Jump to content

The Witcher 3

kamileuszb

By kamileuszb,
in General Gaming

Recommended Posts

leddis3

leddis3

Posted
Posted

 

Hey! Let's bash Skyrim and then ape the shit out of it!

Oh and I see CD Projekt's understanding of character appeal is deep, man. Geralt now has a beard!

 

what ?

 

 

I'm referring to how CDPR have been calling Skyrim "generic" and unsatisfying for months now, and now come up with an open world RPG in a northern tundra.

I am not fond of arrogance or hypocrisy, and personally think they're setting themselves up for a fall.

Link to comment
Veta

Veta

Posted
Posted

0.0 , why would you think that ? has any of the previous titles or CDPR ever disappointed ?

 

Also

 

1st Skyrim is super ultra hyper generic not just the environment but the NPC's too , just try to remember of a fully fledged 3 dimensional skyrim npc .

 

2nd The Withcer 3 is based on the books they didn't really just come up with the whole setting (or at least so I think) ,and even so you can clearly see authentic features such as sailing .

Link to comment
leddis3

leddis3

Posted
Posted

0.0 , why would you think that ? has any of the previous titles or CDPR ever disappointed ?

 

Also

 

1st Skyrim is super ultra hyper generic not just the environment but the NPC's too , just try to remember of a fully fledged 3 dimensional skyrim npc .

 

2nd The Withcer 3 is based on the books they didn't really just come up with the whole setting (or at least so I think) ,and even so you can clearly see authentic features such as sailing .

 

It has consistently disappointed me. I think it's extremely overrated.

 

Yes, Skyrim can be generic, but that's one of the pitfalls of an open world RPG. That may not excuse the general laziness of the storylines in Oblivion and Skyrim, but even in a well written open world such as Fallout New Vegas, characters can feel flat, because there must be so many and the world requires so much attention to detail.

Unless CDPR plan to work on this game for ten years, they will inevitably run into the same issue.

 

I'm aware of it being based on the books, but I can't shake the feeling that if Skyrim had been set in a tropical paradise, we'd be seeing palm trees.

Link to comment
lordofthedread

lordofthedread

Posted
Posted

I was personally disapaointed with TW2 because it is very linear and it has not much replay capabilities even in front of the first episode but it is a lot better than Skyrim when you compare the NPC interactions and lore depth, you feel you are interacting with people and not mindless zombies.

 

I am not saying that Skyrim is a bad game, far from it, just that it feels like an unfinished product and the excuse that Skyrim being an open world an all gets old really.

 

There really few NPC in any TES game that you will remember of, I dont remember any NPC from Morrowind (the fact that they mostly have all the same dialogue lines doesnt help) and I remember only a few NPC from Oblivion and mostly the annoying ones (like the fan) while I remember most NPC from TW and TW2.

 

This is just an example and I dont agree with CDPR throwing shit at Skyrim but I am expecting their game to see if they will indeed keep their promises or serve yet another corridor RPG, so far the videos are pretty to look at but until I will have tried the actual game I wont be convinced.

Link to comment
Daguy

Daguy

Posted
Posted

 

It has consistently disappointed me. I think it's extremely overrated.

 

Yes, Skyrim can be generic, but that's one of the pitfalls of an open world RPG. That may not excuse the general laziness of the storylines in Oblivion and Skyrim, but even in a well written open world such as Fallout New Vegas, characters can feel flat, because there must be so many and the world requires so much attention to detail.

Unless CDPR plan to work on this game for ten years, they will inevitably run into the same issue.

 

I'm aware of it being based on the books, but I can't shake the feeling that if Skyrim had been set in a tropical paradise, we'd be seeing palm trees.

 

 

Got to say I agree completely.

 

It is down to personal taste obviously, but i've never enjoyed following Geralt as a character, and the world while being based of a book has its own problems due to that. Tamriel as a whole is actually pretty deep; it has video games all the way back to the 90s worth of lore and world building, which is LORE is what you are looking at makes it arguable as rich/deep as most fantasy novels. The Witcher as a novel series, after all, is no Tolkien, Song of Ice and Fire, or Discworld. We don't even have more than several of them translated to english yet.

 

Gameplay? I agree completely, Skyrim is actually the most generic of the Elder Scrolls games, as I actually really liked most things (except the character models and bodies) of Oblivion. It all does feel rather shallow at times. However, a lot of the time the game is as deep as you want it to be. It gives you options out the behind. Best of all? Combat is actually fun and free-form.

