what's with all the absolute spastics on here saying wild shit like skyrim and witcher 3 are shit. overrated? yeh probably, but get out of here with the contrarianism bullshit
This, you know what to expect from Skyrim. It’s not the best game ever made, but it’s simple fun. The Witcher 3 is just a complete snooze fest that only midwits enjoy.
>Better writing
This is the cancer you share a board with. They ignore the pitiful, atrociously boring and easy gameplay because of some generic fricking medieval fantasy story. If you like this garbage you need to seriously play more RPGs or frick off, tasteless homosexuals.
99% of RPGs have shit gameplay. If you think they have good gameplay you need to play more non-RPGs if you think the trash turn-based combat or w/e in RPGs is good. As in actual strategy/tactics games. If you don't then I guess you don't care about good gameplay after all.
>99% of RPGs have shit gameplay
No they do not you actual ironic fan. There are a lot of great RPGs that have fun gameplay, good strategy and tactics, a nice feel to the combat and animations. You can always frick off back to Ganker if you hate RPGs.
Shin megami tensei games
Persona games after 2
Metal max games
Dragon quest games
Tactical RPGs in general
Saga games
Final fantasy X
Fallout 1/2
Deus ex games
Resonance of fate
Ys games
Trails games
3 years ago
Anonymous
And these are all very popular and surface level, which once again proves you are a fricking newbie who does not play RPGs.
3 years ago
Anonymous
Let me help you out: that guy has no interest in a good-faith discussion and is making you list an unreasonable number of games so he can lazily respond to one or two examples ad nauseam
3 years ago
Anonymous
Most of those are wrong. Like I love Deus Ex but if you for even a second think Deus Ex has good combat you're brain damaged.
No, the point is that most RPGs have game gameplay and especially bad combat and level design. This is true. To disprove it you would have to make a good case for why a majority or even just half or a third of all RPGs have say good gameplay (since it's what was specifically called bad for Witcher 3 to the point it becomes not worth the players time).
Basically, calling one that does a lot of things well shit because of the gameplay means you should be just as critical of the gameplay of other RPGs.
I also don't limit this to just RPGs, because at that point you're intentionally making excuses for it >oh this turn-based combat system is good... for an RPG
is you admitting it isn't actually very good.
Turn-based combat provides a layer of depth and strategy and immersion that is absent from most combat systems,
You are placed in the environment of battle and can take time to decide which actions would be the best, while also having good audio-visual feedback from the animations, music and such, just like other games but better because there is a sense that you are not fighting a model but an actual character that has the same degree of control over the battle as you do. It's not good ''for an RPG'' it's just good, and I think you should just frick off from here forever if you hate turn-based combat.
>Turn-based combat provides a layer of depth and strategy and immersion that is absent from most combat systems,
It really doesn't. It's not inherent to being turn-based. There are tons of real-time or non turn-based games that have extreme depth, strategy and tactics. Turn-based also reduces immersion.
Turn-based is a restriction on gameplay, which is generally in place to make games easier or as a necessary concession (like with boardgames, which has tons of other necessary evils, so to speak).
Also, I'm comparing turn-based RPG combat to strategy and tactics games. Stuff that's talked about on /vst/. Compared to those RPGs have absolutely atrocious turn-based combat. Most SRPGs can't even surpass nu-XCOM. They're that bad.
>Turn-based reduces immersion
No elaboration provided >Turn-based is a restriction on gameplay
Why is this a bad thing? Restricting something can be done to make it harder or more fun or to make you play to the games' rules, which is what turn-based is literally about >which is generally in place to make games easier or as a necessary concession
Again, you don't provide any examples or back up what you say >Also, I'm comparing turn-based RPG combat to strategy and tactics games
A minute ago we were comparing turn-based to every videogame combat system. Why are you doing this now? you keep making way too many arbitrary assumptions and generalizations and basically said nothing in that entire post. My stance is still, play more RPGs
3 years ago
Anonymous
>No elaboration provided
Because it's common knowledge in game design. So you outed yourself. Same reason why immersion is increased when you place the camera closer to the player avatar.
Besides, you're the one that made the claim that it enhanced, yet didn't elaborate. Ironic.
>Why is this a bad thing?
It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not a good thing either. It's a restriction used to design certain systems relating to gameplay. It brings with it a lot of baggage though. There is nothing about turn-based that makes it more deep, strategic or tactical.
>Again, you don't provide any examples or back up what you say
Because it's an easy and common concept to grasp if you've actually designed systems and combat before, even at a junior level. I guess you're saying I shouldn't treat you as an equal and explain even basic concepts and ideas?
