So that Witcher 3, eh?

aozgolo

New member
Mar 15, 2011
1,033
0
0
I never understood the criticism of Geralt as being wooden or a Mary Sue, he's got a rather iconic personality in my mind, I mean for a monster hunter what kind of personality do you expect? Giddy and wide-eyed and jumping around all excited like? I think the best part about The Witcher games is how you can influence Geralt's personality with your choices, you can be downright altruistic in helping people whether they pay or not, a selfish greedbag who does nothing without some sort of gain, or become a monster yourself and just let "innocent" people die. I also love Geralt's sense of humor, you'll probably never hear him laugh but there's a sense of mirth and wry amusement he finds in many situations that I love, it's a very subtle kind of thing and I think this is where his personality excels. The developers intentionally went with the "less is more" rule (though the original author can also be credited for this) and it works well, I also find his voice actor to be very good at delivering, he hits all the right notes and really feels grounded in this world.
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,651
0
0
Shaun Kennedy said:
I never understood the criticism of Geralt as being wooden or a Mary Sue, he's got a rather iconic personality in my mind, I mean for a monster hunter what kind of personality do you expect? Giddy and wide-eyed and jumping around all excited like? I think the best part about The Witcher games is how you can influence Geralt's personality with your choices, you can be downright altruistic in helping people whether they pay or not, a selfish greedbag who does nothing without some sort of gain, or become a monster yourself and just let "innocent" people die. I also love Geralt's sense of humor, you'll probably never hear him laugh but there's a sense of mirth and wry amusement he finds in many situations that I love, it's a very subtle kind of thing and I think this is where his personality excels. The developers intentionally went with the "less is more" rule (though the original author can also be credited for this) and it works well, I also find his voice actor to be very good at delivering, he hits all the right notes and really feels grounded in this world.
The thing is, people that never read the books are not going to see Geralt's true character in The Witcher 1 and 2. He's stoic and tries to be neutral but he keeps getting dragged in other people's business. The problem with the first game was small budget, and Geralt really didn't have much of a personality in the first game. I read the books after playing the first game so I know how much they screwed over non book readers. Geralt came across as practically a nobody. And the fact that he lost his memory made him look even more like a nobody.

They improved him a lot in the second game, or maybe I thought that because by the time I played it I'd read the books. But he still came across as a bit dull and disinterested in everything to others.

They finally managed to make Geralt who he truly is. He's got a full range of emotions now, yet he's still the same old Geralt. Still very reserved and confident. A bit more sarcastic this time around. And his voice actor finally makes sense. Geralt is awesome now. It's a remarkable achievement that despite the different choices that you get to make, not a single one feels out of character.
 

Danbo Jambo

New member
Sep 26, 2014
585
0
0
I really liked combat and movement in TW2. Is TW3 much different, and am I likely to like it if I thought TW2's was good?
 
Sep 14, 2009
9,073
0
0
Danbo Jambo said:
I really liked combat and movement in TW2. Is TW3 much different, and am I likely to like it if I thought TW2's was good?
I feel like TW3 just takes the basis of TW2, and improves upon it. It's hard to describe the differences, but I feel like geralt has alot more options now that are fluid (parry, counterattack, dodge,roll, crossbow, signs, bombs, traps, potions, food) during combat rather than prepping BEFORE a battle. Also I feel like the enemies are a bit better, you can't just spam click and hope to make it through every fight, most enemies are good at dodging backwards if you come at them full steam ahead, and most enemies are in groups so they usually have 2-3 strafe around you and hit you from behind.

for example: on normal difficulty, I died 3 times in the first 2 hours from me just thinking I could barrel through drowners/etc..

hopefully that helps, if not I would recommend trying it out yourself at a friends or watching some videos on it (although once again, that's the gameplay, it can be hard to know the feeling if you are just watching it on youtube.)
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
I picked up Witcher 3 partly because of this thread and a friend. I gotta say I'm not really liking the combat much. The griffon fight was really lame, I just crossbowed it down and used fire over and over again. Fighting it with the sword felt pointless and only caused me to loose HP because there seems to no invincibility frames on the dodge or side side and you have to press either button too early. The combat just doesn't seem fluid compared to other action RPGs.
 

The Madman

New member
Dec 7, 2007
4,404
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
I picked up Witcher 3 partly because of this thread and a friend. I gotta say I'm not really liking the combat much. The griffon fight was really lame, I just crossbowed it down and used fire over and over again. Fighting it with the sword felt pointless and only caused me to loose HP because there seems to no invincibility frames on the dodge or side side and you have to press either button too early. The combat just doesn't seem fluid compared to other action RPGs.
You killed the gryphon using just bolts and igni? That must have taken a decade unless you're playing on easy. Neither igni nor crossbow bolts really do much damage and the decent bolts you get later on are in limited supply and need to be crafted for you. I'm pretty sure unless you've got the patience of a saint there's no way that would be possible on later threats.

