly humorous.
 

Krenum

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
17,746
Eh, if you like bland generic games then all the more power to you. I think the fact that you couldn't articulate any reasoning or justification for the low quality side quests is all we need to know. Personally, I think "run there kill this 5 times over, then run back" meaningless side quests shouldn't be a thing in 2015.

You don't have to do the side quests, but you did them anyway, which tells me that you atleast enjoyed them to an extent. Your opinion of the game being generic is totally off the rails though. But to each his own.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,510
You don't have to do the side quests, but you did them anyway, which tells me that you atleast enjoyed them to an extent. Your opinion of the game being generic is totally off the rails though. But to each his own.

As I mentioned, some are good, some suck. Some are practically copy/paste. Overall too many fall victim to feeling exactly the same bland open world formula. Run here, switch to eagle vision and press E to view the clues. I just find that boring, lazy and a bit out dated. I don't mind it every now and then, but WItcher 3 (and Assassin's Creed Origins) relied so heavily on it when it has been done to death in previous games. Hence why I say Witcher 3 is okay, but pretty generic. A lot of the core activities aren't all that fun or unique. But every now and then you run across some interesting dialogue which carries the game along. The problem is you don't know what quest will be good before you play it. I'm skipped a large amount of Witcher Contracts because of it. I have over 20 undone with a number left that I have not accepted. In general, I found those to be the worse and the most copy/paste.

Instead of dozens of poorly done side quests I wish they put more effort into the main story. The ending for what can be a 100+ hour game was frankly, pathetic. A ~6-8 minute closure is all I received for my ending. Ciri was a weak character and there was little reason to care all that much for her. There wasn't enough mystery or reason to care, outside of the game outright telling you. She wasn't even mentioned once in Witcher 2 and from checking around on google, wasn't in the first game either. She just plops into Witcher 3 and we're told she is special and missing. And Geralt has an attachment to her. So we spend the game chasing the linear story of figuring out where she is. It simply didn't present a reason why we should care. It was enough to carry the game along, that is true. But it was far from a great story and was pretty linear overall.

I just wish the put more effort into the overall story and gave us more choices that mattered. Even in the small conversations, in general your option was getting straight to the point or choosing to get more information. Seldom did you have a choice that change how Geralt would behave. Overall he felt pretty stale and pre-done compared to say, Shepard in Mass Effect where you could be a "good" or "bad" character. Again, another area where they missed the mark, IMO. Quality over quantity.
 

northrop

grumman
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
10,106
Flogger23m, putting aside the fact that you're making it bluntly obvious that you do not understand who witchers are in this world (your argument about not being able to be "good" or "bad" character is outright laughable at best, considering the lore which didn't interest you - be it because of the CDRP's delivery or otherwise), I do wonder what SP open world RPG's currently on the market you find to be superior to W3?
 

Krenum

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
17,746
I just wish the put more effort into the overall story and gave us more choices that mattered.

By this statement, I assume you have never read either of the books or finished the first two games.

If you don't like the game and are just here to complain & thread crap then go somewhere else, make your own thread and complain there all you want. Because 130+ pages disagree's with you.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,510
Flogger23m, putting aside the fact that you're making it bluntly obvious that you do not understand who witchers are in this world (your argument about not being able to be "good" or "bad" character is outright laughable at best, considering the lore which didn't interest you - be it because of the CDRP's delivery or otherwise), I do wonder what SP open world RPG's currently on the market you find to be superior to W3?

You're reading comprehension fails you. Witchers are supposed to be neutral, the game makes it clear. But the choices presented in how you can tackle a situation is very limited in most instances. The majority of the time no matter what you choose you arrive at the same conclusion. That doesn't make for good gameplay. The dialogue system feels fairly pointless because of this. Why make a game based around dialogue selection when it matters so little? Most of the time I enter a conversation it feels pointless. My options are:

1) Skip to the point.
2) Hear more information about the topic at hand.

Why would anyone choose the first option?

Half the time you do get a selection the overall outcome is the same. Again, shortchanging the whole dialogue system.

There are numerous instances in the game where Geralt takes a position or a different tone but seldom acts upon it. Which ultimately, jut feels like something is missing.

Also, you're outright wrong about the "good" or "bad" decisions. I finished a quest in which I could make Geralt resolve something peacefully (good) or get into a fist fight (bad). The decision, as mentioned many times, matters little.

I checked what the differences are. The "bad" option gets you more coins up front, the "good" more down the road along with a sword. But it matters little to the overall story.

Again, nothing really that ground breaking when it comes to the dialogue system. It doesn't mean its a horrible game, just not amazing.

