So The Witcher 3 is three years old today

[CritialGaming]

I was just referring to how Witcher 3 is quite often referred as the GOAT of the genre when the game has very little actual role-playing in it.

Im curious as to what you think counts as role-playing then. Because you are role-playing, as Geralt. As Geralt you can make a ton of choices throughout the game that have wide reaching, and surprisingly long effects.

For example:

1. Do you help the injured girl with a potion that might kill her anyway? If no, she dies. If so, you MIGHT encounter her boyfriend 12 hours later who tells you the girl lived but is basically brain-dead now.

2. How do you treat the Baron and how clear it is that he was beating his wife and daughter which cause them to run away. You behavior and choices with him have like 4 different outcomes on his storyline.

3. How do you treat Ciri? Do you lead her and encourage her, or do you chatise and belittle her? Or a combination of both. Again there are several endings in which this can go.

So how is this not and RPG? How do you ignore the ways you can make Geralt behave?

When you say things like this, I can't help but think you didn't really pay attention to what you played, or you have an insane criteria for what counts as an RPG.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I was just referring to how Witcher 3 is quite often referred as the GOAT of the genre when the game has very little actual role-playing in it.

Im curious as to what you think counts as role-playing then. Because you are role-playing, as Geralt. As Geralt you can make a ton of choices throughout the game that have wide reaching, and surprisingly long effects.

For example:

1. Do you help the injured girl with a potion that might kill her anyway? If no, she dies. If so, you MIGHT encounter her boyfriend 12 hours later who tells you the girl lived but is basically brain-dead now.

2. How do you treat the Baron and how clear it is that he was beating his wife and daughter which cause them to run away. You behavior and choices with him have like 4 different outcomes on his storyline.

3. How do you treat Ciri? Do you lead her and encourage her, or do you chatise and belittle her? Or a combination of both. Again there are several endings in which this can go.

So how is this not and RPG? How do you ignore the ways you can make Geralt behave?

When you say things like this, I can't help but think you didn't really pay attention to what you played, or you have an insane criteria for what counts as an RPG.

I mentioned how #3 is the high-point in the entire game. #1 is an extremely low impact choice and #2 is a decent enough choice. When I categorize any game into a genre, I simply ask what is the main thing I'm doing in the game, and Witcher 3 most of my time is not spent role-playing thus its primary genre is not an RPG IMO. It's akin to calling Mirror's Edge a shooter because it has some shooting in it. You probably spend more time in inventory screens in Witcher 3 than actively making choices. Whereas in Mass Effect, you spend more time role-playing as Shepard constantly making decisions to mold your Shepard while also making lots of choices that impact the world. Regardless of how well you think it was executed, that is definitely the main focus of the series and you spent more time doing that than anything else in the series.

 

[CritialGaming]

I was just referring to how Witcher 3 is quite often referred as the GOAT of the genre when the game has very little actual role-playing in it.

Im curious as to what you think counts as role-playing then. Because you are role-playing, as Geralt. As Geralt you can make a ton of choices throughout the game that have wide reaching, and surprisingly long effects.

For example:

1. Do you help the injured girl with a potion that might kill her anyway? If no, she dies. If so, you MIGHT encounter her boyfriend 12 hours later who tells you the girl lived but is basically brain-dead now.

2. How do you treat the Baron and how clear it is that he was beating his wife and daughter which cause them to run away. You behavior and choices with him have like 4 different outcomes on his storyline.

3. How do you treat Ciri? Do you lead her and encourage her, or do you chatise and belittle her? Or a combination of both. Again there are several endings in which this can go.

So how is this not and RPG? How do you ignore the ways you can make Geralt behave?

When you say things like this, I can't help but think you didn't really pay attention to what you played, or you have an insane criteria for what counts as an RPG.