 

The Witcher however personally never won me over. The combat is pants, the styles and potions feeling clunky and unwieldy, the animations (of the first game at least) are wonky, if you have ever seen any fantasy film ever you have seen around 70% of the areas you play in, the plot/travel is jarring, the characters are gruff and edgy for the sake of it, and Geralt is an unlikable prat that I can only direct in a distant way. He isn't the players character. He is a character defined by a novel series, a tv series, and now soon to be three games. If you don't like that character? Tough.

 

Thats how its worked out for me. I've tried several times to get through the Witcher 1 (Enhanced) and every time I got disheartened. First time it was by Geralt as a character, the generic nature of the other Witchers, and the boring castle and enemies. Plus the combat. The second time I actually got to the first village, and was suddenly talking to people Geralt knew but i didn't, and i saved and never continued.  I've tried multiple times to play the game through to completion, as the Witcher 2 looks liek it benefitted from its budget, but I don't want to buy a second game when i've not even beat the first.

 

(My plan is to someday, when they are all translated, to read the novels and try to aquire a taste for Geralt and absorb some of settign and history, so i'm not ignorant when Geralt is speaking to practically everyone. I have a feeling if I can learn why he is a gruff asshole and come to empathise, I might be able to follow his character without wanting to turnt he game off. But making us go to out of game sources to appreciate the character and understand whats going on in the story/setting is hardly the sign of stellar story telling.)

 

As for the whole northern setting and open world? If you think its just an 'amazing coincidence', I have a prime piece of real-estate for you to look at. Honestly, are we as a community (the gaming one, that is, not just LL) really still that naive that we can't see blatent attempts riding the hype/popularity train? I'm sure CDProjekt is oozing, simly oozing, with integrity and refinement, but seriously? An open world RPG set in a winter-wonderland, after a highly popular series did the same things and sold millions? Thats at best highly suspect. Made worse by how they ripped on Skyrim.

 

I think one of the biggest problems I have however is not the Witcher's fault. As a roleplayer, I like making my own character in a rich and massive open world, and making my own tale, even if its following the guidelines of the quests and stories of the games, while is why the mods here are so valuable to me. Thats not what the Witcher offers. Simple as that really.

 

Link to comment
Jerbsinator

Jerbsinator

Posted
Posted

I gotta say, until CDPR fucks up the Witcher series they can say whatever the fuck they want. If they don't fuck it up (which they won't) then who gives a shit. A good game is a good game and the Witcher series is up there as one of the best series ever.

Link to comment
gregathit

gregathit

Posted
Posted

I personally am greatly looking forward to Witcher 3.  I enjoyed the living shit out of the first two and if the game is anything like them it will be a hit with me!

 

I do think it is BS for one company to trash talk another company.  Nothing is gained by doing this and quite possibly folks might be turned away.

 

Face it, Elderscrolls games and Witcher games are completely different and comparing them is a waste of time.  The Witcher games were more classic RPG than anything else and the stuff Bethesda puts out is more sandbox style.  Both styles have their strong and weak points.  Enjoy them for what they are.

Link to comment
Daguy

Daguy

Posted
Posted

I personally am greatly looking forward to Witcher 3.  I enjoyed the living shit out of the first two and if the game is anything like them it will be a hit with me!

 

I do think it is BS for one company to trash talk another company.  Nothing is gained by doing this and quite possibly folks might be turned away.

 

Face it, Elderscrolls games and Witcher games are completely different and comparing them is a waste of time.  The Witcher games were more classic RPG than anything else and the stuff Bethesda puts out is more sandbox style.  Both styles have their strong and weak points.  Enjoy them for what they are.

 

Thats a good point, on your final note. They are completely different games, though TW3 seems to be borrowing a bit from the title its devs pointlessly insutled. It certains makes me wonder about their company, for all they are praised for their focus on PC games.

 

I'm glad others enjoy the games. I'm hoping one day, maybe after reading the books, i'll be able to too.

 

Despite my previous post, i've actually just grabbed Assassin of Kings Enhanced off Steam, as its going for £5. Even with the faults I picked over the first game, I may at some point want to play it, and for the price of a couple of pints I can't really say no.

 

How much of a disadvantage storywise would I be starting with TW2? Are they direct sequels, or in name only?

Link to comment
kamileuszb

kamileuszb

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Daguy.