By this statement, I assume you have never read either of the books or finished the first two games.

If you don't like the game and are just here to complain & thread crap then go somewhere else, make your own thread and complain there all you want. Because 130+ pages disagree's with you.

I played the 2nd game, both paths. I didn't read the books and I don't care to. I'm talking about the game not the books. You've proved my point without realizing it. The story is shockingly thin in Witcher 3. What the book(s) have or don't is of no relevance to the quality of the game. Again, I can back up my opinions / claims with facts. What happens if you kill or spare Henselt at the end of Witcher 2? Fuck all in Witcher 3. Regardless of your choice, Redania takes over the northern kingdoms. What about the fate of Temria? Little to nothing on that front either. The whole 3rd chapter of Witcher 2 is practically null and void at the beginning of Witcher 3. Again, the decisions that mattered were brushed aside. This carries over throughout Witcher 3. Yes, I actually make saves before decisions and then go back and replay them or check Youtube to see how big or little of a role the changes makes.

I'll keep posting what I think of The Witcher 3. It may shock you, but people may not be as easily dazzled as yourself. Maybe eagle vision and pressing the E key to view highlighted blue objects is the pinnacle video gaming to you. Maybe picking up hundreds of apples, cups, or children's dolls awkwardly found on grown adult soldiers bodies is awesome (really, put some effort into what items appear where CD Projekt!). But it certainly isn't to me. Your opinion does not invalidate mine. Drop the confrontational attacks. The internet tough guy act has worn thin. Try to articulate a response that isn't an insult or meme for a change.
 
Last edited:

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,937
Oh, look, another who thinks someone's opinion on an entertainment product can be wrong.

You're the second one just today.

Here we go again: If I share my opinion on the game, that's a representation of what I thought of it. The only way it can be wrong is if it doesn't represent my own thoughts. Good luck convincing anyone of that.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,937
You're reading comprehension fails you. Witchers are supposed to be neutral, the game makes it clear. But the choices presented in how you can tackle a situation is very limited in most instances. The majority of the time no matter what you choose you arrive at the same conclusion. That doesn't make for good gameplay. The dialogue system feels fairly pointless because of this. Why make a game based around dialogue selection when it matters so little? Most of the time I enter a conversation it feels pointless. My options are:

1) Skip to the point.
2) Hear more information about the topic at hand.

Why would anyone choose the first option?
I haven't thought of it that way. Only had a feeling that conversations were very dull and lacking, but now that you put it like that all I can say is exactly! I never felt any of the satisfaction after conversations in this game as I did in others like Mass Effect or one I recently played: Alpha Protocol.

I played the 2nd game, both paths. I didn't read the books and I don't care to. I'm talking about the game not the books. You've proved my point without realizing it. The story is shockingly thin in Witcher 3. What the book(s) have or don't is of no relevance to the quality of the game. Again, I can back up my opinions / claims with facts. What happens if you kill or spare Henselt at the end of Witcher 2? Fuck all in Witcher 3. Regardless of your choice, Redania takes over the northern kingdoms. What about the fate of Temria? Little to nothing on that front either. The whole 3rd chapter of Witcher 2 is practically null and void at the beginning of Witcher 3. Again, the decisions that mattered were brushed aside. This carries over throughout Witcher 3. Yes, I actually make saves before decisions and then go back and replay them or check Youtube to see how big or little of a role the changes makes.
I stopped playing witcher 2 because I could no longer suffer geralt's general douchery in it. I still think he's a giant douche in 3 too, but so far it didn't get as bad as it did in 2 when I quit. I can't say I'm 100% done with witcher3 yet, but right now there are more enjoyable games that I can play. And if the rumors are true odyssey is going to be great (my first attempt at an AC game after the first one).

I'll keep posting what I think of The Witcher 3. It may shock you, but people may not be as easily dazzled as yourself. Maybe eagle vision and pressing the E key to view highlighted blue objects is the pinnacle video gaming to you. But it certainly isn't to me. Your opinion does not invalidate mine. Drop the confrontational attacks. The internet tough guy act has worn thin. Try to articulate a response that isn't an insult or meme for a change.
Couldn't agree more. Some seem to think that a meme is a good argument, or simply saying "you're wrong". But that literally tells me nothing. I still don't know why they think witcher 3 is the greatest game ever. And arguments like "Yeah, but you don't know the lore" or "Which game is better then?" are not helping either. The game supposed to tell me the lore, and if it fails then is it really my fault? Or even if it does, if I don't like the basic premise of the lore what then? A neutral character is a terrible premise for me. My idea of an RPG is to play as I want, not forcing me into a singular predetermined route. No wonder I don't like the game then.
 