I mentioned how #3 is the high-point in the entire game. #1 is an extremely low impact choice and #2 is a decent enough choice. When I categorize any game into a genre, I simply ask what is the main thing I'm doing in the game, and Witcher 3 most of my time is not spent role-playing thus its primary genre is not an RPG IMO. It's akin to calling Mirror's Edge a shooter because it has some shooting in it. You probably spend more time in inventory screens in Witcher 3 than actively making choices. Whereas in Mass Effect, you spend more time role-playing as Shepard constantly making decisions to mold your Shepard while also making lots of choices that impact the world. Regardless of how well you think it was executed, that is definitely the main focus of the series and you spent more time doing that than anything else in the series.

What in Mass Effect had any sort of long lasting effect? Other than which party members died at the end of 2.

I think you are seeing the forest before the trees in this regard buddy.

You point out game that people complained about their choices ultimately ending up being meaningless as a good example of roleplaying. How was playing Shepard any different than playing Geralt? What choices as Shepard affected any of the stories you experienced throughout ME?

Also the beauty of the #1 choice I pointed out is, yes you're right, it IS and incredibly minor choice. And yet the game thought to have it have an effect many hours later. A choice that most players would forget almost as soon as they made it, only to find themselves facing the consequences of that incredible minor quest. That's the beauty of it. A choice that would not have mattered at all in ANY other game, actually did matter in TW3.

Every choice in an RPG doesn't have to be world shaping. I don't think any RPG has ever shown that better than the Witcher 3. It's those little choices that do have an effect on the world in small ways that make the world so immersive.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Every choice in an RPG doesn't have to be world shaping. I don't think any RPG has ever shown that better than the Witcher 3. It's those little choices that do have an effect on the world in small ways that make the world so immersive.

The thing about The Witcher series is that its approach to choices and consequences is far more realistic than that of most other RPG's. A single monster slayer for hire can't really be the defining factor in decisions that will shape the world. He can only have a small impact. And even then, it's not like someone else couldn't have done what he did instead. He's not special, he's not the chosen one. He exists in a world that will go on without him perfectly fine. Unlike a Bioware RPG.

I think that ultimately, that's what attracted me about The Witcher series the most. The scale of the narrative is much smaller and more focused. It's not entirely accurate to say that it's a story driven series. It's character driven. It's not about saving the world, it's about saving yourself and your loved ones.

The Witcher 2 demonstrated that with an extreme. Which is why that game is genre defining IMO. Depending on which character you sided with after Flotsam, the second act was completely different. Different location, different side-quests and NPC's etc. The choice you had to make didn't have anything to do with your opinion of the story thus far. It was based on your personal opinion of the characters and their convictions.

The Witcher 3 didn't do that as well as its predecessor IMO. Sadly, moral choices and their consequences in TW3 were kind of obvious for the most part. There are very few situations where you couldn't predict the consequences of your actions. Ciri and the Baron are the most notable example. I wish we had something like that happen in Skellige main story line as well. The process of choosing the new king/queen could have been more complex. But I guess they made up for it later with the Kaer Morhen battle.

 

[Zombie Proof]

I hope you're not serious about games being objectively good. Much of why most people love Witcher 3 is the writing, which is naturally extremely subjective. Witcher 3's greatest strength can be easily done in with someone saying they found it boring or didn't like Geralt or a number of other completely valid things. And, Witcher 3 isn't very strong when just looking at its RPG mechanics and balance. There's one skill box in the whole skill tree (Axii for conversations) that's specifically not for combat purposes, that's not very RPGish for what is referred as the best RPG. And, the balance of certain signs is a joke; no PnP RPG DM would allow any player character to have the power of Quen or Axii because they both literally break combat.

I never said it was the best rpg ever. I'm saying it is objectively a good game. If you don't like the writing, fine, that doesn't make the writing bad. The graphics are top notch. Gwent was a blast. The world design is great. The monster design and the art is fantastic. The combat is good and fun.

Now you can not like any number of these things. That doesn't make them bad. You can not like things that are good. You can not like certain foods. Does that make those foods bad? Of course not.

There are games where everyone can look at and say, "God that is a shitshow." Ride to Hell, Day1 Gary's Incident, etc.

But games like The Witcher, or God of War, or Uncharted, etc. You might not like that style of game, or aspects of that game, but you can't say those games are shit, because they are very clearly good games even if you might not like them. It's just being realistic.

