This is what I'm referring to with regards to bad game design in video games.

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Here's an in depth breakdown of Witcher 3's game design, which is all in the beginning of the video. He discusses the poor open world along with little things like how poor money is implemented. Just about any board game with money, it is extremely important just like it should be.

Just so nobody says I'm just pilling on some game I've expressed my dislike for numerous times, here's his critique of Divinity Original Sin 2, a series I like much better than Witcher 3.

---

This is what I'm talking with regards to poor game design in video games. Devs just throw in elements and mechanics just because they are popular (other similar games have them) or think it's cool or to add bullet points to say their game has X, Y, and Z. Everything in a game should be there for a very specific reason. Right now it feels like video games are like TV shows/movies that have no editors to remove stuff that's not needed. It's why these games getting all these 8+/10s is just a joke.

 

[Casual Shinji]

This is what I'm talking with regards to poor game design in video games. Devs just throw in elements and mechanics just because they are popular (other similar games have them) or think it's cool or to add bullet points to say their game has X, Y, and Z. Everything in a game should be there for a very specific reason. Right now it feels like video games are like TV shows/movies that have no editors to remove stuff that's not needed. It's why these games getting all these 8+/10s is just a joke.

I guess I'll go for another round.

Games aren't perfect engines designed by flawless machines. NO game has parts that couldn't be cut or improved. Does Horizon: Zero Dawn need as many machines as it does? Does it need the watchtowers? Does it need the DLC area? Does it need the bandit camps? Certainly not that last one. Does The Last Guardian need its narraration? Does it need so many fake deaths for Trico? Does it need the auto-grab instead of having a dedicated button for it?

You seem hellbent on pushing this narrative that games that dare not be perfect in execution are worthless and a joke (unless you actually like them), as opposed to boardgames which apparently are the highest form of art to have ever existed. Things can still be very good, yet need work.

 

[bluegate]

Welp, I'll never be getting those 100 minutes back.

 

[CritialGaming]

It's not really bad game design though. It's clear you and the youtube creator don't know enough about game systems and balancing to really say. You are just nitpicking really.

Are these games perfect? No, of course not. Every game is going to have a system or design aspect that isn't perfect (or even good at all on occasion) but sometimes it isn't about having a perfect system in place. But regardless a system is needed.

Money for example. Sure you could make a better system, cost balance things better, etc etc. However in a game like the Witcher it really isn't that important of a system. Money exists to limit the player to some degree and that's all. Limiting them from just taking everything from a shop, or throwing every stone, stick, and crumpled piece of player at the NPC. Not that the gold has any real value, in fact the design is trying to tell the player than they don't NEED to pick up every scrap of shit they find lying around. Trying to encourage the player to make smart inventory choices to keep your carry weight down, as well as not fill your inventory for no reason.

Again the system could be better, but the game doesn't revolve much around the world's economy so it isn't a system that NEEDS to be great.

And frankly that video you posted immediately sets the wrong mood for what a critique is. The narrator's opening line is "People say the Witcher 3 is a masterpiece, but if that were true then why is it so shit?" which immediately ruins any objectiveness he could have in the critique. He tries to sneak in a "Oh it's a great game. The open world, the story, the mechanics, and everything else just isn't good." But then you have to ask, why say the game is great if your next three lines are saying how every aspect of the game isn't good.

If you wanna bash, then bash. But don't try to play both sides of the field by saying the game is great and then shitting on it for 100 minutes. That ruins any consistency to your points and makes the video a waste of time.

Luke Stephens did much better critique IMO of the game, highlighting flaws and great points a like. But most importantly he doesn't open the video skewing the viewer immediately towards his bias, and presents everything in a more neutral way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aMggRlvttg

 

[CaitSeith]

tl;dr: "Witcher 3 is overrated"

Guys, it's been almost 12 years. Let it go.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I guess I'll go for another round.

Games aren't perfect engines designed by flawless machines. NO game has parts that couldn't be cut or improved. Does Horizon: Zero Dawn need as many machines as it does? Does it need the watchtowers? Does it need the DLC area? Does it need the bandit camps? Certainly not that last one. Does The Last Guardian need its narraration? Does it need so many fake deaths for Trico? Does it need the auto-grab instead of having a dedicated button for it?

You seem hellbent on pushing this narrative that games that dare not be perfect in execution are worthless and a joke (unless you actually like them), as opposed to boardgames which apparently are the highest form of art to have ever existed. Things can still be very good, yet need work.

