Is The Witcher 3 overrated?

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I mean, you can do both, and objective doesn't go quite to the extreme that Jim Sterling did with the FF13 one.

To take examples from this thread:

Objective : A horse's ass clipping through the person you're talking to in a dialogue sequence is unintended behavior and detrimental to the presentation. Background dialogue repeats a significant amount. Combat systems don't innovate on basic established formulas.

Subjective : Geralt is a boring piece of cardboard. The game is less interesting because it focuses on a character drama rather then epic monster battles. Side quests cause a distracting dissonance with the main narrative.

Or if we take the same point:

Objective : Combat relies on familiar systems with few unique concepts to the game
Subjective : Combat is awful because its not an original innovation, thereby its terrible.

There's a mix of both no doubt, but the subjective elements are going to dominant how much you enjoyed a game. The majority of the people that loved Witcher 3 obviously loved the writing, which is highly subjective. Even combat is highly subjective. Sure, you can explain the combat system and how it works but how good combat usually is comes down to how it feels most of the time. I find the best critiques of gameplay starting with a subjective statement then using objective statements explaining why it works or doesn't work.

And when reviewers don?t or can?t argue their case worth a shit it makes outlier scores appear less credible.

This ties into ?games as art?, because it?s far more convenient and understandable to be subjective about movies, books, music, etc. than it is for something interactive with its own unique set of qualities. A movie could be a mess and still be considered art and consumed according to taste, but if a game plays like crap it will be considered broken by anyone?s standards.

Games elevate criticism beyond taste more than any other medium because they are more of a product than anything. Stuff like how well a story or soundtrack resonates from player to player could be considered and judged more subjectively, but the interactive element introduces a completely different dynamic that calls for a more rational approach. I wouldn?t say a game plays like shit and rate it a 3/10 because it used hand-drawn animation vs motion capture, but on the other hand I could criticize the use of canned animations vs a dedicated physics system.

But games have amounts of writing usually lengthier than a movie, they have acting, they have music. RPGs like Witcher 3 usually hinge on how good the writing is. Even most games that aren't RPGs still have more writing than a movie. On the rare occasion that a game does have a riveting story and engaging characters, it elevates the experience so much. Sure if you make a game that's just something like Rocket League, it's all gameplay and that's perfectly fine. However, most games attempt movie quality stories and characters while failing pretty bad in that regard. So, again, how are all these games 8s & 9s out of 10 when you can easily imagine just about all of them being so much better?

There's definitely more objectivity in games vs movies but as I said just above this, gameplay is still dominated by subjectivity. For example, some people just don't like the simplicity of the Arkham combat system. Or the fact that say health-regen might work great for one shooter but ruin another shooter. Regardless of how functional something is, you can still either love it or hate it for legit reasons.

 

[stroopwafel]

Betteridge's Law of Headlines: Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered with the word 'no'.

You would probably have been better served by stating that 'The Witcher 3 is overrated' in the title, rather than asking everyone's opinions and then in the OP telling them that they're wrong.

"How did you like The Witcher 3?"
"No"...

"Hmm, ok. So, what did you like about The Witcher 3?"
"No"...

"I see... So, how over-rated would you consider The Witcher 3 to be?"
"No"...


*Quietly leaves thread*

 

[stroopwafel]

But games have amounts of writing usually lengthier than a movie, they have acting, they have music. RPGs like Witcher 3 usually hinge on how good the writing is. Even most games that aren't RPGs still have more writing than a movie. On the rare occasion that a game does have a riveting story and engaging characters, it elevates the experience so much.

Exactly this. When stories tied to specific quests in TW3 get good, it gets really good. But there is simply soooo much of it and most of it is unengaging and you are just hoping for a twist or unexpected turn(which does happen a few times). Like I previously said, the quality of the writing is excellent but there is simply too much of it and getting to the good parts requires a lot of patience. I understand that if you enjoyed all the dialogue TW3 must be heaven. I personally just wished they kept the best 30% of the story and made the rest of the game more exploration focused and not an interactive book as I do really love the world of The Witcher.

 

[stroopwafel]

I mean, you can do both, and objective doesn't go quite to the extreme that Jim Sterling did with the FF13 one.