Hold on a second, who are you and what did you do with the real Criticalgaming lol.

Good points all around.

 

[CritialGaming]

Hold on a second, who are you and what did you do with the real Criticalgaming lol.

Good points all around.

Umm...I don't know? I've been making and effort to try and be more..."polite" in my arguments I guess.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

What in Mass Effect had any sort of long lasting effect? Other than which party members died at the end of 2.

I think you are seeing the forest before the trees in this regard buddy.

You point out game that people complained about their choices ultimately ending up being meaningless as a good example of roleplaying. How was playing Shepard any different than playing Geralt? What choices as Shepard affected any of the stories you experienced throughout ME?

Also the beauty of the #1 choice I pointed out is, yes you're right, it IS and incredibly minor choice. And yet the game thought to have it have an effect many hours later. A choice that most players would forget almost as soon as they made it, only to find themselves facing the consequences of that incredible minor quest. That's the beauty of it. A choice that would not have mattered at all in ANY other game, actually did matter in TW3.

Every choice in an RPG doesn't have to be world shaping. I don't think any RPG has ever shown that better than the Witcher 3. It's those little choices that do have an effect on the world in small ways that make the world so immersive.

Lots of stuff had lasting effects like most of your interactions with all the different races whether it was the geth, krogan, quarian, rachni, etc. The most memorable moment from the entire series for me is the krogan genophage storyline in ME3 due to the buildup of character relationships from the previous games. I'm sure there's plenty of the minor choices that have callbacks later on like your Witcher 3 example, the ME series just ain't fresh in my head.

I didn't find most of the choices meaningless just due to the ending. A lot of choices had lasting impacts even though they really didn't affect the ending. You can't have a choice from the 1st game or 2nd game or 1st hour of the 3rd decide the fate of the galaxy. I made certain choices in the genophage storyline to get more scientists even though I knew it wasn't possible (on a meta level) for them to affect the ending. I knew the story wasn't going to be written in a manner that not getting one specific scientist was going to cause the death of all the races even though that could realistically be possible.

Again, my point isn't that TW3 is devoid of choices, big or minor, but that isn't the focus of the game, it's not what the player is doing the majority of their time. Thus, it's not an RPG (as its primary genre) in my book. A shooter is a shooter because you're shooting most of the time, a platformer is mainly jumping, etc. Likewise, an RPG has to be mainly role-playing. Even Geralt is a set character pretty much so you're not molding him into a character, he is a character already. You can criticize or praise ME all you want about its choices and character development of Shepard, but the fact is the series' focus was always on the role-playing aspects.

The thing about The Witcher series is that its approach to choices and consequences is far more realistic than that of most other RPG's. A single monster slayer for hire can't really be the defining factor in decisions that will shape the world. He can only have a small impact. And even then, it's not like someone else couldn't have done what he did instead. He's not special, he's not the chosen one. He exists in a world that will go on without him perfectly fine. Unlike a Bioware RPG.

I think that ultimately, that's what attracted me about The Witcher series the most. The scale of the narrative is much smaller and more focused. It's not entirely accurate to say that it's a story driven series. It's character driven. It's not about saving the world, it's about saving yourself and your loved ones.

The Witcher 2 demonstrated that with an extreme. Which is why that game is genre defining IMO. Depending on which character you sided with after Flotsam, the second act was completely different. Different location, different side-quests and NPC's etc. The choice you had to make didn't have anything to do with your opinion of the story thus far. It was based on your personal opinion of the characters and their convictions.

The Witcher 3 didn't do that as well as its predecessor IMO. Sadly, moral choices and their consequences in TW3 were kind of obvious for the most part. There are very few situations where you couldn't predict the consequences of your actions. Ciri and the Baron are the most notable example. I wish we had something like that happen in Skellige main story line as well. The process of choosing the new king/queen could have been more complex. But I guess they made up for it later with the Kaer Morhen battle.

What are you talking about? Geralt is on a first name basis with like every king/leader in the Witcher world. I'm all for lowered stakes especially in RPGs and tired of save the world stories but Witcher 3 is far from something like say Firefly whose characters are really living job-by-job and need a prostitute to even get onto many influential planets.

