So The Witcher 3 is three years old today

[hanselthecaretaker]

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-05-19-today-is-the-third-anniversary-of-the-witcher-3

Kinda ironic that I started playing again today after a long break, unaware of the date?s significance. I just defeated that first golem in the cave with Keira. I love how intricate the loot system is. The combat is a bit fast and loose, but it was probably meant to be more arcade-like to keep up the pace. The story, sounds and visuals speak for themselves. It?d be a lot easier to stay with it if I had nothing else I?ve been also meaning to play.

Anyways, what say you about The Witcher 3? Love it, hate it or something in between?

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

I hated it. its slightly above average game with one of the worst control and movement ever with so many lenghty and long dialouges that make me skip over and over again.

Most overrated game of this gen.

 

[Mcgeezaks]

I hated it.

its slightly above average game

What did he mean by this?

 

[Zontar]

I hated it.

its slightly above average game

What did he mean by this?

He didn't like it but acknowledges that it is a good game.

 

[DeadProxy]

Such a good game, I've spent a couple hundred hours in it on just a couple playthroughs. Actually thought of downloading it again and doing another run, maybe on a higher difficulty this time.

I kinda want to use a 100% guide just so I don't miss any quests, cause I missed one of my favourites on my last run which you can lock yourself out of by progressing the Skellige plot. Do the Lighthouse monster hunt early, if you can tell which quest I'm talking about, leads into a pretty fun one.

Yennefer is best *****.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I found Witcher 3 to be basically a 4/10 game because I found pretty much all the gameplay (from combat to just plain running around town) to be rather poor. The combat should have been designed with monster fighting in mind as witchers are monster hunters but instead it was designed with humanoid enemies in mind and it's a weird mismatch of Souls and Arkham combat. Thus, the actual monster fights are so very disappointing when they should be the highlights of the game gameplay-wise. It's basically the opposite problem of Horizon where the human combat sucks and the machine fights are awesome. Of course, the writing and characters are very strong along with much of the questing. The over-arching story is disappointingly cliche with you having to not only save the world but save literally all worlds. Witcher 3 falls into many RPG and open world traps like unneeded loot system, the core story is time sensitive, much of the content is repetitive (?s literally EVERYWHERE), and poor balance. Witcher 3 would've been a great experience if you just removed the gameplay and it was basically an adventure game like a Telltale/David Cage/Life is Strange type game. Just like anything else, I only want the good stuff.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Anyways, what say you about The Witcher 3? Love it, hate it or something in between?

Love it. And I still play it. In fact I started a new playthrough to celebrate the occasion

What did he mean by this?

He's lying. He just watched his favorite youtuber (that retard from "worth a buy") and he's just repeating what he said.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

Anyways, what say you about The Witcher 3? Love it, hate it or something in between?

Love it. And I still play it. In fact I started a new playthrough to celebrate the occasion

What did he mean by this?

He's lying. He just watched his favorite youtuber (that retard from "worth a buy") and he's just repeating what he said.

come on my friend, anyone who hate witcher 3 is lying and never played?

worth a buy is no longer my fav youtuber because he praise mediocre far cry games.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

I found Witcher 3 to be basically a 4/10 game because I found pretty much all the gameplay (from combat to just plain running around town) to be rather poor. The combat should have been designed with monster fighting in mind as witchers are monster hunters but instead it was designed with humanoid enemies in mind and it's a weird mismatch of Souls and Arkham combat. Thus, the actual monster fights are so very disappointing when they should be the highlights of the game gameplay-wise. It's basically the opposite problem of Horizon where the human combat sucks and the machine fights are awesome. Of course, the writing and characters are very strong along with much of the questing. The over-arching story is disappointingly cliche with you having to not only save the world but save literally all worlds. Witcher 3 falls into many RPG and open world traps like unneeded loot system, the core story is time sensitive, much of the content is repetitive (?s literally EVERYWHERE), and poor balance. Witcher 3 would've been a great experience if you just removed the gameplay and it was basically an adventure game like a Telltale/David Cage/Life is Strange type game. Just like anything else, I only want the good stuff.

Well said.

I wish TW3 has option to skip the combat every time. but not only combat the movement is also terrible. plus the lenghty dialouges are just so damn boring. I quite like the first part. but then you reach velen and it become boring. move there, move here. its another game suffer from open world fatigue.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

Witcher 3 was a fantastic game, beyond its years. I don't play many open world RPG's in a year, and I'm glad I made it that one. It was the first time in a very long time that I actually gave a shit about what happened in side quests, and found the lore interesting enough to follow. Geralt may not be the most "characterful" character, but he is certainly an interesting one. The plots surrounding the people he encounters, and the monsters he hunts are just as intriguing. The graphics and physics are beyond compare. The controls required a little bit of tweaking, but I found the swordplay satisfactory, though could have lent itself to a bit less grace and more weight, in my opinion. The books describe him as a bit of a ballerina with the steel so I accept it as par for the course.