For instance, turn-based makes it easier to control multiple units at the same time. Some of many concessions you make it that it slows the game down, limits the amount of units you can control and face, etc. Meanwhile RTS games now also demand quick thinking, mechanical skill, multi-tasking, micro and macro management, processing more info and unit actions, etc. while not reducing any depth, strategy or tactical element.
This idea that turn-based makes something more cerebral, deep and such is a common (among laymen) misconception.
>A minute ago we were comparing turn-based to every videogame combat system.
So you want to broaden it to be even less in favor of RPG combat? To really showcase how insanely bad RPG combat is? That's fine by me.
Do note, I'm not shitting on RPG combat. I do however think it really needs to step up because it's comically bad. They need to start hiring actual system designers instead of designers that just like playing RPGs, because they're clueless. RPG players being so forgiving (because they mostly expose themselves to all of these bad combat systems).
>No, the point is that most RPGs have game gameplay and especially bad combat and level design.
Even the ones with bad combat let you, ya know, ROLE PLAY. As in either create your own character and/or build one in a unique way. In the Witcher you play a predefined character who always has the same predefined playstyle, even the narrative is linear. What exactly is RPG about it?
Fallout 4 released the same year and had better combat, better build variety, and better overall roleplay than TW3. In fact FO4 was light years ahead on each of these. But because some contrarians hated minor changes here and there we have to live in a world where people unironically think The Witcher 3 is an example of a good RPG.
The Bloody Baron's quest is the only good written part of TW3.
1 has the better story of the series and one of the best in gaming, 2 has a great one if you like political schemes and the lore. 3 turns into a blockbuster past Velen and never recovers the adult themes or the complex writting.
It isn't CDPR fault, though. With 3 they followed the main plot of the books and they are garbage. If anything, they proved to be better writers than Sapkowski after making 1 and 2 and turning the story of his novels into an actually enjoyable experience with 3. >quest design
Most of the quests in the game consist on a dialogue with an npc, followed by using your witcher senses to reach a certain location where you have some more dialogue and/or fight some monster or npc (or not, depending on your dialogue choices and the quest itself). That's true for main and optional quests throughout the entire lenght of the game.
The Witcher 3 is the best of the series in terms of techincal performance and presentation, nothing else. You would know all of this if you'd actually played 1 and 2.
>The Bloody Baron's quest is the only good written part of TW3. >1 has the better story of the series and one of the best in gaming
At this point you made it clear to me that you're not worth my time. You do not have the knowledge or intelligence for this discussion.
Only someone with not even a basic concept of storytelling and narrative design could've made this downright idiotic statement. This became cemented when you made it clear that you don't even know what quest design is.
Thanks for saving me time and effort early. I only expend effort on people worth my time or can challenge my ideas. You don't qualify.
Now that I'm replaying this, I'm seeing all the wasted potential in the witcher contracts, mainly the ones in Novigrad or any other big city. They should have made a spin-off focusing solely on the detective work, making a meaningful investigation system instead of the whole "follow your witches senses" bullshit.
Anyways, the game doesn't suck that much but I guess you'd need an extremist response to all the unwarranted praise the game received. My biggest problem with it is how much the story sucks past Velen and how the game forces you to work with and develop a love-hate relationship with the likes of Philippa Eilhart after all that happened in TW2.
I can see how Witcher 3 is popular among people who like TV shows. Kinda weak game though. Character building is bad, forced tree investment and many boring incremental abilities are inspiring. The loot is also really bad, 800 million swords that aren't any better than what you already have and junk everywhere. For an exploration oriented RPG having very little interesting items to use is a major failure.
Witcher 3 is focused on having a huge world with tons of great quests along with reactivity. This is what it does better than pretty much any other RPG.
It makes other RPG quests look like jokes in comparison.
>To me a quest with shit rewards isn't a good quest.
The reward is literally the least important part. It's an extrinsic reward. As in something that's only needed if the quest itself (the thing you spend time doing) is shit. A good quest is something you'd do even if the reward was low or even 0.
Most people have hobbies because they enjoy doing it (not because they get money or something), most people go to work because they want money (not because they enjoy it). i.e. one thing you'd do for free (or even pay for) while the other you wouldn't do for free.
Nah, it`s pretty damn good man. Where more games have shitty quests Witcher has stuff like the Pestae quest which writing is on par with the main story. Combat is pretty damn good too. You can not only roll but side step, back step, parry or counter (If you only use Quen because you like your fights boring and non epic that`s on you) plus signs. Granted it could use some more variations on the swordplay combos but it`s still pretty good. And you have potions and you have traps and bombs. Music is also pretty good and atmospheric. Char design is pretty good too. The world itself, i would agree, it`s a bit weaker than the one on Witcher 2 and so is the lighting but there are mods for that. Story is also pretty rewarding too. Honestly i don`t see why you frickers complain so much about it. The game is good.