I'm not saying games should be perfect or anything. I'm saying they are far from perfect and we can do much better. Again, I'm talking about GAME DESIGN, not other issues like number of enemies or narrative choice (with narration or say Trico fake deaths). Team ICO games have solid game design, there's rarely anything there that doesn't need to be there and if there is, it takes up little time in the game that it barely matters. Compare that to both the loot systems in Witcher 3 and Divinity 2 as per the examples. Both cost the player numerous time in menus for no reason and with Witcher 3, it makes no thematic sense to even be there. After watching the Divinity 2 critique (prior to story spoilers), I very much doubt I'll even play the game because Divinity 1 already has to much loot and time spent in menus, it's a chore already and it's only worse in the sequel. And games with open worlds for no reason just result is tons of wasted time traveling to actual content.

Video games started stagnating a lot last-gen. Not every game needs a loot system, skill trees, Arkham combat, an open world, etc. Instead of copying say Arkham combat, why not develop a combat system that fits your game instead? Copying Arkham combat has seemed to finally calmed down though. Even something like Sekiro, which developed a combat system that fit the game, copied a bunch of game design from Souls for really no reason, From just did what they know I guess. What's the reason for enemies respawning in Sekiro? It really makes no sense, plus it only causes the player to re-kill mobs just to get to the actual fight they want to retry. It's like Shadow of the Colossus only has 16 enemies because adding mobs to fight is not the core experience; it's not about whether 16 colossi were too few, too much, or just right; it's that it knew only colossi should be the enemies. Sekiro's combat is similar in a sense to Shadow wherein Sekiro shines in the mini-boss and boss battles, it really doesn't need the standard mobs at all.

It's not about nitpicking saying there's 1 too many of this or whatever, it's analyzing whether it should even been there in the first place. Or why does say W3 need so many standard RPG elements like an open world, loot system, leveling, etc. None of them really make sense to the game. Why couldn't W3 have been basically a medieval RPG that's a full-on detective game? Instead it's a basic open world RPG with good/great writing. Plus, being a detective game would've played to the strengths of the writing (what CDPR is good at) and would've fit great with the source material too. It's major design choices like that that I'm talking about.

It's not really bad game design though. It's clear you and the youtube creator don't know enough about game systems and balancing to really say. You are just nitpicking really.

Are these games perfect? No, of course not. Every game is going to have a system or design aspect that isn't perfect (or even good at all on occasion) but sometimes it isn't about having a perfect system in place. But regardless a system is needed.

Money for example. Sure you could make a better system, cost balance things better, etc etc. However in a game like the Witcher it really isn't that important of a system. Money exists to limit the player to some degree and that's all. Limiting them from just taking everything from a shop, or throwing every stone, stick, and crumpled piece of player at the NPC. Not that the gold has any real value, in fact the design is trying to tell the player than they don't NEED to pick up every scrap of shit they find lying around. Trying to encourage the player to make smart inventory choices to keep your carry weight down, as well as not fill your inventory for no reason.

Again the system could be better, but the game doesn't revolve much around the world's economy so it isn't a system that NEEDS to be great.

And frankly that video you posted immediately sets the wrong mood for what a critique is. The narrator's opening line is "People say the Witcher 3 is a masterpiece, but if that were true then why is it so shit?" which immediately ruins any objectiveness he could have in the critique. He tries to sneak in a "Oh it's a great game. The open world, the story, the mechanics, and everything else just isn't good." But then you have to ask, why say the game is great if your next three lines are saying how every aspect of the game isn't good.

If you wanna bash, then bash. But don't try to play both sides of the field by saying the game is great and then shitting on it for 100 minutes. That ruins any consistency to your points and makes the video a waste of time.

Luke Stephens did much better critique IMO of the game, highlighting flaws and great points a like. But most importantly he doesn't open the video skewing the viewer immediately towards his bias, and presents everything in a more neutral way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aMggRlvttg

Again, it's not about nitpicking, it's large chunks of the game that serve no purpose and really just waste player time getting to what the game actually shines at. Sure the money thing is a bit of a nitpick but why have a haggle system for no reason. Like I mentioned above asking why a Witcher game can't be like a full-on detective RPG and focus on those aspects of Geralt. Or why can't a Witcher game be about Geralt literally living job-by-job (akin to say Firefly) as witchers are far less needed than they've ever been so that money is crucial and haggling people is important. Either one of those routes would accentuate the good writing of CDPR as well. Why did W3 have to be your standard open world combat heavy RPG? Why can't video games be their own things and be more distinct? I like the core of W3 but very little of the gameplay elements actually fit in well with that core, that's what I'm talking about, not little things but macro-level design decisions.