I did have some gripes with the game, though they were small enough to deal with.
1) Inventory system was a bit of a hassle. But I'm not really sure how much it could be improved, given the amount of stuff you can craft. Weight limits were a bit silly to deal with, but that's just me, and its present in most real-time RPG's.
2) Controls were clunky as hell in the default mode. I'm really glad they added the alternative, because even getting into a doorway without ramming your head on the wall was a challenge.
3) Sometimes, the quest and dialogue options didn't make much sense, or were frustrating in what you were not able to say at a time where it was needed. Sorry, I can't pick any specific examples right now, it's been too long. But times included dialogue with the Baron's daughter, once with Ciri, and once with Keira. But, I guess that's also because you're playing Geralt, and not your own role.
4) The game is just too damn big. Story is a decent length, but there's just TOO much to do. That's fine I guess, because it's mostly quality, other than the treasure diving and blueprint tracking. Just a bit overwhelming. It kind of put me off a full second playthrough though.
5) Final boss battle. Not going to spoil it, but it was not that great.

Other than that, I really didn't have any issues. Except maybe lore nitpicks, like Yennefer. God she was annoying, and I wasn't sure who I'd rather smack upside the head sometimes, Yen, or Geralt for still feeling for her. But that game delivered many fascinating and enjoyable hours, where I actually wanted to progress just to see what happened in the branching storylines. Yes it was grim, but also humorous, and absolutely gripping at times. You did have to pay attention to get the best of it though, which made it a tad tiring on really long stretches, with the sheer size and depth of it. 9.5/10

 

[Casual Shinji]

It's fantastic, but I only have one life. Sorry game.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

It's fantastic, but I only have one life. Sorry game.

Meaning...? Guessing you're in the same boat as me in terms of too many games, too little time. I think I'll put it to the top of my list though, since I've been waiting longer to play it than anything else currently.

Also, here's an interesting RPG list [https://www.tomshardware.com/picturestory/834-best-rpgs-of-all-time-community-picks.html#s1]. Didn't expect some of those on there from a PC-centric site.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I never played it. I tried the first Witcher and it was hot dog shit. Just boring, stiff, awkward, clunky and messy. Like an early access game, but before that was a thing.

 

[Casual Shinji]

It's fantastic, but I only have one life. Sorry game.

Meaning...? Guessing you're in the same boat as me in terms of too many games, too little time. I think I'll put it to the top of my list though, since I've been waiting longer to play it than anything else currently.

It's just too much game. It's terrific, but it's insanely huge. And I already had my save file corrupted once as I was nearing the end.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

It's fantastic, but I only have one life. Sorry game.

Meaning...? Guessing you're in the same boat as me in terms of too many games, too little time. I think I'll put it to the top of my list though, since I've been waiting longer to play it than anything else currently.

It's just too much game. It's terrific, but it's insanely huge. And I already had my save file corrupted once as I was nearing the end.

Were you playing on PC? It creates a new file with every quicksave. Anyways, I think it'll take me years to finish it, considering how slim the chances are I'll only play it exclusively.

I never played it. I tried the first Witcher and it was hot dog shit. Just boring, stiff, awkward, clunky and messy. Like an early access game, but before that was a thing.

I agree mostly with the bold; it was rough around the edges and the Bioware engine did it no favors, but it still was never frustrating for me. I adjusted to its quirks and had a great time with the questing and story. Geralt moved around like he had hemorrhoids and half the combat was a quicktime game, but it never felt unplayable or broken imo. Just different and...unrefined. I enjoyed everything else too much to be bothered by it. Imo the second game only improved visuals and gameplay mechanics, whereas everything else felt like a step back, at least on PC.

TW3 plays butter-smooth next to either of the previous games imo. I never understood people saying it still feels clunky or awful. Geralt's movement has inertia and some weight behind it so of course it won't play like a Bayonetta or DMC, and his combat mechanics are pretty simple yet nimble, especially with swordplay. Plus he can finally jump.

 

[BreakfastMan]

I never played it. I tried the first Witcher and it was hot dog shit. Just boring, stiff, awkward, clunky and messy. Like an early access game, but before that was a thing.

You might like The Witcher 3 then, as it is massively different than Witcher 1.