To take examples from this thread:

Objective : A horse's ass clipping through the person you're talking to in a dialogue sequence is unintended behavior and detrimental to the presentation. Background dialogue repeats a significant amount. Combat systems don't innovate on basic established formulas.

Subjective : Geralt is a boring piece of cardboard. The game is less interesting because it focuses on a character drama rather then epic monster battles. Side quests cause a distracting dissonance with the main narrative.

Or if we take the same point:

Objective : Combat relies on familiar systems with few unique concepts to the game
Subjective : Combat is awful because its not an original innovation, thereby its terrible.

There's a mix of both no doubt, but the subjective elements are going to dominant how much you enjoyed a game. The majority of the people that loved Witcher 3 obviously loved the writing, which is highly subjective. Even combat is highly subjective. Sure, you can explain the combat system and how it works but how good combat usually is comes down to how it feels most of the time. I find the best critiques of gameplay starting with a subjective statement then using objective statements explaining why it works or doesn't work.

And when reviewers don?t or can?t argue their case worth a shit it makes outlier scores appear less credible.

This ties into "games as art", because it's far more convenient and understandable to be subjective about movies, books, music, etc. than it is for something interactive with its own unique set of qualities. A movie could be a mess and still be considered art and consumed according to taste, but if a game plays like crap it will be considered broken by anyone?s standards.

Games elevate criticism beyond taste more than any other medium because they are more of a product than anything. Stuff like how well a story or soundtrack resonates from player to player could be considered and judged more subjectively, but the interactive element introduces a completely different dynamic that calls for a more rational approach. I wouldn't say a game plays like shit and rate it a 3/10 because it used hand-drawn animation vs motion capture, but on the other hand I could criticize the use of canned animations vs a dedicated physics system.

But games have amounts of writing usually lengthier than a movie, they have acting, they have music. RPGs like Witcher 3 usually hinge on how good the writing is. Even most games that aren't RPGs still have more writing than a movie. On the rare occasion that a game does have a riveting story and engaging characters, it elevates the experience so much. Sure if you make a game that's just something like Rocket League, it's all gameplay and that's perfectly fine. However, most games attempt movie quality stories and characters while failing pretty bad in that regard. So, again, how are all these games 8s & 9s out of 10 when you can easily imagine just about all of them being so much better?

There's definitely more objectivity in games vs movies but as I said just above this, gameplay is still dominated by subjectivity. For example, some people just don't like the simplicity of the Arkham combat system. Or the fact that say health-regen might work great for one shooter but ruin another shooter. Regardless of how functional something is, you can still either love it or hate it for legit reasons.

Fair enough. I'll revise my statement to "constructive/rational subjectivity" can be ok over matters of personal taste, but generally not when applied to review scoring. IE, one could hate TW3's story, but docking review points just because they despise the setting or time period would be non-constructive and irrational.

 

[jademunky]

The game would have been infinitely better without the self-insert eternal void of charisma that is geralt voiced by a monotone radiator covered in dirty wet flannels. It's the one gaping huge crack of suspension of disbelief running through the entire experience. Everyone else can be seen as characters inhabiting this lovely world but him. At every single turn it is the one sole problem reminding me this is just a game being voiced by actors reading lines, penetrating every scene like a missed Rolex watch in a Victorian period drama. I adored the moments when, at long last, I could be Ciri and shake off the mortally dull chains of this monotone self-insert Mary Sue... finally! But then it's not a moment before they pull you back to Sir Dullolewanksalone.

Think of him like Mad Max or Alice from "Alice in Wonderland." Even though he is the titular character, it is not really about him. Geralt is just some glorified exterminator there to show you, the player, the world and introduce you to the characters within.

 

[NerfedFalcon]

Betteridge's Law of Headlines: Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered with the word 'no'.

You would probably have been better served by stating that 'The Witcher 3 is overrated' in the title, rather than asking everyone's opinions and then in the OP telling them that they're wrong.

"How did you like The Witcher 3?"
"No"...

"Hmm, ok. So, what did you like about The Witcher 3?"
"No"...