I didn't post the videos because I think they were great examples of a what a critique should or shouldn't be but because of how in depth he went into how design choices greatly affect overall playability. I think he did a really good job at showing how W3's open world isn't needed by the fact the game funnels you linearly through the areas anyway. Or how Divinity 2's armor system greatly impacts the overall combat feel for the worse even making a strength of the game (how the different elements interact with each other) basically neutered.

 

[BrawlMan]

Video games started stagnating a lot last-gen. Not every game needs a loot system, skill trees, Arkham combat, an open world, etc. Instead of copying say Arkham combat, why not develop a combat system that fits your game instead? Copying Arkham combat has seemed to finally calmed down though. Even something like Sekiro, which developed a combat system that fit the game, copied a bunch of game design from Souls for really no reason, From just did what they know I guess. What's the reason for enemies respawning in Sekiro? It really makes no sense, plus it only causes the player to re-kill mobs just to get to the actual fight they want to retry. It's like Shadow of the Colossus only has 16 enemies because adding mobs to fight is not the core experience; it's not about whether 16 colossi were too few, too much, or just right; it's that it knew only colossi should be the enemies. Sekiro's combat is similar in a sense to Shadow wherein Sekiro shines in the mini-boss and boss battles, it really doesn't need the standard mobs at all.

The gaming industry has always had this problem: Platformers in the 90s, RE Clones, Doom clones, the fighting game scene, MGS clones, every game copying Unreal Tournament/Quake III, Max Payne clones or games using heavy use of bullet time, Devil May Cry/Stylish Action or God of War clones, Halo Clones, GTA/Sandbox clones, motion controls, Gears clones with dogshit brown/gunmetal grey (really worse), COD clones (the industry at its worse), games of different genres copying Gears/COD thematically where it does not makes sense (OMG), PUBG/Fortnite, and the Dark Souls genre. The only difference being that most developers/publishers tried to be creative or unique when playing follow=the-leader in the 90s/early to mid 2000s.

The Witcher 3 has problems, but not as severe as you're making them out to be. I say this, and I don't even like the Witcher series.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I'm not saying games should be perfect or anything. I'm saying they are far from perfect and we can do much better. Again, I'm talking about GAME DESIGN, not other issues like number of enemies or narrative choice (with narration or say Trico fake deaths). Team ICO games have solid game design, there's rarely anything there that doesn't need to be there and if there is, it takes up little time in the game that it barely matters. Compare that to both the loot systems in Witcher 3 and Divinity 2 as per the examples. Both cost the player numerous time in menus for no reason and with Witcher 3, it makes no thematic sense to even be there. After watching the Divinity 2 critique (prior to story spoilers), I very much doubt I'll even play the game because Divinity 1 already has to much loot and time spent in menus, it's a chore already and it's only worse in the sequel. And games with open worlds for no reason just result is tons of wasted time traveling to actual content.

That's apples and oranges. Enemies and narrative IS game design. You're being picky about what constitutes as a major fault or something that is a systemic problem in game design. Both W3 and I'm assuming Divinity 2 simply have loot for you to sort through, that's just the type of games they are. It wouldn't make sense for W3 not to have loot since a lot of the game is relatively indepth. So not being able to pick up weapons from enemies that might be stronger or that you can sell for money would be strange. Compare that to H:ZD; does it make sense that Aloy just leaves the projectile weaponry on all those machines, despite them probably being very helpful in combat?

It actually handles loot better than something like Skyrim where whenever you get encumbered you need to either drop something or take a strength potion to fast-travel to the nearest vendor. And this happens a lot. In W3 your horse makes it so you can always travel at normal speed, and whenever enemies show up the encumbrance goes away for the time being.