Also keep in mind there's also two different dodge moves, the sidestep which is good for dodging a direct frontal attack like an overhead sword swing or a charging drowner and a full roll dodge which is for sweeping strikes such as the mentioned griffon swipes. In the case of big beasts like the griffon or bears and other big monsters roll dodging away from their big strikes is always the safer bet even if it does use stamina and leave you out of range of an immediate follow-up.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
The Madman said:
You killed the gryphon using just bolts and igni? That must have taken a decade unless you're playing on easy. Neither igni nor crossbow bolts really do much damage and the decent bolts you get later on are in limited supply and need to be crafted for you. I'm pretty sure unless you've got the patience of a saint there's no way that would be possible on later threats.

Also keep in mind there's also two different dodge moves, the sidestep which is good for dodging a direct frontal attack like an overhead sword swing or a charging drowner and a full roll dodge which is for sweeping strikes such as the mentioned griffon swipes. In the case of big beasts like the griffon or bears and other big monsters roll dodging away from their big strikes is always the safer bet even if it does use stamina and leave you out of range of an immediate follow-up.
I'm playing on the game's "hard" difficulty setting. If I landed the fire attack just right, it seemed to do at least 1/5 of damage (with some good DoT). A lot of times it seemed to do very little to none at all as well. I understand the 2 dodge moves, the problem is I don't think either have any invincibility frames, which is key to just about any action game. The combat just doesn't seem fluid, there's seems to be that little bit of lag between pressing a button and the character actually doing the action.

Gundam GP01 said:
Wow, you just seem to hate literally everything I love, dont you?
I expect a core element of a game to be good. If you're going to make an RPG action-based, it better be on par with other action games, at least in responsiveness. Dragon's Dogma griffon fights were a million times better for example.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Gundam GP01 said:
Phoenixmgs said:
I expect a core element of a game to be good.
And thankfully, the writing and quest lines are amazing. But I thought we were talking about combat, were we not?

Phoenixmgs said:
If you're going to make an RPG action-based, it better be on par with other action games, at least in responsiveness.
Right, because it's totally reasonable to expect a game 3 times the size of Skyrim and with better writing to compare to God of War or Devil May fucking Cry.

If the main reason you play an RPG is for the combat, you are missing the damn point. And that goes double for The Witcher (though personally I happen to think that the combat in Witcher 2 and 3 are legitimately good better than Skyrim's from the get go).

Phoenixmgs said:
Dragon's Dogma griffon fights were a million times better for example.
Then why dont you go play that instead? Clearly The Witcher series isn't the kind of games you'd like.
-If combat is not a core element of the series why did so many people hate the previous 2 entries due to combat? If you are only fighting like say 10% of the time, a bad combat system wouldn't ruin the game for lots of people.

-It's not my fault most RPGs have why too many combat instead of actual role-playing. So when combat is a core element of a game, I expect it to be good. Dragon's Dogma and Kingdom of Amalur had great combat. The Souls series has way better responsiveness even the though the combat isn't great.

-I already played Dragon's Dogma. Is it really too much to ask that other games in a genre take note of a game in their own genre doing something exceptionally well? You actually felt like you were fighting griffons, dragons, etc. in DD for the first time ever in gaming. I thought this is "next-gen", not worst than last-gen.
 

RedDeadFred

Illusions, Michael!
May 13, 2009
4,896
0
0
I'm 16 hours in and taking things pretty slowly. I'm doing as many side quests as I can since, so far, they're all very interesting. As mentioned in the OP, the Bloody Baron is an amazing character. To be honest, almost every character I've come across, be them having a small or large roll, have been excellently written and acted. What really sets everything over the top for these interactions are the facial animations. They perfectly sell everything.

Combat is fun and definitely feels more responsive than 2. Also, I like being able to use potions while in combat without having them be OP like ES games.

The mini-game Quent is surprisingly fun too.

Also, this game is easily the most gorgeous thing I've ever played. I'm playing with mostly Ultra settings and it's often breathtaking. I've stopped and just gawked at the scenery many times.
erttheking said:
Can Geralt actually fucking emote now?
Yes. He's got a sense of humor, is kind of witty, and you can tell he genuinely cares for the good of other people. He's not emoting over like crazy or anything, but it's in the little things. As I mentioned above, facial animations do wonders to make ALL of the characters feel like real people. Geralt is no different. In the previous games, Geralt was closer to a blank slate for you to impose your own character on to. In this game, he's definitely more his own person.
And is it needed to play through the first two games to get this one? Because I'd rather not go back to those two fuckers unless I have to.
You can choose to simulate a Witcher 2 save if you'd like. It'll let you choose if you saved Letho as well as some of the other major choices. There are a lot of new characters in this game and they do a good job of explaining what is happening in the world so I don't think you need a refresher. I never played the first game and I haven't played the second game in a couple years. I'm having no trouble following anything. If you do get stuck, there's a well written glossary. The story seems to be more personal for Geralt this time and less about political stuff.
 