Mass Effect is a hugely character driven series as well with the "save the world" storyline being mainly a backdrop not that dissimilar from Witcher 3's own "save the world" storyline. ME2 is literally nothing but sidequests and character development. I've only played Witcher 3 in that series so I can only grade Witcher 3 as standalone.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

I was just referring to how Witcher 3 is quite often referred as the GOAT of the genre when the game has very little actual role-playing in it.

Im curious as to what you think counts as role-playing then. Because you are role-playing, as Geralt. As Geralt you can make a ton of choices throughout the game that have wide reaching, and surprisingly long effects.

For example:

1. Do you help the injured girl with a potion that might kill her anyway? If no, she dies. If so, you MIGHT encounter her boyfriend 12 hours later who tells you the girl lived but is basically brain-dead now.

2. How do you treat the Baron and how clear it is that he was beating his wife and daughter which cause them to run away. You behavior and choices with him have like 4 different outcomes on his storyline.

3. How do you treat Ciri? Do you lead her and encourage her, or do you chatise and belittle her? Or a combination of both. Again there are several endings in which this can go.

So how is this not and RPG? How do you ignore the ways you can make Geralt behave?

When you say things like this, I can't help but think you didn't really pay attention to what you played, or you have an insane criteria for what counts as an RPG.

This was one of the quests I failed if I'm thinking of the same one (On Death's Bed), because I didn't give the potion. However, what you mention about helping her imo ultimately sounds far worse than letting her die. It's this type of "success" vs "fail" that I think games should kind of move away from, and why I'm really looking forward to Red Dead: Redemption 2. From the sounds of it they've designed the game to have the rewards and other consequences play out more organically without any gamey kind of judgments. In a way that seems like it will help the player just enjoy the game as their own personal journey without obsessing over checklists of what they succeeded or failed at.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

What are you talking about? Geralt is on a first name basis with like every king/leader in the Witcher world.

But that doesn't really matter. He's still not a chosen one or the only one who can get something done. He's just in the right place at the right time. He's a tool that they use when they need him for something and he's disposable and often times manipulated by various other characters.

Mass Effect is a hugely character driven series as well with the "save the world" storyline being mainly a backdrop not that dissimilar from Witcher 3's own "save the world" storyline.

I disagree. There are two ways you can tell a story. You can tell a story where the characters exist to move the plot forward or a story where the plot exists so the characters would have something to do. Bioware games are an example of the first way to do it, The Witcher is an example of the other way. Just because characters are important in Mass Effect doesn't make Mass Effect any less plot driven. The Reaper threat is still the main theme and the reason why everyone exists and interacts with each other. Ultimately it's all about stopping the Reapers and solving a few mysteries. In The Witcher games the plot is there just to give Geralt and his friends a reason to get together and do stuff.

 

[Bat Vader]

I remember counting the days until the game released and now it's been over three years since it has come out. It makes me sad how fast time goes by.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

What are you talking about? Geralt is on a first name basis with like every king/leader in the Witcher world.

But that doesn't really matter. He's still not a chosen one or the only one who can get something done. He's just in the right place at the right time. He's a tool that they use when they need him for something and he's disposable and often times manipulated by various other characters.

Mass Effect is a hugely character driven series as well with the "save the world" storyline being mainly a backdrop not that dissimilar from Witcher 3's own "save the world" storyline.

I disagree. There are two ways you can tell a story. You can tell a story where the characters exist to move the plot forward or a story where the plot exists so the characters would have something to do. Bioware games are an example of the first way to do it, The Witcher is an example of the other way. Just because characters are important in Mass Effect doesn't make Mass Effect any less plot driven. The Reaper threat is still the main theme and the reason why everyone exists and interacts with each other. Ultimately it's all about stopping the Reapers and solving a few mysteries. In The Witcher games the plot is there just to give Geralt and his friends a reason to get together and do stuff.

I kinda think Shepard is similar to Geralt for most of the ME series because Shepard has an "in" with all the galactic leaders but none of them, until the 3rd game, really listen to Shepard.

