I don't know why I don't like the witcher

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I love every game in the series. But I can understand why a lot of people wouldn't like the first two games, especially in this day and age. They are clunky and they have really weird design choices. Especially the first one.

But I can't for the life of me figure out why people wouldn't like The Witcher 3. It is a perfect open world RPG. It does everything right. They even managed to do something that both Hollywood and the video game industry can't do right - female characters. They're all freakin' amazing. Ciri, Yen and Cerys are some of the most interesting female characters in video games. I'd gladly play a game with any of those three as protagonists.

 

[jklinders]

Eh it happens sometimes, I have this issue with basically every game Bethesda makes. I played about fifteen minutes of Oblivion and Fallout 3 before I lost interest, Skyrim got about 20 hours because it has dragons and that's really the only reason. By all means, I should like them, they have most things in them that I enjoy, I just... don't.

This^^^

Seriously. It's not worth overthinking. I could probably write a small paragraph outlining the reasons I dislike Bethsoft games or other games but that is really not relevant. What is relevant is that for whatever reason you do not like these particular games. Even if you cannot put your finger on why I really see little reason why it would be worth worrying over.

 

[Totenkreuz]

For me I just couldn't get into the story when playing as the main character. I, personally, didn't enjoy the cringeworthy voice and mentality, but thats about everything I could say I disliked in the game as everything else was, if not good, great in terms of story, graphic, soundscape and more.

But that voice, it just ruined the 'whole' experience for me.

Cheers.

 

[visiblenoise]

I felt the same way with the first and second games, so I haven't tried the third. I actually thought the combat in 2 was okay, but I just wasn't drawn in by the story. It felt like it was all really dull politics. Tried to get through the game three times, and the farthest I managed to get was the beginning of act two, before realizing I was not really having fun.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

Can you give specifics as to why you don't like The Witcher? Like are you referring to the third or second game? Was it the combat system? No character creation? Is the open world not so grand in your view.

Second and third game. I don't like the lack of charcter creator, but that dosen't feel like it should be a deal braker. The combat in the 3 game is fine I like how you have to use proper timing to strike and avoid damage. (Spells feel kind of weak though.) It might be the open world? I did find getting around to be a little slow and the game dose make you stop the story to go grind gain some levels.

 

[meiam]

Well the only good things in the games (haven't played the first one though) is the writing (which is very good), everything else is below average to terrible (the guy who decided the enemy and quest level distribution needs to be fired, along with the guy who designed the oil system).

So my recommendation is to look if someone has put up all the cut scene on youtube and just "play" them like that. You're really not missing anything since the combat doesn't evolve over the game and there's no exploration to speak of (yay another sword that handle exactly like every other weapon in the games...).

I cannot for the life of me understand the amount of praise W3 gets. I think it's a combination of people saying it's really good because others say that and the fact that the gameplay is incredibly shallow but seems complex so it gives players a good sense of accomplishment.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

Well the only good things in the games (haven't played the first one though) is the writing (which is very good), everything else is below average to terrible (the guy who decided the enemy and quest level distribution needs to be fired, along with the guy who designed the oil system).

So my recommendation is to look if someone has put up all the cut scene on youtube and just "play" them like that. You're really not missing anything since the combat doesn't evolve over the game and there's no exploration to speak of (yay another sword that handle exactly like every other weapon in the games...).

I cannot for the life of me understand the amount of praise W3 gets. I think it's a combination of people saying it's really good because others say that and the fact that the gameplay is incredibly shallow but seems complex so it gives players a good sense of accomplishment.

I think at least part of the praise is based on the business aspect. People like the weak DRM, free DLC and expansions. I originally bought the witcher 2 because of the lack of DRM. Something like that can be a selling point.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Well, the combat in 3 is definitely underwhelming and dull, and Velen (first major area of the game outside of the tutorial area, White Orchard) is a boring mud-hole (except for the Baron quest-line, which kills). And the pacing really shits the bed in spots (fucking Dandelion, god damn). But the story really makes it all worth it in the end, I thought, and the game definitely picks up once you go to Novigrad and Skellige, and start doing the quests there.