Video games started stagnating a lot last-gen. Not every game needs a loot system, skill trees, Arkham combat, an open world, etc. Instead of copying say Arkham combat, why not develop a combat system that fits your game instead? Copying Arkham combat has seemed to finally calmed down though. Even something like Sekiro, which developed a combat system that fit the game, copied a bunch of game design from Souls for really no reason, From just did what they know I guess. What's the reason for enemies respawning in Sekiro? It really makes no sense, plus it only causes the player to re-kill mobs just to get to the actual fight they want to retry. It's like Shadow of the Colossus only has 16 enemies because adding mobs to fight is not the core experience; it's not about whether 16 colossi were too few, too much, or just right; it's that it knew only colossi should be the enemies. Sekiro's combat is similar in a sense to Shadow wherein Sekiro shines in the mini-boss and boss battles, it really doesn't need the standard mobs at all.

You don't know that, because you haven't played those versions of these games. SotC and Sekiro are completely different games from one another. SotC's world is about isolation, and the game's combat/climbing mechanics are ill suited for fighting regular enemies. Sekiro's respawning enemies are very necessary, since the Bosses are very likely to pound you into dust. And the respawning enemies not only provide you with EXP and money to get skills and resupply yourself for the Boss fights, they also grant you the chance to regain your confidence in the combat by fighting easier adversaries. This has ironically been the result of the respawing enemies in Souls games; not to make it harder, but work as a confedence booster.

If you want to get technical about SotC, is it really necessary to have to travel to each colossus? You're not doing anything, the horse pretty much rides itself, it's not helping you prepare for the fight that's to come. Why even have it there at all if the game is all about the colossus fights?

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

The Witcher 3 has problems, but not as severe as you're making them out to be. I say this, and I don't even like the Witcher series.

I honestly did not find any of the actual gameplay to be enjoyable in W3. But again, I was just using it as an example and just about any recent game can be used in its place (which is why I posted 2 videos and not just a W3 video) as just about every game is not developed in a sense where the designers actually ask themselves is this or that element actually enhancing or diluting the core.

That's apples and oranges. Enemies and narrative IS game design. You're being picky about what constitutes as a major fault or something that is a systemic problem in game design. Both W3 and I'm assuming Divinity 2 simply have loot for you to sort through, that's just the type of games they are. It wouldn't make sense for W3 not to have loot since a lot of the game is relatively indepth. So not being able to pick up weapons from enemies that might be stronger or that you can sell for money would be strange. Compare that to H:ZD; does it make sense that Aloy just leaves the projectile weaponry on all those machines, despite them probably being very helpful in combat?

It actually handles loot better than something like Skyrim where whenever you get encumbered you need to either drop something or take a strength potion to fast-travel to the nearest vendor. And this happens a lot. In W3 your horse makes it so you can always travel at normal speed, and whenever enemies show up the encumbrance goes away for the time being.

I'm talking about how gameplay mechanics/elements interact with the game itself. Sure, narrative is obviously part of many video games, but you obviously don't need a narrative for a game to be a game. Loot is a bit tied to narrative with regards to why it doesn't work in W3 as Geralt is a master witcher and already should have master witcher gear so why is there a loot system at all? Going just to game mechanics interacting with each as per why loot doesn't work either, probably about the halfway point (maybe earlier), you acquire witcher gear which you upgrade (much like Souls upgrading) defeating the purpose of the loot system in the first place. Sure, there's the money reason for loot but you can have picked up loot just convert into money instantly like Dishonored. Just because W3 does loot better than another game doesn't excuse it for being bad game design. If say Shadow of the Colossus had better mob combat than Souls wouldn't make it OK for Shadow to have pointless combat. A game doing something well doesn't make it good game design if it shouldn't be there in the 1st place. How horribly designed the quen and axii powers is just straight up horrible game design in W3 for a 100% game-y reason as not only do they make combat joke easy but also defeat the notion that witchers win fights due to preparation (much like say Batman having Superman's powers would). Or how the armor system of Divinity 2 affects all the other game systems is a much better example of game mechanics/elements being at odds with one another. Though, what all loot really ends up accomplishing before endgame is making the player waste time in inventory screens and not much of anything else. Again, not saying you shouldn't ever find anything before endgame. Lots of things work much better in small doses than large ones like having 10 of something to find is usually far better than having 100+ of those things to find, diminishing returns is a thing for like everything.

You don't know that, because you haven't played those versions of these games. SotC and Sekiro are completely different games from one another. SotC's world is about isolation, and the game's combat/climbing mechanics are ill suited for fighting regular enemies. Sekiro's respawning enemies are very necessary, since the Bosses are very likely to pound you into dust. And the respawning enemies not only provide you with EXP and money to get skills and resupply yourself for the Boss fights, they also grant you the chance to regain your confidence in the combat by fighting easier adversaries. This has ironically been the result of the respawing enemies in Souls games; not to make it harder, but work as a confedence booster.