I only played TW3, but it sure seemed to me that White Frost was the reason why all the characters interacted with each other. Geralt doesn't go to the Baron or even Dandelion if he wasn't trying to find Ciri who's running from the White Frost. I kinda think your 2 different ways to tell a story can be both true for any story depending on how you look at it. To me, it all comes down to whether the characters are fully formed characters because every character you can breakdown into being there for plot device purposes or for exposition dumps.

I realize Bioware games have much bigger stakes with their stories but the reason people do fall in love with the games are their characters. That's the real trick to any story no matter the stakes is if you care about the characters or not. From just TW3, CDPR did better on the writing than Bioware with the ME series for sure. In the end, I didn't really find the overall structure that dissimilar from each other. I was really disappointed in the reveal of what the White Frost wanted and what Ciri was (for plot purposes) in the last portions of the game because the stakes ended up even higher than freaking Mass Effect. On the flip side, I'd actually love a game about Ciri where she's jumping all around and basically Doctor Who-ing it up solving small or big problems everywhere she goes.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I kinda think Shepard is similar to Geralt for most of the ME series because Shepard has an "in" with all the galactic leaders but none of them, until the 3rd game, really listen to Shepard.

Doesn't matter if no one listens to him. That only adds to the whole legend of Spehard. He's the only one who can do the thing and he's so misunderstood, but he's a great leader and he assembles a team of badasses to defeat evil. It's pretty cliche, really.

I only played TW3, but it sure seemed to me that White Frost was the reason why all the characters interacted with each other. Geralt doesn't go to the Baron or even Dandelion if he wasn't trying to find Ciri who's running from the White Frost.

Ciri is running from the Wild Hunt, not White Frost. And yeah, the plot is there, of course. You can't have a character driven story or any kind of decent story without a plot. But the point is that the underlying plot is secondary to the characters. It takes a back seat. Kinda like in Deadwood, if you've seen that show. Does anybody really care which county will claim Deadwood? The Witcher games do a good job of balancing the two, but the primary focus is still on the characters. Even in the end when Ciri is supposed to save the world from White Frost, Geralt doesn't give a shit. It was never important to him. Even at the very end it's still all about the interpersonal relationships between these characters. But perhaps the DLC's prove that better than the main game.

I realize Bioware games have much bigger stakes with their stories but the reason people do fall in love with the games are their characters.

Of course people fall in love with the characters. But that doesn't mean that the narrative is character driven. It's entirely driven by the Reaper threat. You don't seem to understand what that means. See, the characters in The Witcher are just people with their own personal problems. They're not all motivated by the same plot device. Most of them don't give a shit and the only reason they choose to help Geralt is either because they feel like they owe him or because they have a personal stake in the matter and they want Geralt to owe them one in the future. Everything revolves around personal relationships between characters. In something like Mass Effect everything revolves around the Reaper threat. All the other plot points are secondary and largely irrelevant.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Doesn't matter if no one listens to him. That only adds to the whole legend of Spehard. He's the only one who can do the thing and he's so misunderstood, but he's a great leader and he assembles a team of badasses to defeat evil. It's pretty cliche, really.

Ciri is running from the Wild Hunt, not White Frost. And yeah, the plot is there, of course. You can't have a character driven story or any kind of decent story without a plot. But the point is that the underlying plot is secondary to the characters. It takes a back seat. Kinda like in Deadwood, if you've seen that show. Does anybody really care which county will claim Deadwood? The Witcher games do a good job of balancing the two, but the primary focus is still on the characters. Even in the end when Ciri is supposed to save the world from White Frost, Geralt doesn't give a shit. It was never important to him. Even at the very end it's still all about the interpersonal relationships between these characters. But perhaps the DLC's prove that better than the main game.