Last edited:

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,937
Flogger23m, putting aside the fact that you're making it bluntly obvious that you do not understand who witchers are in this world (your argument about not being able to be "good" or "bad" character is outright laughable at best, considering the lore which didn't interest you - be it because of the CDRP's delivery or otherwise), I do wonder what SP open world RPG's currently on the market you find to be superior to W3?
If I don't understand what witchers are in the world then that is the fault of the game(s) for not making me understand. And even if it would explain that witchers are supposed to be neutral in all things, that doesn't mean I'd suddenly like the game. I by definition dislike the fact that the game would force you to be neutral. An RPG is for me a journey to forge my own path trough the game, using my style, and give a personality and morality to my character that I choose! Not trying to fulfill a pre-determined set of codes. That's no RPG to me. At least no more than say Rise of the Tomb Raider.

And why does it matter what games I'd consider superior to W3? Whatever I say you'd just reply: Wrong! Or assert that witcher is 1000x times better than that in every way. That leads us nowhere. And tells me nothing new. I still don't understand why you consider witcher iii to be that great. Just asserting that it's great and proclaiming we don't like it because we don't understand the lore doesn't tell me why do you like it. What sets it apart from other games? Certainly not eagle vision, certainly not the 'charm' of the characters. And certainly not the god awful dull conversations, where your choices are mostly superficial and affect nothing but the conversation at hand.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,937
By this statement, I assume you have never read either of the books or finished the first two games.

If you don't like the game and are just here to complain & thread crap then go somewhere else, make your own thread and complain there all you want. Because 130+ pages disagree's with you.
Just because you opened the topic on the game, doesn't mean you can control who says what about the game. You don't own the entire discussion. And don't get to ban people with dissenting opinions. You know that's exactly what SJWs would do. They assert that only their opinion is acceptable, and try to silence everyone else. Do you want to be on the same level?
 

jiminator

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
11,618
Wasn't this thread locked for a time because of attacks? Witchers are not neutral. They essentially are bought or kidnapped children converted to mutants for purpose of monster hunting to open up new parts of the world. Now that the job is done they are pretty much despised and feel abused in the process. People will try to rip them off or exploit them. Where is the neutrality in that?

There have been studies done on the original source material. It is funny as hell but only about 50% of the jokes translate well. The rest just have no context for a non-polish audience. The monsters in that regard lose a lot from the conversion. There has been bitching about no minorities in the game. (Assuming abused other races are not minorities). Developers said that they wanted to make a game where people looked like they looked.

If you want to call W3 as being a bunch of disguised fetch quests where you kill stuff in different locations, then you are describing pretty much every RPG ever. If you want to ask though, what do they eat? Then you can see that the witcher world is one of the most detailed ever in terms of size, locations, people doing things, scattering when it starts to rain, moving cloud fronts affecting lighting, etc.

None of this is to say you should like W3, it is just to put a bit of context on the game. The witcher books are very good though, I'd recommend reading them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Damar
like this

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,937
Wasn't this thread locked for a time because of attacks? Witchers are not neutral. They essentially are bought or kidnapped children converted to mutants for purpose of monster hunting to open up new parts of the world. Now that the job is done they are pretty much despised and feel abused in the process. People will try to rip them off or exploit them. Where is the neutrality in that?

There have been studies done on the original source material. It is funny as hell but only about 50% of the jokes translate well. The rest just have no context for a non-polish audience. The monsters in that regard lose a lot from the conversion. There has been bitching about no minorities in the game. (Assuming abused other races are not minorities). Developers said that they wanted to make a game where people looked like they looked.

If you want to call W3 as being a bunch of disguised fetch quests where you kill stuff in different locations, then you are describing pretty much every RPG ever. If you want to ask though, what do they eat? Then you can see that the witcher world is one of the most detailed ever in terms of size, locations, people doing things, scattering when it starts to rain, moving cloud fronts affecting lighting, etc.

None of this is to say you should like W3, it is just to put a bit of context on the game. The witcher books are very good though, I'd recommend reading them.
I don't know why the thread was locked, or who locked it even. But I have suspicions. And I don't think it was "attacks". At least I didn't see anything out of the ordinary.

They said it's laughable to be "good or bad" in the game, that kind of implies that you're neutral. If not then I Don't know why the idea would be laughable.