As I remember there is an option in Geralt's dialogue lines which allows You to recall who is who when You talk to various npcs.

 

But let's stay in topic.

 

My personal graduation (Wjy I like the game):

Skyrim let's You mod it like hell.
Witcher. Good, deep story where character isn't in the center of the world. 

 

If newest Witcher will be still The Witcher my dreams will come true :) Of course I'll miss my "own" character and I hope reds won't make villages of most citys as it takes place in Skyrim. Maybe I don't know the lore but please, capital city Solitude has comparable size with West Harbour in NWN2? (If You remember that)

Link to comment
gregathit

gregathit

Posted
Posted

 

How much of a disadvantage storywise would I be starting with TW2? Are they direct sequels, or in name only?

 

 

There isn't a disadvantage per say, it is just that you will be stuck with the "canon" story and not one of your own making.  You may also miss some of the context for why things are happening due to not knowing the history.  It isn't a deal breaker by any means and depending on your interest in the series it may not even matter.

 

There are quite a few "decisions" that you make in W1 which have impact on W2 (when you import your W1 saved game).  Which factions are around and in what state and so on.  As I said, if it doesn't bother you not knowing the history then roll with it.  If you approach it as a moderately linear RPG then you will more than likely enjoy it, especially if you picked it up cheap.  :P

Link to comment
lordofthedread

lordofthedread

Posted
Posted

Lets face it, yes you can customize your appearance in Skyrim but how your choices are influencing the gamplay? I mean really? The only options are to join either the Stormcloaks or the Empire and it does not change much at the end of the day, same goes for Dawnguard actually and there no choices to speak of in Dragonborn. At the end of the day you are still dragonborn and your choices have very little consequences on the world itself.

 

The NPC dont even give a shit if you are and Imperial or a Stormcloak, a vampire or a member of the Dawnguard, a Werewolf or an Archmage apart from greetings from the guards (you are the one from that college? ... wtf).

 

In TW on the other hand you will face real choices that will definitly influence the adventure one way or another and I really look forward how they will set that in an open world, I was personally not thrilled by TW2 and I didnt even replayed it because I thought it was really linear but the story and the feel of belonging to a living and breathing world was way better than in Skyrim, no matter how much 'lore' you throw in.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Daguy

Daguy

Posted
Posted

 

 

How much of a disadvantage storywise would I be starting with TW2? Are they direct sequels, or in name only?

 

 

There isn't a disadvantage per say, it is just that you will be stuck with the "canon" story and not one of your own making.  You may also miss some of the context for why things are happening due to not knowing the history.  It isn't a deal breaker by any means and depending on your interest in the series it may not even matter.

 

There are quite a few "decisions" that you make in W1 which have impact on W2 (when you import your W1 saved game).  Which factions are around and in what state and so on.  As I said, if it doesn't bother you not knowing the history then roll with it.  If you approach it as a moderately linear RPG then you will more than likely enjoy it, especially if you picked it up cheap.  :P

 

 

 

Aha, i see. Well, as it is this topic/conversation convinced me to dig out the game again, and try to get through it again. It started out promisingly, as the size of the first village drew me in a little. But then the clunkiness of the game started showing itself. The 'drinking game' with the rich bloke, that no matter how much alcohol I ply him with never seems to help. The way combat is basically just 'choose style, tap button at correct time'. I'm also not enjoying the typical mmo-style collect so-and-so number of -. I prefer to play with the camera behind the character, and the way the camera vigs has made me slightly ill. I was told to kill several ghouls and take their blood; i've killed four and apparantly they were all bloodless. I'm to collect five petals, and even spent 200 coins of the 340 I can earned, and have still yet to find a single one. I only just found the guy Iw as to talk to about the drowned ones.

 

All in all its a chore, more tha entertaining. Not to say i'm not going to continue; I want to play it through once so I at least know what i'm talking about in future discussions. :P

 

 

Lets face it, yes you can customize your appearance in Skyrim but how your choices are influencing the gamplay? I mean really? The only options are to join either the Stormcloaks or the Empire and it does not change much at the end of the day, same goes for Dawnguard actually and there no choices to speak of in Dragonborn. At the end of the day you are still dragonborn and your choices have very little consequences on the world itself.

 

The NPC dont even give a shit if you are and Imperial or a Stormcloak, a vampire or a member of the Dawnguard, a Werewolf or an Archmage apart from greetings from the guards (you are the one from that college? ... wtf).