 

[Zombie Proof]

I found Witcher 3 to be basically a 4/10 game because I found pretty much all the gameplay (from combat to just plain running around town) to be rather poor. The combat should have been designed with monster fighting in mind as witchers are monster hunters but instead it was designed with humanoid enemies in mind and it's a weird mismatch of Souls and Arkham combat. Thus, the actual monster fights are so very disappointing when they should be the highlights of the game gameplay-wise. It's basically the opposite problem of Horizon where the human combat sucks and the machine fights are awesome. Of course, the writing and characters are very strong along with much of the questing. The over-arching story is disappointingly cliche with you having to not only save the world but save literally all worlds. Witcher 3 falls into many RPG and open world traps like unneeded loot system, the core story is time sensitive, much of the content is repetitive (?s literally EVERYWHERE), and poor balance. Witcher 3 would've been a great experience if you just removed the gameplay and it was basically an adventure game like a Telltale/David Cage/Life is Strange type game. Just like anything else, I only want the good stuff.

Well said.

I wish TW3 has option to skip the combat every time. but not only combat the movement is also terrible. plus the lenghty dialouges are just so damn boring. I quite like the first part. but then you reach velen and it become boring. move there, move here. its another game suffer from open world fatigue.

Everybody and their mama knows you ain't beat it you goof.

No one spends over 80 hours beating Witcher 3 and still thinks the main protagonist goes by Gerald of Rivendale

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

I found Witcher 3 to be basically a 4/10 game because I found pretty much all the gameplay (from combat to just plain running around town) to be rather poor. The combat should have been designed with monster fighting in mind as witchers are monster hunters but instead it was designed with humanoid enemies in mind and it's a weird mismatch of Souls and Arkham combat. Thus, the actual monster fights are so very disappointing when they should be the highlights of the game gameplay-wise. It's basically the opposite problem of Horizon where the human combat sucks and the machine fights are awesome. Of course, the writing and characters are very strong along with much of the questing. The over-arching story is disappointingly cliche with you having to not only save the world but save literally all worlds. Witcher 3 falls into many RPG and open world traps like unneeded loot system, the core story is time sensitive, much of the content is repetitive (?s literally EVERYWHERE), and poor balance. Witcher 3 would've been a great experience if you just removed the gameplay and it was basically an adventure game like a Telltale/David Cage/Life is Strange type game. Just like anything else, I only want the good stuff.

Well said.

I wish TW3 has option to skip the combat every time. but not only combat the movement is also terrible. plus the lenghty dialouges are just so damn boring. I quite like the first part. but then you reach velen and it become boring. move there, move here. its another game suffer from open world fatigue.

Everybody and their mama knows you ain't beat it you goof.

No one spends over 80 hours beating Witcher 3 and still thinks the main protagonist goes by Gerald of Rivendale

gerald of rivendale was a joke. I mentioned it as joke. he cant climb a ladder correctly thought.

 

[Zombie Proof]

I found Witcher 3 to be basically a 4/10 game because I found pretty much all the gameplay (from combat to just plain running around town) to be rather poor. The combat should have been designed with monster fighting in mind as witchers are monster hunters but instead it was designed with humanoid enemies in mind and it's a weird mismatch of Souls and Arkham combat. Thus, the actual monster fights are so very disappointing when they should be the highlights of the game gameplay-wise. It's basically the opposite problem of Horizon where the human combat sucks and the machine fights are awesome. Of course, the writing and characters are very strong along with much of the questing. The over-arching story is disappointingly cliche with you having to not only save the world but save literally all worlds. Witcher 3 falls into many RPG and open world traps like unneeded loot system, the core story is time sensitive, much of the content is repetitive (?s literally EVERYWHERE), and poor balance. Witcher 3 would've been a great experience if you just removed the gameplay and it was basically an adventure game like a Telltale/David Cage/Life is Strange type game. Just like anything else, I only want the good stuff.

Well said.

I wish TW3 has option to skip the combat every time. but not only combat the movement is also terrible. plus the lenghty dialouges are just so damn boring. I quite like the first part. but then you reach velen and it become boring. move there, move here. its another game suffer from open world fatigue.

Everybody and their mama knows you ain't beat it you goof.

No one spends over 80 hours beating Witcher 3 and still thinks the main protagonist goes by Gerald of Rivendale

gerald of rivendale was a joke.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

 

[Dalisclock]

I never played it. I tried the first Witcher and it was hot dog shit. Just boring, stiff, awkward, clunky and messy. Like an early access game, but before that was a thing.

If it makes you feel any better, I pretty much agree with you. There's some good story beats there but the game has serious issues and there's no shame at all for anyone to skip it. The Witcher 2, OTOH, is a marked improvement and Witcher 3 is quite excellent. Not much from Witcher 1 is mentioned in Witcher 3 and pretty much nothing from Witcher 1 is referenced or matters in Witcher 3.

Honestly, people who are interested in the series should just skip the first game(maybe read the plot summary or find a web video that summarizes what happened), start with Witcher 2 and only go back to play The Witcher if they really, really want to say they've finished all 3 games.