Gwent is fine. Some people just don't like it because they're completionists but also don't want to play a card game to complete everything, more of a self-imposed dislike than the fact its actually bad. Its 100% optional in game even.Errickfoxy said:
Combat in the game is also rather simple and lacking depth, mostly due to balance issues more than anything. Using the shield and then fighting normally allows you to overcome all enemies in game with ease, even if they're twice your level.
There's also just so much stuff its fairly easy to get fatigued. Some interface elements are also clunky, as is the horse, and certain design mistakes, some of which have been fixed like the no stash to store your stuff, made playing painful at times.
Otherwise, by and large most things it does right, and more right than other companies. Its why its so acclaimed. Doesn't mean it is the sort of game everyone will enjoy, but what it does it does damn well.
For one, true passion for their work. They are probably treated quite well by the company, and The Witcher series is part of Polish Heritage in a way, so it is something they are probably fairly invested in, and want to bring to the world.K12 said:
Some other Developers have this, however what I feel also contributes to separating CD PR from the rest of the games market is the combination of AAA backing and experience, with the understanding and goal of creating a niche product, rather than a flavour-of-the-month product that most AAA studios try to push out.
This allows them to focus on making a polished, cohesive experience, and gives them to desire to do so. Companies like Bioware have had the passion before, and at times have wanted to either make a niche game but lacked AAA backing, or had AAA backing but no longer wanted to make a niche game. Additionally, technology marches ever forward, and what we know about game design, and the tools game designers have and gamers have to play these games on are far more advanced than what was around when, say, Baldur's Gate or Mass Effect were made.
Eh, had this sort of discussion before and I think we'll have to agree to disagree, but Bethesda games suck for Role Playing. They're great for sandbox, like an actual sandbox is, but as good for roleplaying as an empty sandbox all alone as well.Tiamat666 said:
In Bethesda games, there's no feedback. There's no opportunities to allow you to really define your character, or have the world at all recognise who your character is. It is much like playing a game of Dungeons and Dragons where the DM refuses to acknowledge your character's existence. You can kill all the goblins you want, but that's about it. You can boast to the guard and try and be a really arrogant prick, he'll still just say "I used to be an adventurer like you, then I took an arrow to the knee".
Games like Witcher or Bioware allow you more roleplaying in that you get to actually define your character somewhat, and the world will react to it. Decide to be a highly pragmatic Shepard? You'll be faced with choices as to whether you save the Council or not, whether to kill the terrorist or save civilians - ect. I allows you to express your character, rather than just imagine them. In the Witcher you can define who Geralt is as a person. Is he merciless and cruel like Witchers supposedly are, is he more human and cares more. Where does he draw the line. There are times when you are given the chance to show this, and even though he is a pre-made character, you can still role-play him well, as roleplay doesn't mean to just imagine something happening, it means to put yourself in the shoes of a character - maybe you made them up, maybe you didn't - and take on their role, making their decisions as them, not yourself.
To me its the difference between lying in bed imagining you're someone else and doing things, and playing a game of D&D where the DM will throw things at your character that force you to make a decision, and then have the others in the game react to what you did. Of course, D&D is great because it has the perfect freedom of a sandbox, like Bethesda games, as well as the depth and ability to respond to your characters, like Bioware/Witcher. All in all though, both games only have one side of this in full, so I don't really think you can call out Bethesda as being the better Role Playing Games, or offering more choice. Neither really gives the full role playing experience, which half of it you prefer is more to personal tastes than an objective measure.
On the systems side of things, I'd say Witcher's crafting is more detailed than, say, Skyrim. Neither of them are especially deep or complex to be quite honest.
Sleeping is in Witcher in the form of Meditation.
Witcher in my experience has as much of a faction system as Skyrim, which is to say next to none.
Both have real and complex NPC schedules, I would not at all call Skyrim's better in this regard.
Both have a levelling system, Witcher's IMO contains more depth due to the inclusion of Mutagens and how you use them.
Equipment system is not more varied in Skyrim, it is more varied in Witcher 3.
There are a couple of extra systems in the likes of Skyrim, but there are also some systems Witcher has that Skyrim doesn't - such as Witcher senses, or Gwent. On the technical side of things, I'd have to say Witcher is probably the more complex technically, as in addition to its extra gameplay systems, the extra graphics systems in play also would take a lot of complexity to make. The big reason Bethesda aren't able to do something like Witcher is 1. No-one at Bethesda can write dialogue at an at all respectable level, and 2. They refuse to leave the Gamebryo engine, even if they do update and rebrand it every now and then, which has been showing its limitations for a decade, without doing a ton of work to update it, and 3. Even when they do update it, their programmers are a bunch of apes, and as a company they're renowned for how buggy their releases are.
