What does NMA think about The Witcher 3?

Discussion in 'General Gaming and Hardware Forum' started by Mko, Jul 14, 2015.

  1. Avallach

    Avallach Ayreonaut

    153
    Aug 11, 2009
    Urm, I take it you've never read a single Witcher book or something about the lore? They've actually used the very same swordsman for motion capture like in TW1. The reason his fighting style is so "swinging" and dancery/spinny is because a lot of the monsters that witchers fight are too strong to parry with any weapon or counter, or employ unconventional fighting methods (wraiths being ethereal for example). Most of the time witchers have to dodge attacks or wrap around enemies using pirouettes because of this. This is why their fighting style is more like a dance than anything else.

    Think of it this way, witchers are the equivalent of jedi. The light saber need only touch the opponent in order to do do damage and therefore maximizing agility and dexterity in your fighting style is more important. The silver sword need only touch the 'flesh' of magical creatures in the witcher world in order to do damage, and so witchers fight in a dexterous extravagant manner similar to the jedi.

    Witchers try not to fight humans which is why this style of fighting is very risky and might look odd to people outside the witcher combat expertise but witcher senses and reflexes allow them to time attacks so precisely that they can afford to put all their momentum into a spinning attack. The actual reason for the spinning attacks etc. itself is because witchers usually only strike after a successful pirouette dodge (The book Blood of Elves describes this in detail).

    If anything, the way Geralt fights in TW2 and TW3 is actually much more faithul to the original source (the Witcher saga books). It's really supposed to be like that, which is why you see the key difference between how normal soldiers/guards fight and when you or other Witchers battle.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2015
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  2. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Half-way Through My Half-life

    Nov 26, 2007
    Jumps or jump points? In Witcher 2 there were plenty of places where Geralt could climb up or jump off of a ledge, but these were location specific mini cutscenes of him climbing or jumping; scarcely different than when he walked through doorways. It was a different kind of door, and not the same thing as jumping on demand.
     
  3. Avallach

    Avallach Ayreonaut

    153
    Aug 11, 2009
    No, you can jump pretty much freely now. There are even some secret areas that are usually/only acessible by jumping over some obstacles that block the way below etc.
     
  4. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Half-way Through My Half-life

    Nov 26, 2007
    Sounds cool then.

    That is not the point of the post. The actual animation is great in all of the games, it is the use of that animation by the game mechanics that is the issue. Geralt is an expert swordsman, yet in a fight to the death ~in W2, he will happily swing at trees instead of his enemies, if that's what's in front of him. That's out of character for a professional fighter; an 'immurshun' breaker, as some might call it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2015
  5. Avallach

    Avallach Ayreonaut

    153
    Aug 11, 2009
    Oh crap, I probably didn't read your post properly before I went on a rant. Major apologies for that. :grin:

    What did you mean by swinging at trees instead of enemies though? Like he sometimes doesn't lock on the enemies and instead attacks something else?
     
  6. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Half-way Through My Half-life

    Nov 26, 2007
    It's actually the exact same difference between Fallout and FO3; where in Fallout, the PC does their [personal] best to attack & defend against their opponents; while in FO3, the PC merely aims for whatever happens to be in front of them.

    IE. In a shooter, I would want either pixel perfect aiming ~or accurate [physics based] aiming; but never that in an RPG... RPGs are [supposed to be] about characters, and how they would fair in their given situations. In an RPG I would only want character based accuracy that depicts how the character would manage in situ [win or lose, landslide or Pyrrhic victory ~or loss]. If that's what some consider an 'aim-bot' then yes that's precisely what I would want in an RPG, provided its performance was based on the PC's stats and skills; else why bother with the character at all, or the pretense of being an RPG, and playing a limited PC?
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2015
  7. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    It is a niche gameplay I guess. With stats that dictate success or failure. But I guess you can't have that, if you want to sell your game to a broader audience, as they will constantly complain about how their character isn't doing what they want, rather than to play with the limitations they chose for their characters.

    I can see the benefits of both approaches. And honestly, I feel the combat in W1 was better than W2, albeit, the animations have been better in W2. But, that is not tied to the gameplay.