If you want to get technical about SotC, is it really necessary to have to travel to each colossus? You're not doing anything, the horse pretty much rides itself, it's not helping you prepare for the fight that's to come. Why even have it there at all if the game is all about the colossus fights?

I can tell what I don't enjoy or hate doing in a game that I'm playing. I literally exit of the game and upload the save to the cloud before certain mini-boss fights in Sekiro so I don't have kill the mob again and again just to do the fight I wanna do. If I have to go to those lengths to get around the game design, then there's something wrong with said design. Fighting the mobs is rarely compelling gameplay because the core combat system just doesn't jive well with weak enemies. Nor does fighting them help with being more successful with the bosses either because the way you fight and learn the boss fights is basically a completely different game. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any enemies outside bosses in Sekiro exactly like Shadow but they definitely have no reason to respawn and the boss fights are definitely the core of Sekiro. You could easily say the opposite of Souls that is much more an exploration game than anything.

You literally said why you travel in Shadow by the above comment of the game being about isolation. Also, you need some "down" time after each fight to take in mentally concening what you are actually doing. If you were just funneled straight from fight to fight, you wouldn't have that. The game just being a boss rush game just wouldn't work for a 1st playthrough.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I can tell what I don't enjoy or hate doing in a game that I'm playing. I literally exit of the game and upload the save to the cloud before certain mini-boss fights in Sekiro so I don't have kill the mob again and again just to do the fight I wanna do. If I have to go to those lengths to get around the game design, then there's something wrong with said design. Fighting the mobs is rarely compelling gameplay because the core combat system just doesn't jive well with weak enemies. Nor does fighting them help with being more successful with the bosses either because the way you fight and learn the boss fights is basically a completely different game. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any enemies outside bosses in Sekiro exactly like Shadow but they definitely have no reason to respawn and the boss fights are definitely the core of Sekiro. You could easily say the opposite of Souls that is much more an exploration game than anything.

You literally said why you travel in Shadow by the above comment of the game being about isolation. Also, you need some "down" time after each fight to take in mentally concening what you are actually doing. If you were just funneled straight from fight to fight, you wouldn't have that. The game just being a boss rush game just wouldn't work for a 1st playthrough.

See here's the thing, you're bringing all this bad game design criticism like it's factual and undeniable and something people need to fall inline with, and not what it actually is; that you just don't like it. Riding your horse from colossus to colossus isn't part of the core game either, and by that definition someone who really doesn't care for it could state that this is bad game design and pointless. And it's that person's right to dislike it, but if they constantly hammer on it like they know how bad it is and that others just aren't getting it, it gets grating. Yes, we got it, you don't like it, other people do like it, move on.

Other than that you're staring yourself blind on small thematic inconsitencies and treating them like they ruin the whole game. Again, no game can be ontop of everything, and you're just gonna have to accept that. It makes no thematic sense that Wander can survive falls from 100 feet or auto-heal in a couple of seconds, or that Aloy (or any other videogame character) can carry ludicrous amounts of items around and can sprint in definitely. Every game falls apart under scrutiny just on their level design alone, because every single game (with levels) TECHNICALLY has bad level design.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

See here's the thing, you're bringing all this bad game design criticism like it's factual and undeniable and something people need to fall inline with, and not what it actually is; that you just don't like it. Riding your horse from colossus to colossus isn't part of the core game either, and by that definition someone who really doesn't care for it could state that this is bad game design and pointless. And it's that person's right to dislike it, but if they constantly hammer on it like they know how bad it is and that others just aren't getting it, it gets grating. Yes, we got it, you don't like it, other people do like it, move on.

Other than that you're staring yourself blind on small thematic inconsitencies and treating them like they ruin the whole game. Again, no game can be ontop of everything, and you're just gonna have to accept that. It makes no thematic sense that Wander can survive falls from 100 feet or auto-heal in a couple of seconds, or that Aloy (or any other videogame character) can carry ludicrous amounts of items around and can sprint in definitely. Every game falls apart under scrutiny just on their level design alone, because every single game (with levels) TECHNICALLY has bad level design.