Of course people fall in love with the characters. But that doesn't mean that the narrative is character driven. It's entirely driven by the Reaper threat. You don't seem to understand what that means. See, the characters in The Witcher are just people with their own personal problems. They're not all motivated by the same plot device. Most of them don't give a shit and the only reason they choose to help Geralt is either because they feel like they owe him or because they have a personal stake in the matter and they want Geralt to owe them one in the future. Everything revolves around personal relationships between characters. In something like Mass Effect everything revolves around the Reaper threat. All the other plot points are secondary and largely irrelevant.

Cliches aren't necessarily bad and Geralt has quite a bit of cliches himself. Duh, brain fart, Wild Hunt is in the freaking title. Again, the game isn't fresh in my mind but I'm pretty sure Geralt cared somewhat about the White Frost because it would literally end his world. Most of ME's characters also have their own motivations, it's not like Shepard is just going around showing a picture of a reaper and recruiting people like that. All of ME2 was recruiting a team and it would've been a really short game if the recruits only cared about saving the galaxy. ME3 also had you work to get say the Krogans or Salarians because they still had more important motivations than the war when reapers had arrived.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Again, the game isn't fresh in my mind but I'm pretty sure Geralt cared somewhat about the White Frost because it would literally end his world.

He didn't even believe in that prophecy.

Most of ME's characters also have their own motivations, it's not like Shepard is just going around showing a picture of a reaper and recruiting people like that.

Their motivations are shallow and they basically exist only so the characters would have some semblance of personality. Did you notice that? I never noticed it before I played The Witcher 2 and 3. That's how much better it is written. In The Witcher series characters have their unique personalities regardless of what's going on in the world. They're just a part of it and they try their best to exist in it. In Bioware games, characters don't know what the fuck to do or to believe. They rely on you to tell them. Not always, but most of the time. Their only semblance of personality and motivation is usually tied to their specific loyalty mission. And that's pretty much it. And even then it's usually up to you to make the final decision.
In The Witcher games you can't just convince characters to abandon their core principles and to see things from your perspective. More often than that you're the one forced to choose someone else's perspective as a lesser of two evils.

All of ME2 was recruiting a team and it would've been a really short game if the recruits only cared about saving the galaxy. ME3 also had you work to get say the Krogans or Salarians because they still had more important motivations than the war when reapers had arrived.

Actually they didn't have more important motivations. Their entire existence was threatened by the Reapers. They had stupid excuses for Shepard to go around convincing people of the obvious.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Their motivations are shallow and they basically exist only so the characters would have some semblance of personality. Did you notice that? I never noticed it before I played The Witcher 2 and 3. That's how much better it is written. In The Witcher series characters have their unique personalities regardless of what's going on in the world. They're just a part of it and they try their best to exist in it. In Bioware games, characters don't know what the fuck to do or to believe. They rely on you to tell them. Not always, but most of the time. Their only semblance of personality and motivation is usually tied to their specific loyalty mission. And that's pretty much it. And even then it's usually up to you to make the final decision.

In The Witcher games you can't just convince characters to abandon their core principles and to see things from your perspective. More often than that you're the one forced to choose someone else's perspective as a lesser of two evils.

Actually they didn't have more important motivations. Their entire existence was threatened by the Reapers. They had stupid excuses for Shepard to go around convincing people of the obvious.

I never said ME did it better than TW3, just that it did it. Sure, probably most of the characters' motivations aren't that much better than why a group of characters party up in a DnD campaign. Wrex stays on his home planet after ME1 for example. Mordin's whole arc isn't about the reapers but making up for his past mistakes. Like you mentioned, people do stuff for Geralt because they owe him, you can say that for ME and the loyalty missions; Shepard does them a favor to get a favor. And Shepard isn't just asking people for help, Shepard is offering basically jobs too.

Well, Geralt does have Axii is his back pocket.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

I played about an hour of Witcher 1 a few years ago and didn't see the fuss. It was very clunky with a lot of railroading in the gameworld and story and vastly inferior to what I was used to with the Gothic/Risen series. So I didn't bother looking into Witcher 2 or 3. That brief experience combined with the stories I've heard about Geralt being a "sex god" and the game seemingly obsessed with the player banging as many digitally rendered ladies as possible and in graphic detail means I don't believe I have missed much.