 

In TW on the other hand you will face real choices that will definitly influence the adventure one way or another and I really look forward how they will set that in an open world, I was personally not thrilled by TW2 and I didnt even replayed it because I thought it was really linear but the story and the feel of belonging to a living and breathing world was way better than in Skyrim, no matter how much 'lore' you throw in.

 

For me its not all about choice. There are some, but that their impact isn't great doesn't really matter too much in my opinion, as that was never something that was a big draw of the franchise. That was a Mass Effect thing, and look how that turned out in the end.

 

I'm currently running around the first village again in the Witcher 1, just taking a break as i write this, and its just dull. You can barely interact with anything, the colors are muted, the graphics only a few steps above Mount and Blade, and so forth. Its bigger and more realistic sure, with NPCs that react to the weather and such, but thats because its basically a 'hub' where Skyrim is an open world game. Half the NPCs look the same and give generic dialog, whereas every NPC in Skyrim except the guards have something unique to say, even if its just several lines.

 

In half agree with you however. The Witcher, with a bigger budget and a little more thought, would have felt like a living breathing world. But its just not there yet imo as of Witcher 1. GTA III felt like a living breathing world, but it was in no way an RPG. Skyrim, however much smaller the scale, feels much more lifelike in regards to the NPCS. They work, they eat, they converse, they sleep and wake, and they fight or don't, all on a set schedule.

 

But most of all, making your own character and roleplaying them is a big part of what draws me to roleplaying games. Shocker, I know, and i'm not trying to be glib. I'm just saying that so I can follow it it with this; Geralt is not our character, and we are not really roleplaying in any real meaningful way. Even with 'defining choices' all you are really doing is steering the pre-set story of a pre-esyablished character down a pre-designed branching path. It was the same way in Dragon Age 2, but even as much as I disliked that game, there was character customization, very little pre-established history and I managed to complete it.

 

In Skyrim I can make a Hunter, and wander the woods admiring the beauty, and get attacked by a werewolf. I can choose to roleplay the sensible thign and run away; ending up in a cave full of vampires, and end up infected. I can then roleplay the characters struggle of whether to be cured or nor, and go on witht he character with that decision in mind. I can basically live my characters life. I can roleplay. Mods like Frostfall, primary needs, and better economy only enhance this. It has nothing to do with changing the world around me in a  big way; because how often does a choice made in daily life change the world? I'm not saying that choice isn't important to good story in a game, but its not exactly roleplaying, though of course it can be, and lack of choice can get in the way of what the character would do.

 

 

Daguy.

As I remember there is an option in Geralt's dialogue lines which allows You to recall who is who when You talk to various npcs.

 

Yes, i've noticed that, and its nice that they added an amnesiac option so that the fact we don't know his history can be played out. But it doesn't change the fact that others knowing more about us, than us, can be a little jarring/immersion breaking. Mass Effect tried to do it in a way thta we chose a background and some key events, in Dragon Age we got to play our Origin and our past got explained to us, but in the Witcher we are thrown right in.

Link to comment
Nonsense667

Nonsense667

Posted
Posted

But most of all, making your own character and roleplaying them is a big part of what draws me to roleplaying games. Shocker, I know, and i'm not trying to be glib. I'm just saying that so I can follow it it with this; Geralt is not our character, and we are not really roleplaying in any real meaningful way. Even with 'defining choices' all you are really doing is steering the pre-set story of a pre-esyablished character down a pre-designed branching path. It was the same way in Dragon Age 2, but even as much as I disliked that game, there was character customization, very little pre-established history and I managed to complete it.

 

In Skyrim I can make a Hunter, and wander the woods admiring the beauty, and get attacked by a werewolf. I can choose to roleplay the sensible thign and run away; ending up in a cave full of vampires, and end up infected. I can then roleplay the characters struggle of whether to be cured or nor, and go on witht he character with that decision in mind. I can basically live my characters life. I can roleplay. Mods like Frostfall, primary needs, and better economy only enhance this. It has nothing to do with changing the world around me in a  big way; because how often does a choice made in daily life change the world? I'm not saying that choice isn't important to good story in a game, but its not exactly roleplaying, though of course it can be, and lack of choice can get in the way of what the character would do.

Reading something like this always makes me want to jump onto Oblivion, make a new character, and start roleplaying, hah. 