    Have you ever played the game Drakensang? Not that shitty MMO Drakensang online. I mean the singleplayer RPG Drakensang 1 and 2. Really a neat little German game, I can only recomend it. Even if it's not perfect. But, it is what I feel TW2 and 3 should have been, from the combat at least. Or well, Witcher should have at least gone in that direction. What I really liked about it, was that it contained difficult combat, but it gave your fighters the right abilities and skills to deal with it. You could defeat even strong enemies with relatively few hits, by causing wounds, certain attacks had a chance to cause them. With enough wounds, depending on the type of enemy, they would loose, even if they had still some health left. The same was also true for your fighters! If I remember correctly. TW1 was somewhat similar in that respect, with effects like bleeding, blindness, fire etc.

    Now that I am thinking about it, I really should play the game again at some point! Drakensang 1 and Drakensang River of Time are really neat little gems.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2015
  8. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Half-way Through My Half-life

    Nov 26, 2007
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  9. TheVaultKeeper

    TheVaultKeeper Deliciously Demented

    127
    Apr 22, 2007
    I have to give you props for mentioning Raymond Maarloeve, that was such a well designed character and questline. I absolutely loved how the game kept toying with you (the player) and gave you little taunts like "your medallion is humming". I didn't much care for the combat in witcher 1 but that right there was what sold me on the entire witcher universe and made me read the books and everything.

    The other quest line was Beauty and the Beast.... "tough cop, whore from the slums, true love. Love that overcomes a powerful curse, a fairy tale". When the rest of the world is so dark and grim and you actually manage to do something good in it, it just makes it stand out all the more. That's maybe something I lack in Witcher 3. In Witcher 3 most things are grey, neither right or wrong. I think if you occasionally get a quest where you actually manage to do real good with a clear ending it makes the rest of the world's greyness all the more focused.

    "The word “happiness” would lose its meaning if it were not balanced by sadness" - Carl Gustav Jung

    But it works the other way too, sadness is meaningless without happiness. And "greyness" is nothing without the context of the possibility of happiness or sadness.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2015
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  10. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Honestly, I can't tell, I never played RoA (Realms of Arkania: Blade of Destiny?). But they are based on the same system I guess, the Dark Eye, which is in my opinion a very solid RPG system, made to satisfy the need for PnP tabletop games, but with a German touch.

    And at least River of Time gave you plenty of oportunities to actually display that. I think there was even a situation with a banket where your character could use his skills in social interactions. And Drakensang River of Time is actually a prequel to Drakensang 1. In the first game you actually investigated the death of Aardo, who was mentioned in the intro of River of Time. Though, just to warn you, while I personaly think both games are solid as far as RPGs goes, it is your standart fantasy setting for the most part, so it's not Planescape level of writing, and probably not as unique like Gothic. But you can really see that the developers have created the game with a lot of passion. It's really the small details.

    If you really get to play them, tell me how you like them! I am really curious.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2015
  11. Ilosar

    Ilosar Vault Fossil

    Apr 20, 2010
    Thank the heavens for the jump button in TW3. TW2 nearly drove me mad with its contextual rock climbing that didn't work half the freaking time. Same with contextual door opening and its awful QTEs, that you could mercifully make meaningless.

    I'll give props to CDPR for making a good DLC, however. Hearts of Stone clocks at a good 10 hours if you complete its associated side-quests, and the story pretty decent. For less than 10$, that's a good deal.
     
  12. Gaddes

    Gaddes Look, Ma! Two Heads!

    381
    May 18, 2010
    I enjoyed The Witcher 3. I played it on PS4 and found it to be massively enjoyable. I do need to go back and finish it though.
     
  13. 13pm

    13pm Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    831
    Apr 10, 2007
    I loved TW1 when it came out. It was full of flaws (ah, those swamps), but the atmosphere, the world were amazing. The quests were nice too.
    TW2 was a huge disappointment for me: it looked and worked as a console port, which mainly ruined it for me. The quests were mostly meh. Also, CDPR took the idea of "branching storyline" a bit too far, to my opinion. I've never replayed the game to see the other side if the story. Though, it could be because of the overall boring gameplay. The music also took a different direction and lost its soul.

    TW3 is a hybrid of these two. Gameplay-wise it's closer to TW2: same movements, camera, combat, "shortened" dialogue options etc. In terms of atmosphere it is closer to TW1. The story and the quests are the best in the series. And this is why many people actually praise this game.

    What I find particularly funny is that many things that we bash Fallout 4 for, are present in TW3: immortal NPCs, simplified dialogue options, voiced protagonist, poor character development system, grades of items (common, magical, legendary etc). It's a typical modern RPG in these terms.