Witcher 2 is much closer to Gothic or Risen. From what i've seen about Wild Hunt, it goes even further in that direction. So there's that.

You probably spend more time in inventory screens in Witcher 3 than actively making choices. Whereas in Mass Effect, you spend more time role-playing as Shepard constantly making decisions to mold your Shepard while also making lots of choices that impact the world.

Whoa there! I have a bone to pick with this fragment.
I actually detest inventory system in first Mass Effect. I remember spending about as much time tidying it up, and editing loadouts as actually playing the game, especially in the later parts. It was a horrible experience. To this day it makes me question if i want to ever replay the game. It was worse than in both Witchers, and new Fallouts(seriously, what's up with modern RPGs haveing atrocious inventory systems?).
Luckily ME2 fixed that by getting rid of inventory alltogether.

 

[Baralak]

Witcher 2 is a much better game. I got my PS4 for Witcher 3 and was so let down. It's just so boring. Going open world made the game a 2nd rate Skyrim.

3 isn't worth playing, and I regret going all in with the season pass.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

You probably spend more time in inventory screens in Witcher 3 than actively making choices. Whereas in Mass Effect, you spend more time role-playing as Shepard constantly making decisions to mold your Shepard while also making lots of choices that impact the world.

Whoa there! I have a bone to pick with this fragment.
I actually detest inventory system in first Mass Effect. I remember spending about as much time tidying it up, and editing loadouts as actually playing the game, especially in the later parts. It was a horrible experience. To this day it makes me question if i want to ever replay the game. It was worse than in both Witchers, and new Fallouts(seriously, what's up with modern RPGs haveing atrocious inventory systems?).
Luckily ME2 fixed that by getting rid of inventory alltogether.

Yeah, I didn't play ME1 because it was Xbox/PC exclusive whereas the others weren't. I did watch a Youtube movie of ME1 before playing ME2, but of course that has nothing to do with the inventory issue. I heard the inventory system was horrid in the 1st game. Also, a huge pet peeve of mine with RPGs is them getting lost in the RPG elements and just spending way too much time in inventories, crafting, looting, etc. Loot systems are the worst and only cause wasted time on the player's end instead meaningful choices/decisions. The reason I want to play an RPG is to make meaningful choices for my character(s) and the story. Just about all video game RPGs fail to focus squarely on that aspect, and that's what makes an RPG an RPG IMO. Witcher 3 even ditches most of that once you get Witcher gear and then every 5 levels (or whatever), you go and upgrade that gear instead of the constant exercise of finding a slightly better gear, unequiping the old obsolete shit, and then eventually selling all the garbage for money that you really never end up needing for anything (just like 90% of RPGs nowadays).

 

[laggyteabag]

Aside from my usual issues with pacing, when it comes to open world games, TW3 was a fantastic game, though curiously, I prefer it more upon reflection, than when I was actually playing the game.

A lot of games of this genre, these days, are just filled with the same quest over and over again, to fill out the experience, but with TW3, even though there were a lot of the same mission types (eg Witcher Contracts), each had an interesting story to follow with it.

Another great thing about the game, is that despite it being 3 years old, it is still one of the best, if not the best looking game that I have ever played.

 

[EscapistAccount]

I actually detest inventory system in first Mass Effect. I remember spending about as much time tidying it up, and editing loadouts as actually playing the game, especially in the later parts.

If it's any help, you're wasting your time doing any real form of inventory management because most of it is crap. What you want to be doing is ignoring the inventory, attaching mods only when you see a number that's significantly higher than you remember, then two or three times just go drop the entire lot on a vendor. By the time you're about ready to hit the cloning facility you should have enough money that you can go get the Spectre master gear, which easily owns damn near anything in the game.

For all I love The Witcher 3 it's the same there. Hit White Orchard thoroughly, get the Viper swords and the Temerian gear, then don't sweat drops til you hit level 12 ish and can go grab whatever set of witcher gear suits you best. If you're ever equipping Velen vendor trash you're doing it wrong. When you hit a bump and need to buy some seriously expensive gear sell all your crafting and alchemy supplies because you'll not need them again.