I understand everyone has their own opinions. However, the affects game systems have on one another are objective in what they do. Whether you like what they do is, of course, opinions. I think most of my logic is sound in most regards. Like why does W3 have a loot and level system when the main character is a master of his class? Then, why make the best gear in the game (witcher gear) something you upgrade thereby making loot nothing but things to sell? How is it good design to have one game system that makes another one pointless? Much more straightforward and objective is what Quen and Axii do to combat. If I still had W3, I could easily demonstrate taking down enemies 10+ levels higher than me with ease (though taking quite a bit of time). Those signs do make combat joke easy and that's just a fact. Going back to Divinity 2, one of the most popular mods is "Level up all equipment" because most people don't like the time wasted by the game's loot system. That's a shared opinion of many. Same thing with the game's Armor system that has become a meme on the forums. What affects said Armor system have on combat is itself objective, you can't deny that it makes elemental interactions and CC less important. Of course, you can prefer the new combat feel/flow as your opinion. Most of my opinions aren't on the fringe and quite a few are definitely in the majority when you look at the actual communities of said games and not "professional" reviewers.

Riding from colossus to colossus enhances the core game, which you said a few posts ago yourself is isolation. Most of the things you listed are really little things that would be considered QoL issues by most people. Why limit sprinting and basically just waste player time? Stuff like character stamina really only matters in combat situations. Perhaps the most popular mod for both Divinity games is to increase sprint speed out of combat. Whereas stuff like a bad loot system can easily waste 10s of player hours in inventory management over the course of the game. Combat design issues greatly affect both W3 and Divinity since combat is what you do the most, it should be solidly designed.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Spoiler

The Witcher 3 has problems, but not as severe as you're making them out to be. I say this, and I don't even like the Witcher series.

I honestly did not find any of the actual gameplay to be enjoyable in W3. But again, I was just using it as an example and just about any recent game can be used in its place (which is why I posted 2 videos and not just a W3 video) as just about every game is not developed in a sense where the designers actually ask themselves is this or that element actually enhancing or diluting the core.

That's apples and oranges. Enemies and narrative IS game design. You're being picky about what constitutes as a major fault or something that is a systemic problem in game design. Both W3 and I'm assuming Divinity 2 simply have loot for you to sort through, that's just the type of games they are. It wouldn't make sense for W3 not to have loot since a lot of the game is relatively indepth. So not being able to pick up weapons from enemies that might be stronger or that you can sell for money would be strange. Compare that to H:ZD; does it make sense that Aloy just leaves the projectile weaponry on all those machines, despite them probably being very helpful in combat?

It actually handles loot better than something like Skyrim where whenever you get encumbered you need to either drop something or take a strength potion to fast-travel to the nearest vendor. And this happens a lot. In W3 your horse makes it so you can always travel at normal speed, and whenever enemies show up the encumbrance goes away for the time being.

I'm talking about how gameplay mechanics/elements interact with the game itself. Sure, narrative is obviously part of many video games, but you obviously don't need a narrative for a game to be a game. Loot is a bit tied to narrative with regards to why it doesn't work in W3 as Geralt is a master witcher and already should have master witcher gear so why is there a loot system at all? Going just to game mechanics interacting with each as per why loot doesn't work either, probably about the halfway point (maybe earlier), you acquire witcher gear which you upgrade (much like Souls upgrading) defeating the purpose of the loot system in the first place. Sure, there's the money reason for loot but you can have picked up loot just convert into money instantly like Dishonored. Just because W3 does loot better than another game doesn't excuse it for being bad game design. If say Shadow of the Colossus had better mob combat than Souls wouldn't make it OK for Shadow to have pointless combat. A game doing something well doesn't make it good game design if it shouldn't be there in the 1st place. How horribly designed the quen and axii powers is just straight up horrible game design in W3 for a 100% game-y reason as not only do they make combat joke easy but also defeat the notion that witchers win fights due to preparation (much like say Batman having Superman's powers would). Or how the armor system of Divinity 2 affects all the other game systems is a much better example of game mechanics/elements being at odds with one another. Though, what all loot really ends up accomplishing before endgame is making the player waste time in inventory screens and not much of anything else. Again, not saying you shouldn't ever find anything before endgame. Lots of things work much better in small doses than large ones like having 10 of something to find is usually far better than having 100+ of those things to find, diminishing returns is a thing for like everything.