Ihateregistering1

New member
Mar 30, 2011
2,034
0
0
So I'm about 15 hours in, and I'm going to try and not wax too poetic about this game, but...

I seriously can't remember the last time I enjoyed a game this much.

Any issues I have with the game are tiny little nitpicks compared to the game overall.

-The graphics are incredible (even on low settings), and the little details really sell you on the world. The swaying of the trees in the wind, the way Peasants hide under roofs during rainstorms, even something as simple as hearing Geralt's boots slosh through mud in the village streets really sells you on the entire world.

-I read every book, note, and character description I pick up in the game to get more detail about the world I'm in. I don't think I've done that since Baldur's Gate 2 and Planescape: Torment.

-The game sells its dark setting incredibly well without having to resort to the usual over the top antics of having excessive amounts of cursing, or rape, or pillaging, or other things just to beat you over the head with how super depressing everything is. It feels like a dark ages game: the peasants aren't bad people, but they're superstitious and uneducated. The Lords aren't necessarily bad people, but they have to rule with an iron fist to keep order. I always use this as an example: whenever I complete a contract to kill a Monster, I have to genuinely search my conscious if I want to take the money (which I very much need) or let these poor peasants keep it, because I genuinely feel bad for their struggles. If that's not immersion, I don't know what is.

-Monster hunting actually feels like, well, hunting. It's not just "go over to this cave and kill this monster". You actually investigate the site of the attacks (or talk to locals) to find out what you're dealing with, hunt down where the monster is located, and then prep for the battle depending on what sort of monster you're fighting. Monsters (both big and small) genuinely feel like you need to put strategic thought into how you're going to fight them and prepare appropriately.

-The characters are, so far, outstanding. Geralt is 1000x better of a character than he was in the previous games. Hysterically, even when you get sent on really mundane quests, he actually reacts realistically ('you want me to retrieve your goat? Seriously?'). Characters who you only work with for a small chunk of the game are better all around than some characters you play through the entirety of Dragon Age: Inquisition with (Vesemir and Keira are excellent, and I'd argue the Bloody Baron is support character of the year so far). I'm looking forward to seeing who else the game has to offer.

Ok, enough praising, but flat-out: if you like RPGs, I really can't recommend Witcher 3 enough. Witcher 1 and 2 had some really good ideas but they just couldn't quite get the execution right. This game (so far) has taken those good ideas and nailed the execution, it's outstanding.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
17,470
1,687
118
Adam Jensen said:
All those elaborate explanations as to why people don't like witchers. It's quite simple. They're social outcasts who keep to themselves, they're weird and they ask for money to kill monsters that just ate your loved ones.

I could actually write an essay on this subject. How the people in the medieval period thought and felt and how it's absurd to expect them to react how we would react to things. Most people have no idea how much different life was in medieval times. You can't simply compare your own experience as a person living in 21st century to experience of someone living in medieval times. Especially if that person is also fictional. But the fact that The Witcher is a work of fiction doesn't matter.
That doesn't explain all those regular mooks wanting to pick a fight with you though, knowing full well what you are. I'm beginning to notice that a lot of quest based fights with soldiers or bandits starts with them bolstering how there's only one of you and a larger amount of them. If Witchers are this infamous and thought of as monsters, don't these guys know I have skirmishes like this for breakfast? You'd think they wouldn't wanna fuck with me on general principal. I don't know, it is the Middle Ages -- maybe these people really are that stupid.

No huge criticism, just a funny observation.
 

Gethsemani_v1legacy

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,552
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
I'm playing on the game's "hard" difficulty setting. If I landed the fire attack just right, it seemed to do at least 1/5 of damage (with some good DoT). A lot of times it seemed to do very little to none at all as well. I understand the 2 dodge moves, the problem is I don't think either have any invincibility frames, which is key to just about any action game. The combat just doesn't seem fluid, there's seems to be that little bit of lag between pressing a button and the character actually doing the action.
There are invincibility frames (or rather, frames with reduced damage) if you time it right and there's a specific skill in the skill tree for decreasing damage taken during dodging. My main gripe with the combat is the fact that every key press "locks in", making it impossible to take a new action until the first one completes, so if I hit attack by mistake I can't cancel the attack to roll out of the way or use a sign or whatever, which can get really punishing in tougher fights.
 