"I see... So, how over-rated would you consider The Witcher 3 to be?"
"No"...


*Quietly leaves thread*

Betteridge's Law refers to yes-or-no questions, like "does chocolate increase your risk of cancer?". I apologise for not making that clear.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Think of him like Mad Max or Alice from "Alice in Wonderland." Even though he is the titular character, it is not really about him. Geralt is just some glorified exterminator there to show you, the player, the world and introduce you to the characters within.

There's more to him than that. I didn't notice it at first, but there's kind of this sadness to his character in that he's basically a problem solver that never seems to really be able to help anyone. Most of the sidequests involve you cleaning up after something awful, or coming up with a solution that spells doom for someone else. And Geralt's portrayal shows this tired acceptance of the world he lives in.

So yeah, I quite like Geralt in this game. Sure, he's the typical stoic, silent, gruff guy, but he fits neatly within his role, and his personality comes through.

 

[jademunky]

I didn't notice it at first, but there's kind of this sadness to his character in that he's basically a problem solver that never seems to really be able to help anyone. Most of the sidequests involve you cleaning up after something awful, or coming up with a solution that spells doom for someone else.

Yeah, there is that too. So wot with the deep-down-sadness, a better comparison might be to a slightly gentler version of Judge Dredd.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

I mean everything's subjective but I think on an objective level there's a degree of craftsmanship in Witcher 3 that's unprecedented in other games in its genre. It's a technical marvel for the amount of custom cinematic animation alone. Obviously not everything in it is going to be to everyone's taste, but I'd take issue with it being called "overrated" because I feel like its strengths are pretty apparent even if it's not your cup of tea.

 

[stroopwafel]

I've gotten back into it and while it certainly has its flaws, there is a distinct charm about its gameplay that makes me want to keep playing. I personally think it plays incredibly smoothly, which doesn't happen often with open world RPGs. I've also grown to interpret the combat as intentionally being on the simple side. This series was a collection of character-driven fantasy novels first, and the action feels like it was designed to support that aim without becoming overwrought in the play mechanics. The inventory system, more specifically with respect to alchemy follows suit in being excessively detailed yet still very simple in terms of its execution.

It's something you can only thoroughly enjoy if you're engaged with the narrative, and engrossed in your role as Geralt of Rivia.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

When stories tied to specific quests in TW3 get good, it gets really good. But there is simply soooo much of it and most of it is unengaging and you are just hoping for a twist or unexpected turn(which does happen a few times). Like I previously said, the quality of the writing is excellent but there is simply too much of it and getting to the good parts requires a lot of patience. I understand that if you enjoyed all the dialogue TW3 must be heaven. I personally just wished they kept the best 30% of the story and made the rest of the game more exploration focused and not an interactive book as I do really love the world of The Witcher.

I would say that I'm not in a right position to fully comment on Witcher 3's writing because I didn't play the first 2 games and there was about a year break I took when I initially probably played at least 20 hours or so and then picked the game back up to finish it. So quite a bit of character stuff and certain details went over my head for sure and I just chalked up parts where I wasn't engaged to basically that. However, there was definitely some great questlines and character moments. The one aspect of the writing I was definitely disappointed with was the main quest basically devolved into not just a "save the world" plot but literally "save every world" plot.

I would love for CDPR to do a game where Ciri is the main character where she's basically like Doctor Who constantly going from one world to another solving some sorta problem that pops up. So every world can be drastically different in not only in time period and technology but of course encountering vastly different races of people. Then, of course, every sorta "chapter" could be basically a new fish-out-of-water story due to Ciri always trying to figure out the new world she's in.

Fair enough. I'll revise my statement to "constructive/rational subjectivity" can be ok over matters of personal taste, but generally not when applied to review scoring. IE, one could hate TW3's story, but docking review points just because they despise the setting or time period would be non-constructive and irrational.

You definitely can't just write off a game because of the setting but your inherent bias will probably affect your enjoyment and affect the score even unconsciously. I'm pretty tired of medieval fantasy myself because it's show overdone. A fantasy world can literally be anything you can imagine and we kept exploring the same time period with the same fantasy elements and races for the most part. I'd love CDPR to make a game as I quickly detailed right above with Ciri as the main character exploring different worlds like a Doctor Who. Even with my dislike for medieval fantasy, Witcher 3 was really engaging from a story and character perspective. I wonder if the reasons for a person's general dislike of certain settings comes more from the types of stories and character tropes tied to those settings vs the settings themselves.