    However, writing is great for the most part of the game, most quests are interesting, even the smallest ones. Sometimes, you take a small quest, and it turns out to be much larger. Sometimes you have several quests, and you don't know which one to do first, You take one and do it, and then at some point all these quests interconnect and you solve other quests too.
    Your actions have real consequences, and many times it happens after 10-15 hours, so you don't want to load a savegame to fix the situation. Also, there are many situations where you actually have to chose between bad and... bad. It's up to you as a player to decide which outcome is acceptable for you. The game doesn't force any decision on you. Well, it does a couple of times. However, most often, this also comes with some trick. So you always face the consequences of your major decisions.

    The game looks beautiful, and the world is well-crafted. I'm not a big fan of "sandbox" activities, but those are entirely optional.

    So, the bottom line is: surely, there's a lot to bash TW3 for. However, it has great writing, characters and quests, nice atmosphere and many other things that make you forgive the game its flaws. I really enjoyed it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2015
  14. SuAside

    SuAside Testament to the ghoul lifespan
    Admin

    May 27, 2004
    Got TW3 on sale & am now playing it. I was pleasantly surprised. Clearly a lot better than TW2.
    Ofc, it depends on what you expect.
     
  15. eissa

    eissa Altáriel, Lady of Radiant Garland

    Jan 7, 2016
    there is some quest in witcher 3, that is definitely good; but there is also the one that is extremly dull, single staged and fetching type.

    beware folk. you might want to go novigrad first than velen, just to make you ecalated.
     
  16. SuAside

    SuAside Testament to the ghoul lifespan
    Admin

    May 27, 2004
    Euhm, why would you do that? You'd skip ahead of quite a bit of content if you did too many quests in Novigrad before clearing Velen.
     
  17. vdweller84

    vdweller84 First time out of the vault

    64
    Dec 29, 2015
    I think that at some point fuckers will have to include backwards compatibility and stop forcing DX11 because it renders pubes more realistically. This way I will be able to play Witcher 3 and other stuff so that I can have an opinion when others ask me.

    SOMA came last year, played it without a hiccup. Mainstream AAA stuff, no son, first get a $200 GFX card, then we'll talk.
     
  18. Spacemunkey

    Spacemunkey Vault Senior Citizen

    Dec 4, 2015
    After Velen I went right to Skellige for that sweet Skellige armor for me and roach, I thought the quests there were way more fun than Novigrad.
     
  19. eissa

    eissa Altáriel, Lady of Radiant Garland

    Jan 7, 2016
    basically novigrad questline is the least good of alll, it is just not capturing the medieval theme of the game. instead it just focus on like underworld mafia and conspiracy, pretty much modern stuff. you have to think why in this game, every questline is just full of secret room trope. its like every common man can afford to build their own secret dungeon.

    the velen and skellige questline is just nice, because no politic stuff and conspiracy shit. you deal with the whole supernatural force that comes from otherworld or ancient evil that predates man. it really capture what horror is more frightening than monster. that's why i think developer plan of what will be the next expansion; supernatural and evil force without politic element, the heartstone already prove it
     
  20. LonesomeDrifter

    LonesomeDrifter First time out of the vault

    63
    Sep 12, 2013
    I would say - as far as I have played W3, that it's a great game. It takes its time and I like it - treats you like someone who's been through something. The combat is nice, the OST is just tearing it up so good. I could go on with the usual but I'll get right to my point.

    The background story. Now, I've seen a lot of people commenting on how complex the story was in W2, with all the political action taking place in the background and before you, but hell, it's something I loved. It didn't waste time explaining deeply who what was, it took off the notion you understand what you're into (Being the second installment in the game, it would make sense) and continuing from there. It forced you to react quickly based on the knowledge you had at the given moment (The big decision at the end of Chapter 1 - brilliant, especially how they threw in an extra line of doubt to your choice). It had more depth to the world - while Witcher 3 really focuses more on Geralt and his story then that of the surrounding with absurd ways to tie up loose ends (So what, did Radovid just waltz over the mountain and conqured Kaedwen like it was a Sunday's walk through the park? You think I'll believe that?). Also, the portrayal of some reocurring characters shook me hardly - I'd rather I have not met Roche after that, at all.

    Also, there seems to have been a major turn in society, for the words "plough" and "whoreson" to have almost fully vanished. Used to be present in every sentence spoken by any character back in W2. Pity. Still, what I miss is more reasonable political action - but that's just me. Otherwise, great game!