Every RPG has fetch quests. That's not the problem. We have been led to believe that Witcher 3 is so much better than everything else, but it's not. Expectations were high, and the game fails to deliver on the level it was hyped up to. It doesn't help that I don't like the main characters either. Their motivations are unclear as well. How can I immerse myself into the role if I have no idea of why am I doing what I'm doing. What is the point? Geralt comes trough as a giant asshole, who hates the entire world and everyone in it. I can't get behind that role, and I can't diverge from that path, because it is set in stone.

In my opinion it is not much better than 1-2. The world might be larger, and the side quests more numerous, but that doesn't help. More isn't always better. I couldn't finish Witcher one because I found it to be tedious and boring. I couldn't finish Witcher II because the combat was awful, and my moral objections to geralt's conduct became too much to continue at some point.

III is not much different. Combat is still pretty bad, though somewhat better than II, but it cannot hold a candle to modern games. And Geralt is still the unlikable asshole as ever. It still feels boring, the game doesn't excite me one bit, I'm not looking forward what the story might reveal.

Telling me to don't criticize the game because they like it is laughable. I don't want to convince them that they shouldn't like the game. I just want to express why I don't like the game, but some people think it is a personal attack on their ego. And therefore would silence us.
 

Drexion

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
1,379
Expectations were high, and the game fails to deliver on the level it was hyped up to.
This is the fault of the individual who over-hypes upcoming releases in his own head to the point that expectations cannot be met. Anyone that went into this game with realistic expectations or none at all would have loved it. Like most normal people.

This is not a witcher issue but one with all media - too many people have unrealistic expectations and overhype themselves to the point where no matter how good the end product is it will never be satisfactory for them.

I couldn't finish Witcher one because I found it to be tedious and boring. I couldn't finish Witcher II because the combat was awful, and my moral objections to geralt's conduct became too much to continue at some point.
This makes no sense - you disliked the first two games so much you couldn't finish them, yet you still bought the third one, and you had high expectations for it? Why did you buy the third game if you hated the first two?

It's obvious this developer's gamers are not for you - stop buying CDProject's games = problem solved.
 
Last edited:

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,937
This is the fault of the individual who over-hypes upcoming releases in his own head to the point that expectations cannot be met. Anyone that went into this game with realistic expectations or none at all would have loved it. Like most normal people.

This is not a witcher issue but one with all media - too many people have unrealistic expectations and overhype themselves to the point where no matter how good the end product is it will never be satisfactory for them.

This makes no sense - you disliked the first two games so much you couldn't finish them, yet you still bought the third one, and you had high expectations for it? Why did you buy the third game if you hated the first two?

It's obvious this developer's gamers are not for you - stop buying CDProject's games = problem solved.
LOL, so it's my fault people kept nagging me to play the game because it is so great and nothing like the first two? This is becoming insane now.

You can only speak in praise about the game in this topic apparently, but I over hyped the game? I can't even fathom how can you write that with a straight face.

So it is not over hyped by the people who said this is greatest game ever, and nothing comes close to it. It is me, who overhyped it? OK, anything else I'm to blame for, say North Korea not liberated yet?
 
Last edited:

Brackle

Old Timer
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
7,778
LOL, so it's my fault people kept nagging me to play the game because it is so great and nothing like the first two? This is becoming insane now.

Just to be clear, I absolutely love all 3 games, so I am biased that I think the game was great but, 1 thing stood out to me.

I don't give two fuck if my friends are nagging me to buy a game or game series game I don't like. I mean thats like saying "my friends nagged me to jump off the cliff into the water because its safe!

Seriously that to me is your own damn fault for buying the game. Then coming on here to complain about a game you didn't want to buy, I mean you went into the game knowing you probably wouldn't like it?

Don't get me wrong I think the Witcher series isn't for everyone, I even have a few friends that dislike it, but I mean man if you don't like a game dont get pressured into buying something because your friends were nagging you. Specially knowing you won't like it..

I mean if that was the case I would own all of the Call of Duty games after COD4.

Just my 0.02c
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,710
Yup.

It's a good game, whether any particular person likes it or not.

Movies aren't any different; not everyone likes good movies, and not everyone dislikes bad movies. But this really doesn't take any explaining except to say that calling The Witcher 3- or any of the series- 'a bad game' is unreasonable regardless of how one feels about it.

And there are some pretty hilarious expectations coming out from detractors. Most of it reads like someone who picked up a romance book hoping it'd be an action book, and then were disappointed that the book wasn't an action book.

No shit, Sherlock.
 

Colonel Sanders

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 26, 2001
Messages
4,608
Yup.

It's a good game, whether any particular person likes it or not.

Movies aren't any different; not everyone likes good movies, and not everyone dislikes bad movies. But this really doesn't take any explaining except to say that calling The Witcher 3- or any of the series- 'a bad game' is unreasonable regardless of how one feels about it.