Back to your point about objectivity, I think there's something more to it but of course, proving it in any manner would be really difficult (and sorta like an hbomberguy Bloodborne is Genius video basically). For example, I don't think really anyone finds Witcher 3's combat great and the best compliments I really see anyone give it are that it's either "fine" or didn't detract from the enjoyment of the game. So can you claim/prove Witcher 3 combat objectively not great for example? On the flip-side, a game like Bayonetta basically has a consensus saying it's arguably the best combat system in its genre so does that mean its combat is objectively great? And if you were to put Bayo's combat into Witcher 3, logically that would seem like that would make Witcher 3 objectively a better game. But I'm guessing most people would find it worse than Witcher 3's combat just because it totally doesn't fit the game. Thus, the whole push for objectiveness with game reviews sorta has sense and logic behind it while also not making any logical sense. It is a near consensus that certain shooters, platformers, combat systems feel right while others don't like no one thinks Uncharted has great shooting for example. The objectiveness thing is a conundrum basically.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I've gotten back into it and while it certainly has its flaws, there is a distinct charm about its gameplay that makes me want to keep playing. I personally think it plays incredibly smoothly, which doesn't happen often with open world RPGs. I've also grown to interpret the combat as intentionally being on the simple side. This series was a collection of character-driven fantasy novels first, and the action feels like it was designed to support that aim without becoming overwrought in the play mechanics. The inventory system, more specifically with respect to alchemy follows suit in being excessively detailed yet still very simple in terms of its execution.

It's something you can only thoroughly enjoy if you're engaged with the narrative, and engrossed in your role as Geralt of Rivia.

And if you're on PC and you want a challenge, you can install The Witcher 3 Enhanced Edition mod that basically turns the game into Dark Souls. Although it does give you A LOT of options to customize the difficulty and other gameplay aspects. As far as I'm concerned that mod is essential.

 

[stroopwafel]

I've gotten back into it and while it certainly has its flaws, there is a distinct charm about its gameplay that makes me want to keep playing. I personally think it plays incredibly smoothly, which doesn't happen often with open world RPGs. I've also grown to interpret the combat as intentionally being on the simple side. This series was a collection of character-driven fantasy novels first, and the action feels like it was designed to support that aim without becoming overwrought in the play mechanics. The inventory system, more specifically with respect to alchemy follows suit in being excessively detailed yet still very simple in terms of its execution.

It's something you can only thoroughly enjoy if you're engaged with the narrative, and engrossed in your role as Geralt of Rivia.

And if you're on PC and you want a challenge, you can install The Witcher 3 Enhanced Edition mod that basically turns the game into Dark Souls. Although it does give you A LOT of options to customize the difficulty and other gameplay aspects. As far as I'm concerned that mod is essential.

Is it a third party mod? Usually those are from the developer but maybe it?s part of the GotY Edition on Steam. I?m playing on one difficulty down from the highest for a first playthrough. I do notice some enemies even being a few levels higher than me being a pretty big jump up. Those rabid dogs on an early quest gave me some trouble, but thanks to a robust save system backtracking wasn?t an issue.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Is it a third party mod?

Yes. But it's pretty damn robust. It changes almost every aspect of gameplay. Combat, signs, alchemy, meditation, economy, looting system, some animations and visual effects etc. It changes and adds a ton of stuff. It also fixes quite a few bugs that were never addressed in the original game: https://www.nexusmods.com/witcher3/mods/2521

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Is it a third party mod?

Yes. But it's pretty damn robust. It changes almost every aspect of gameplay. Combat, signs, alchemy, meditation, economy, looting system, some animations and visual effects etc. It changes and adds a ton of stuff. It also fixes quite a few bugs that were never addressed in the original game: https://www.nexusmods.com/witcher3/mods/2521

From the looks of it (watching a video and skimming through the text), it doesn't seem to change the "feel" of the combat or remove some of the most unbalanced aspects. I read nothing about Quen and Axii being nerfed as they are so OP in the base game. The mod is not going to change the lackluster bigger monster fights as the monsters are boring to fight because they only have like 3 different attacks and they just aren't designed and animated to fight like a real monster would. Half the reason why games with great combat have great combat is because the enemies are fun to fight.