You don't know that, because you haven't played those versions of these games. SotC and Sekiro are completely different games from one another. SotC's world is about isolation, and the game's combat/climbing mechanics are ill suited for fighting regular enemies. Sekiro's respawning enemies are very necessary, since the Bosses are very likely to pound you into dust. And the respawning enemies not only provide you with EXP and money to get skills and resupply yourself for the Boss fights, they also grant you the chance to regain your confidence in the combat by fighting easier adversaries. This has ironically been the result of the respawing enemies in Souls games; not to make it harder, but work as a confedence booster.

If you want to get technical about SotC, is it really necessary to have to travel to each colossus? You're not doing anything, the horse pretty much rides itself, it's not helping you prepare for the fight that's to come. Why even have it there at all if the game is all about the colossus fights?

I can tell what I don't enjoy or hate doing in a game that I'm playing. I literally exit of the game and upload the save to the cloud before certain mini-boss fights in Sekiro so I don't have kill the mob again and again just to do the fight I wanna do. If I have to go to those lengths to get around the game design, then there's something wrong with said design. Fighting the mobs is rarely compelling gameplay because the core combat system just doesn't jive well with weak enemies. Nor does fighting them help with being more successful with the bosses either because the way you fight and learn the boss fights is basically a completely different game. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any enemies outside bosses in Sekiro exactly like Shadow but they definitely have no reason to respawn and the boss fights are definitely the core of Sekiro. You could easily say the opposite of Souls that is much more an exploration game than anything.

You literally said why you travel in Shadow by the above comment of the game being about isolation. Also, you need some "down" time after each fight to take in mentally concening what you are actually doing. If you were just funneled straight from fight to fight, you wouldn't have that. The game just being a boss rush game just wouldn't work for a 1st playthrough.

Everyone who?s played a FROM game since Demon?s Souls knows you can run past pretty much any scrub group of enemies upon knowing a boss route if need be. The scrub mobs are completely optional once the player familiarizes themselves with them and the area they occupy. As explained above they are currency and item fodder, which are both useful for the core game of bettering your stats and equipment. If the game was just about fighting bosses there would be no buildup or context for anything to get to them and the game would ultimately be shallow for it. It?s designed to give the player choice in how they want to proceed, whether doing a Depraved SL1 run or turning your character into a beast with the best gear and fanciest armor. From a gameplay standpoint that?s why it still has such a strong following: options.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I understand everyone has their own opinions. However, the affects game systems have on one another are objective in what they do. Whether you like what they do is, of course, opinions. I think most of my logic is sound in most regards. Like why does W3 have a loot and level system when the main character is a master of his class? Then, why make the best gear in the game (witcher gear) something you upgrade thereby making loot nothing but things to sell?

Because nearly everything you pick up in the game can also be broken down into crafting material, or are required intact to actually make some of the Witcher gear. And beyond that the game would simply rather give you the option to pick up, leave, sell, or break down the loot yourself. You may not like it, but others do. They like finding stuff, seeing how much they can sell it for, or finding out what crafting material they can get from it. It's part of the experience.

How is it good design to have one game system that makes another one pointless? Much more straightforward and objective is what Quen and Axii do to combat. If I still had W3, I could easily demonstrate taking down enemies 10+ levels higher than me with ease (though taking quite a bit of time). Those signs do make combat joke easy and that's just a fact.

Well then I'm just gonna have to take your word on that, because I've only ever played the game on what I assume is standard difficulty, and I never felt like I was just breezing through it with little effort. Sure, I've played harder games, but this never prided itself on its hardcore difficulty. Other than that I suggest upping the difficulty, or just don't use the Quen and Axxi signs. It's not like those two powers are the centre of Geralt's combat. I'll again bring up GoW 1's infamous launch juggler that turns every enemy that can be juggled into a big red orb pinata. This is the only game in the series that you seem to like, yet it's the only game in the series with a move that trivializes most of the combat. So how is that different other than that you prefer it?

Riding from colossus to colossus enhances the core game, which you said a few posts ago yourself is isolation.

For the people who like it. There's also people who feel Agro's more realistic controls are a detriment to the experience, but they're probably not assuming everyone hates it (or should hate it) as much as they do, which is what you appear to be doing with your criticism of W3's combat.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I can tell what I don't enjoy or hate doing in a game that I'm playing. I literally exit of the game and upload the save to the cloud before certain mini-boss fights in Sekiro so I don't have kill the mob again and again just to do the fight I wanna do. If I have to go to those lengths to get around the game design, then there's something wrong with said design. Fighting the mobs is rarely compelling gameplay because the core combat system just doesn't jive well with weak enemies. Nor does fighting them help with being more successful with the bosses either because the way you fight and learn the boss fights is basically a completely different game. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any enemies outside bosses in Sekiro exactly like Shadow but they definitely have no reason to respawn and the boss fights are definitely the core of Sekiro. You could easily say the opposite of Souls that is much more an exploration game than anything.