And there are some pretty hilarious expectations coming out from detractors. Most of it reads like someone who picked up a romance book hoping it'd be an action book, and then were disappointed that the book wasn't an action book.

No shit, Sherlock.

Pfft, typical SJW, just trying to silence any and all opposing views!! /s :D
 

CookieFactory

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
320
I’ve owned Witcher 3 for a few years now and I’ve struggled to reach 30 hours. It’s a good game that seemingly ticks all the boxes but at the same time feels very cookie-cutter and soul-less. I find myself playing the game out of a sense of obligation (maybe sunk cost fallacy), and guilt (almost universally praised) rather than any eagerness to experience what happens next.
 

Denpepe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
1,795
I’ve owned Witcher 3 for a few years now and I’ve struggled to reach 30 hours. It’s a good game that seemingly ticks all the boxes but at the same time feels very cookie-cutter and soul-less. I find myself playing the game out of a sense of obligation (maybe sunk cost fallacy), and guilt (almost universally praised) rather than any eagerness to experience what happens next.

I really like the game story wise, the graphics, the mediëval setting, the controls however are clunky, lot's of fiddling to get in the right spot even with kb/mouse and the combat is imo somewhat uninspired but I can forgive that because of the good things. I don't play the gwent subgame though. Finished the game 2ce, second time was with the 2 DLC's, I did find the secong one in toussaint pretty meh while I see lot's of people saying how great it is, the last bit of it was pretty brutal in difficulty imo compared to the rest of the game.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,937
Yup.

It's a good game, whether any particular person likes it or not.

Movies aren't any different; not everyone likes good movies, and not everyone dislikes bad movies. But this really doesn't take any explaining except to say that calling The Witcher 3- or any of the series- 'a bad game' is unreasonable regardless of how one feels about it.

And there are some pretty hilarious expectations coming out from detractors. Most of it reads like someone who picked up a romance book hoping it'd be an action book, and then were disappointed that the book wasn't an action book.

No shit, Sherlock.
Nope,

I though we moved past this "my opinion is right, yours is wrong" bullshit.

Stop throwing out cliches and generalizations, and start writing concrete things. What expectations were hilarious? Isn't Witcher3 an RPG?

There are no objectively good games unless we define a metric by which we're judging it. There are liked games and disliked games. I can probably find dozens of faults in my favorite game, that doesn't mean I hate it. So this notion that you can only speak praise of a game is ridiculous.

Let me ask again. Why is it a problem that I posted about what issues I had with the game so far? Isn't the topic about discussing the game? Some people seem unable to take it
 
Last edited:

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,937
Just to be clear, I absolutely love all 3 games, so I am biased that I think the game was great but, 1 thing stood out to me.

I don't give two fuck if my friends are nagging me to buy a game or game series game I don't like. I mean thats like saying "my friends nagged me to jump off the cliff into the water because its safe!

Seriously that to me is your own damn fault for buying the game. Then coming on here to complain about a game you didn't want to buy, I mean you went into the game knowing you probably wouldn't like it?

Don't get me wrong I think the Witcher series isn't for everyone, I even have a few friends that dislike it, but I mean man if you don't like a game dont get pressured into buying something because your friends were nagging you. Specially knowing you won't like it..

I mean if that was the case I would own all of the Call of Duty games after COD4.

Just my 0.02c
I'm not going to write down any game without actually seeing it for myself. Why would I assume they were lying about the game? I was told it was different than the first two. I found that it is not so different. So what? The world didn't end. The only people upset are the residents in this topic who think it is a personal attack on them when someone doesn't like their precious game.
I went into it, expecting a different game than the first two, and hoping that I'd like it more. I never said it was all bad, there were some things I liked in it. And I didn't outright hate it.

Instead of attacking me for not saying the game is the best thing ever, and high fiving each other on how well they told me off, they should address my actual issues with the game, because I'm sick and tired of this pointless turd flinging.
 

Dayaks

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
8,288
Holy hell you guys are still going on?

In other news I can’t wait to continue this game with a 2080ti. Kappa.

I stopped in this thread hoping to hear about mods, ect. 3440x1440 here so I should be able to crank settings.

I know you used to be able to modify a .ini to add thicker grass but I think that was disabled.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,937
...was an objectively bad release. And you know I enjoyed the game.
Objectively bad, based on what metric? If you want to define good as popular, by all means go ahead, then yes witcher 3 is good, and mea is bad. But then good is just a pseudonym for popular, I don't see a point in doing that.
 
Top