 

[Timedraven 117]

I also wanted to learn more about the world and the creatures in it, but unfortunately the game heavily lacks in those features and I'm easily distracted with other games so I couldn't find the will to invest more than 10 hours into the game to start with.

Er, what? You know there's a codex journal, right? With probably triple digits of entries for every character and monster you fight, most with multiple paragraphs of text.

Sorry, don't know why Escapist doesn't let me know when I'm qouted anymore.

Anyways, yes that is true. but its still not enough. Especially for many of the monsters you fight there's just so little to know about them. I really wanted to know more about the necrophages most of all.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

From the looks of it (watching a video and skimming through the text), it doesn't seem to change the "feel" of the combat or remove some of the most unbalanced aspects. I read nothing about Quen and Axii being nerfed as they are so OP in the base game.

The mod changes far too many things to list every change in the description. It's definitely more balanced, but you also need to "git gud" because it requires a much greater focus from the player during combat. You can't just spam fast attacks and hope to win. And you'll need to be smarter with your money as well. But almost every aspect of the mod can also be customized to your liking in the mod menu so you can make it as easy or as difficult as you want.

Read the changelog to get an idea of how much stuff the mod adds and changes. Quen and Axii are definitely nerfed. The skills have been changed almost entirely. Also, the mod author added cute little details. If you try to cast quen in the water or you enter the water with active quen you get electrocuted to death
Also you can kill drowners with Aard underwater with this mod.

 

[stroopwafel]

This mod sounds like it could actually make the game highly replayable, which as good as the first two were I never devoted the time to doing so with. I want to play through the base game once just because, but could definitely see tinkering with this on future playthrough?s if I don?t get tired of it. I guess my main issue is finding time. I could easily play through this series again but there are still quite a few other games I want to get through first.

Anyways, a question on quests: if you fail one, can you retry it or do you have to start a new playthrough or reload an old save? I waited too long to save some sick woman early on and didn?t realize it would result in a fail. RPG replayability is tough when they?re so massive with so many things to do and dialog to listen to. I like being able to do everything in one playthrough with the option to replay individual quests at any time.

As simple as the combat is, there is still a nice rhythm to it. I stumbled into a lvl 12 quest when I was still at 3 and had to kill around half dozen nekkers. They were easy enough to bait one on one, but then they started to erratically flank me, which really put the dodge mechanic to good use. Dare I say it felt better than some of Bloodborne?s fights where you have to similarly dodge against a group of smaller enemies. Geralt is quite nimble in his old age.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Anyways, a question on quests: if you fail one, can you retry it or do you have to start a new playthrough or reload an old save?

No retries. It wouldn't be much of a living world or much of an RPG if your choices didn't matter and if characters came back to life just so you could complete a minor quest.

As for the W3EE mod, yeah it's probably a good idea to wait for another playthrough. You'd have to start a new game anyway because of the way that leveling works. There are also other things that wouldn't fit perfectly into an existing save. It's a complete gameplay overhaul, after all.

 

[stroopwafel]

Anyways, a question on quests: if you fail one, can you retry it or do you have to start a new playthrough or reload an old save?

No retries. It wouldn't be much of a living world or much of an RPG if your choices didn't matter and if characters came back to life just so you could complete a minor quest.

As for the W3EE mod, yeah it's probably a good idea to wait for another playthrough. You'd have to start a new game anyway because of the way that leveling works. There are also other things that wouldn't fit perfectly into an existing save. It's a complete gameplay overhaul, after all.

Interesting that fans did the ?EE? this time. I suppose CDPR felt their own version wasn?t really needed this time around. In any case, it?s good to have the option, even if the game is already very well done and fun as it is. The increase in quality over the course of three games is pretty substantial, and I?m of the rare opinion that the original was still decently playable.