Can't really comment on the other two, haven't really played either that much.

I never understood why people think the combat sucks unless they were spoiled by the Dark Souls series. What exactly made you think the combat was dull?

It plays very similar to Arkham or the Ass Creed games, but it isn't as smooth or responsive. It doesn't grow that much either, once you get the crossbow you have basically all the in-combat tools you will be using for the next 100 hours.

 

[Bombiz]

(the guy who decided the enemy and quest level distribution needs to be fired, along with the guy who designed the oil system).

So my recommendation is to look if someone has put up all the cut scene on youtube and just "play" them like that. You're really not missing anything since the combat doesn't evolve over the game and there's no exploration to speak of (yay another sword that handle exactly like every other weapon in the games...).

I cannot for the life of me understand the amount of praise W3 gets. I think it's a combination of people saying it's really good because others say that and the fact that the gameplay is incredibly shallow but seems complex so it gives players a good sense of accomplishment.

Oil system was bad? Thought it was pretty neat actually. I mean it sure doesn't tale away from the game in any way.
I also feel like i'm the only person who actually like's the gameplay/combat.

 

[NinjaTank56]

I bought the Witcher 2 on sale like a year ago, but never got very far because the tutorial was terrible. It just throws all the combat abilities at you, not telling you which ones you start with or spending enough time with any specific one to make sure you understand it. Also the meditating system was pretty bad (you don't know what fights you need to use potions and stuff for until you start fighting).
So I probably won't buy Witcher 3 any time soon, since I feel weird buying a sequel to a game I own but haven't played more than 3 hours of it...

 

[Jandau]

Eh, I'm the same way with Divinity: Original Sin - in theory it's a game I should adore, but every time I try to play it, it just feels so boring, bland and clunky... And you know what? That's fine. Not everyone has to like everything. And not liking something doesn't make it bad. I recognize D:OS as a solid game, it just doesn't align with my tastes. And that's likely the issue every time you dislike a game but can't really pin down why...

 

[Here Comes Tomorrow]

I couldn't get into either of the first two games.
I think the main problem is the clunky combat. It doesn't click with me. It presents itself as a Fable type action RPG but has no flow or fluidity to the combat.

Also, honestly, I hate the idea of relying on potions to fight. In other RPGs I will generally avoid (actually I just don't bother) using potions/temporary buff items in general, so a game based almost entierly around them is never going to mesh with me.

I dunno why. Maybe I just prefer my characters winning fights on skill or ability alone, or maybe I just don't want to interrupt the flow of combat with dicking around in menus? Maybe I hold every western RPG in comparison to Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines and they all fall short? Who knows?

 

[BreakfastMan]

Well, the combat in 3 is definitely underwhelming and dull, and Velen (first major area of the game outside of the tutorial area, White Orchard) is a boring mud-hole (except for the Baron quest-line, which kills). And the pacing really shits the bed in spots (fucking Dandelion, god damn). But the story really makes it all worth it in the end, I thought, and the game definitely picks up once you go to Novigrad and Skellige, and start doing the quests there.

Can't really comment on the other two, haven't really played either that much.

I never understood why people think the combat sucks unless they were spoiled by the Dark Souls series. What exactly made you think the combat was dull?

It plays very similar to Arkham or the Ass Creed games, but it isn't as smooth or responsive. It doesn't grow that much either, once you get the crossbow you have basically all the in-combat tools you will be using for the next 100 hours.

Really? Well I haven't played Assassin's Creed since the first game let me be clear, but I wouldn't describe it from those two games. I mean you have no button prompt telling you to counter an enemies attack like in Arkham and such.

Well, yeah, there is no obvious "prompt". But there is a mechanic to do just that with human enemies, they just don't telegraph it as obviously.