EternallyBored

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
Gethsemani said:
Phoenixmgs said:
I'm playing on the game's "hard" difficulty setting. If I landed the fire attack just right, it seemed to do at least 1/5 of damage (with some good DoT). A lot of times it seemed to do very little to none at all as well. I understand the 2 dodge moves, the problem is I don't think either have any invincibility frames, which is key to just about any action game. The combat just doesn't seem fluid, there's seems to be that little bit of lag between pressing a button and the character actually doing the action.
There are invincibility frames (or rather, frames with reduced damage) if you time it right and there's a specific skill in the skill tree for decreasing damage taken during dodging. My main gripe with the combat is the fact that every key press "locks in", making it impossible to take a new action until the first one completes, so if I hit attack by mistake I can't cancel the attack to roll out of the way or use a sign or whatever, which can get really punishing in tougher fights.
That skill, when maxed out, reduces 100% of damage while rolling, it basically makes your roll one giant invincibility button. It's pretty much a must have for more aggressive melee builds. You would think it would be the default state, but it would probably overpower non-melee builds as the invincibility window is huge with that skill maxed out.
 

Danbo Jambo

New member
Sep 26, 2014
585
0
0
Gundam GP01 said:
I felt pretty much the same and I love it. It feels basically the same, but with some little improvements that make it feel better.

I'd say go for it, it;s not likely that you'll be disappointed.
Thanks mate :) If it's TW2 but better I'll love it :)

Phoenixmgs said:
-I already played Dragon's Dogma. Is it really too much to ask that other games in a genre take note of a game in their own genre doing something exceptionally well? You actually felt like you were fighting griffons, dragons, etc. in DD for the first time ever in gaming. I thought this is "next-gen", not worst than last-gen.
You see, I loved Dragon's Dogma but, whilst the combat was undoubtedly fluid and fun, it felt "arcadey". It lacked weight, it lacked purpose and I actually prefered The Witcher's 2 combat over DD for the overall feel in relation to the game.

DD felt like an arcade RPG, with combat to suit. Whereas TW2 felt like I had to plan ahead more, and be more thoughtful and precise with my decisions and actions in combat.

It's all down to tastes really, but I don't think DD style combat would suit a Witcher game. For me half of the essance of being a Witcher is knowledge, and preparing and co-ordinating yourself for and in fights with that knowledge. Kind of like how a carpenter makes sure he's the right tools and right approach for the job. It still has to be fun mind, but a DD approach to Witcher combat would just seem "off" IMO.

I'll be honest and say that, if it was myself designing the game, I'd have monsters that are impossible to kill without the right preperation and items (e.g. a certain potion to coat your sword or the monster doesn't take any damage. No matter how powerful you are or your level.

gmaverick019 said:
I feel like TW3 just takes the basis of TW2, and improves upon it. It's hard to describe the differences, but I feel like geralt has alot more options now that are fluid (parry, counterattack, dodge,roll, crossbow, signs, bombs, traps, potions, food) during combat rather than prepping BEFORE a battle. Also I feel like the enemies are a bit better, you can't just spam click and hope to make it through every fight, most enemies are good at dodging backwards if you come at them full steam ahead, and most enemies are in groups so they usually have 2-3 strafe around you and hit you from behind.

for example: on normal difficulty, I died 3 times in the first 2 hours from me just thinking I could barrel through drowners/etc..

hopefully that helps, if not I would recommend trying it out yourself at a friends or watching some videos on it (although once again, that's the gameplay, it can be hard to know the feeling if you are just watching it on youtube.)
Brilliant. Thanks chap :)
 

Silence

Living undeath to the fullest
Legacy
May 7, 2020
4,326
14
3
Country
Germany
By the way, the combat AI is, aside from the fact that sometimes you can run out of agro range even if you don't want to, better than most other games.

It really shines if you fight groups of people. They attack sometimes at the same time, some even from behind (seriously, wraiths). They don't wait for one person to attack (so it is superior than the "action game" AssCreed). And the tools you have for fighting these groups are amazing.
And holy shit, bombs. This game is not for the soft-minded.

Fighting single human enemies is also cool, because of the parry and dodge. The brawls are not the QTEs from TW2, but real fights, and it works very good.

The weakest part so far for me are big monsters, like the Griffin or Wyverns - you can't really dodge their attack with a sidestep or a roll sideway, blocking obviously doesn't work either. So the options are more limited. Although using signs to their full potential is very effective in this case: Quen always on, it allows you to dodge without taking damage. Igni, because it does tons of damage and even can dazzle the enemies if you cast it into their eyes. And Axii, if the enemy wants to fly away.
 

Azure23

New member
Nov 5, 2012
361
0
0
Looks great, trailer has a great song, ENB's playthrough is going well and is definitely a convincing case to buy the game, it's already got me buying the books.

One thing, just one thing I was confused about. I jumped into a random stream yesterday and saw a cutscene where they're talking to this giant armored dude (the king of the wild hunt) sitting on a throne of roots, it's this whole serious thing, and he's surrounded by anime cat girls and stuff, and the tonal dissonance was just hilarious. I loved it.