You literally said why you travel in Shadow by the above comment of the game being about isolation. Also, you need some "down" time after each fight to take in mentally concening what you are actually doing. If you were just funneled straight from fight to fight, you wouldn't have that. The game just being a boss rush game just wouldn't work for a 1st playthrough.

Everyone who?s played a FROM game since Demon?s Souls knows you can run past pretty much any scrub group of enemies upon knowing a boss route if need be. The scrub mobs are completely optional once the player familiarizes themselves with them and the area they occupy. As explained above they are currency and item fodder, which are both useful for the core game of bettering your stats and equipment. If the game was just about fighting bosses there would be no buildup or context for anything to get to them and the game would ultimately be shallow for it. It?s designed to give the player choice in how they want to proceed, whether doing a Depraved SL1 run or turning your character into a beast with the best gear and fanciest armor. From a gameplay standpoint that?s why it still has such a strong following: options.

I wasn't saying anything about Souls' mobs, I was talking about Sekiro mobs that are in the same area as several mini-boss fights. So you do have to re-kill mobs to do the fight you actually wanna do, unless you quit the game after killing said mob, upload save to cloud, launch game - fight mini-boss - die, quit game to download save from cloud, and reload game. Sekiro uses much of the same game design as Souls when it's not a Souls game and said design doesn't fit.

Because nearly everything you pick up in the game can also be broken down into crafting material, or are required intact to actually make some of the Witcher gear. And beyond that the game would simply rather give you the option to pick up, leave, sell, or break down the loot yourself. You may not like it, but others do. They like finding stuff, seeing how much they can sell it for, or finding out what crafting material they can get from it. It's part of the experience.

Well then I'm just gonna have to take your word on that, because I've only ever played the game on what I assume is standard difficulty, and I never felt like I was just breezing through it with little effort. Sure, I've played harder games, but this never prided itself on its hardcore difficulty. Other than that I suggest upping the difficulty, or just don't use the Quen and Axxi signs. It's not like those two powers are the centre of Geralt's combat. I'll again bring up GoW 1's infamous launch juggler that turns every enemy that can be juggled into a big red orb pinata. This is the only game in the series that you seem to like, yet it's the only game in the series with a move that trivializes most of the combat. So how is that different other than that you prefer it?

For the people who like it. There's also people who feel Agro's more realistic controls are a detriment to the experience, but they're probably not assuming everyone hates it (or should hate it) as much as they do, which is what you appear to be doing with your criticism of W3's combat.

Or the game can just straight up give you rare/important materials as rewards for quests/hunts/exploration like say Souls does. Cut out the middle man basically. I'm obviously not the biggest Souls fan but it streamlines just about everything rather well, you're in your inventory only as much as you need to be. Witcher gear is just objectively better and even has skills that go along with it.

It doesn't take long as a gamer to realize simple exploits. For Quen, it allows you to take any hit and reduce the damage to 0 and you can just keep reapplying it infinitely... For Axii, I can stun a creature, get a few hits in, and keep doing that as well too. It's not hard to see how those 2 things are broken as shit. Most games make CC effects have to pass a check for it to trigger or the more times you do it, the creature gains higher resistance to it so you can't spam it. The whole armor system Larian included for Divinity 2, which I talked up previously, was to make the game less CC heavy but it went too far. There's really no point in playing the harder difficulties of W3 as all those do is make combat last longer. I'm not going to make an unenjoyable part of the game take up even more time (not just cuz of quen and axii because as you say, you can house-rule it out, but because combat just doesn't feel good, it's not fun IMO). Sure, the juggle in GOW made combat easier than it should be but it was fun so I had fun, and it wasn't trying to be some grand combat game like DMC but just something fun to play. The other games were less fun with horrible stories and characters (though new-GOW was alright in that regard).

I never "get" the complaints about Team ICO controls honestly. The horse controls are more than anything automated so how can you have trouble controlling Argo? I get the not liking the automation just cuz maybe you want more control, though you do need that automation for one fight where Argo has to steer as you aim behind at a colossus.