 

And yeah, I've never been super drawn to the Witcher franchise. But the current steam sale is making me want to give it a try. I've always been a bit put off by the "Look at how awesome, gruff, and assholish I am" characters (Like Dante from Devil May Cry), and I've always assumed Geralt was like that, from seeing people post that they didn't care for him. You can have rough, tough, asshole characters that are absolutely awesome, and not stereotypical, contrived jerks. But I dunno. Watching a youtube video or two makes it seem like he may actually be an enjoyable character. Enough to plop a few bucks on steam down and give it a try anyways. Still debating, hah.

Link to comment
Daguy

Daguy

Posted
Posted

I have to admit, I am being somewhat unfair. CDprojekt didn't have half the budget that a lot of triple-A games get these days, and a lot of love has gone into the games. There is a lot of backstory and the characters and situations are interesting. I'm starting to warm to the game, but I still hold to the idea that if I have to aquire a taste for a game, thats not a stellar review. "I started finding it interesting, after two years and several tries."

 

I just find it plays like a more clunky and less immersive Bioware game. With boobies. The boobies add major points, but when i say clunky, I mean clunky.

 

My biggest gripe is with Geralt. He is interesting enough, and he does have his characterful moments, but he is has a hell of a lot of history that is randomly thrown at you and pulls you out of the game. I've already met several people and beings that know Geralt. He also seems to jump between amnesia and knowing everything.

Link to comment
windpl

windpl

Posted
Posted

Daguy you have bare in mind that Witcher 1 was released in 2007, year after Oblivion. So even don't try to compare it to Skyrim because it is pointless.

I finished Oblivion only because I forced myself to it. I played oblivion only because of mods.

Link to comment
Daguy

Daguy

Posted
Posted

Daguy you have bare in mind that Witcher 1 was released in 2007, year after Oblivion. So even don't try to compare it to Skyrim because it is pointless.

I finished Oblivion only because I forced myself to it. I played oblivion only because of mods.

 

True enough, but I loved Oblivion and in some ways found it superior to Skyrim. The cities felt bigger, somehow, except Bruma and Anvil. And every city in Skyrim feels about the size of both of those. I liked how vibrant and beautiful Cyrodiil was, I find Skyrim to be too cold, though of course that is because of the setting as opposed to the game. I also felt more time was spent on the characters. I still remember Martin, Baurus, Jauffre, Count Hassildor, the Grey Fox, Lucian, Antoinette Marie, and so many others fondly and easily. In Skyrim the only names that immediatly spring to mind as memorable and enjoyable are Ulfric, Serana and Parthurnaax.

 

Its just different strokes for different folks. As I note in my message above, the Witcher is actually starting to grow on me, and i think i'll be able to get through it this time, and play the sequel. However, if i'd not both both games for £15, got the enhanced editions, and being reminded of its existance so often that might not have happened. Wheras i've not actually done a 'true' and complete playthrough of Skyrim yet, awaiting Sexlab, and have already amassed 230 hours in it.

 

I think comparing the Witcher to Bioware titles would be more fair, as they are more closely related. Dragon Age Origins i completed twice back to back, and then went and made 5 seprate playthrough, including DLC and Awakening, in preperation for Dragon Age 2. I then played through Dragon Age 2, and was incredibly disappointed, but even though I didn't enjoy it all that much I managed to get through it within a few days no problem. Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 I played through a haf dozen times each, once for each romance option. Mass Effect 3 I decimated in one day, but i've only played it through twice and bought no DLC, because Bioware can shove their rushed and unsatisfying trilogy-ending.

 

I really do feel that the Witcher thus far feels like a more clunky Bioware game. It actally reminds me most of Jade Empire, except Jade Empire I also played throguh half a dozen times with enthusiasm.

 

Since i've moved from 'bored, bored, bored, eyestrain' to 'mildly intrigued' though, i'm hoping to gradually like the Witcher more and more until I hit 'genuinely enjoying.' :P

Link to comment
Daguy

Daguy

Posted
Posted

Well Witcher 1 run on modified aurora engine. Jade Empire was build on Aurora ;)

 

Aha, thanks for that info, I thought I was just insane as one is a dark gritty fantasy game, the other a camp-yet-dark fantasy martial arts romp, and never the two should meet.

 

 

Ah the nostalgia , Jade empire was such a great game .

 

It really, really, was. its a terrible shame they never made a sequel, and a terrible shame I wouldn't now trust Bioware to make that sequel.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

View Community Rules

Help Support LoversLab

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. For more information, see our Privacy Policy & Terms of Use