You're absolutely right and the fanbase are just a bunch of tasteless porn addict teenagers with zero sense of fun gameplay. The game is just too braindead with a really amateurish cinematic presentation. Everyone talks about how the game is about story and inmersion and yet there is practically no cinematic scenes at all, and the few we get are actually porn-level with some of the worst particles (special effects) I've seen in a videogam
You're absolutely right and the fanbase are just a bunch of tasteless porn addict teenagers with zero sense of fun gameplay. The game is just too braindead with a really amateurish cinematic presentation. Everyone talks about how the game is about story and inmersion and yet there is practically no cinematic scenes at all, and the few we get are actually porn-level with some of the worst particles (special effects) I've seen in a videogame. I could also add that the map is really badly designed with the assets all over the place and with no sense of proportion, I mean, have you seen those roads? There is absolutely no way that two people could ride horses simultaneously in opposite direction because they would be colliding every single time. Also Geralt and co. are boring af and combat is a bad joke. Game is just cringe.
0-4 play PoE1
5-9 play PFKM
roll
Roll
what's with all the absolute spastics on here saying wild shit like skyrim and witcher 3 are shit. overrated? yeh probably, but get out of here with the contrarianism bullshit
Skyrim has always been a great game. The Witcher 3 has always been a mediocre game.
This, you know what to expect from Skyrim. It’s not the best game ever made, but it’s simple fun. The Witcher 3 is just a complete snooze fest that only midwits enjoy.
Ignore shitposters. I always hide threads like these. I suggest you do the same. OP subsists on (You)s.
Most fun I have had in Witcher 3 was walking on foot from Novigrad to Nilfgueard camp for 20 minutes.
Story is shit except Velen and Heart of Stone.
Daily reminder that it's superior to any RPG from Japan.
Could you set the bar any lower?
JRPGs are worshipped like a deity on /v even with their garbage gameplay atrocious ports.
>>/wsg/352431524
It isn't shit. Factually. It has some of the best character & story writing gaming has ever seen.
Can't even be compared with shallow two dimensional trash like Skyrim
I preferred playing Skyrim to the Witcher III
Better writing, narrative design and quest design than any other modern RPG.
>Better writing
This is the cancer you share a board with. They ignore the pitiful, atrociously boring and easy gameplay because of some generic fricking medieval fantasy story. If you like this garbage you need to seriously play more RPGs or frick off, tasteless homosexuals.
99% of RPGs have shit gameplay. If you think they have good gameplay you need to play more non-RPGs if you think the trash turn-based combat or w/e in RPGs is good. As in actual strategy/tactics games. If you don't then I guess you don't care about good gameplay after all.
>99% of RPGs have shit gameplay
No they do not you actual ironic fan. There are a lot of great RPGs that have fun gameplay, good strategy and tactics, a nice feel to the combat and animations. You can always frick off back to Ganker if you hate RPGs.
Uh huh, so what are all these RPGs with great combat for instance? Name 15. If you can't even name a handful that proves my point even further.
Shin megami tensei games
Persona games after 2
Metal max games
Dragon quest games
Tactical RPGs in general
Saga games
Final fantasy X
Fallout 1/2
Deus ex games
Resonance of fate
Ys games
Trails games
And these are all very popular and surface level, which once again proves you are a fricking newbie who does not play RPGs.
Let me help you out: that guy has no interest in a good-faith discussion and is making you list an unreasonable number of games so he can lazily respond to one or two examples ad nauseam
Most of those are wrong. Like I love Deus Ex but if you for even a second think Deus Ex has good combat you're brain damaged.
>TW3 is a RPG
GTA: San Andreas has more rpg elements than this action-adventure game.
Define what an RPG is and fail at doing so, like everyone else on this board
Witcher 1 and 2 are better than 3 in all of those departments, though. Disco Elysium too.
Wrong on all points. Even suggesting the writing and quest design of Witcher 1 being better than 3 is nothing short of moronation.
No, the point is that most RPGs have game gameplay and especially bad combat and level design. This is true. To disprove it you would have to make a good case for why a majority or even just half or a third of all RPGs have say good gameplay (since it's what was specifically called bad for Witcher 3 to the point it becomes not worth the players time).
Basically, calling one that does a lot of things well shit because of the gameplay means you should be just as critical of the gameplay of other RPGs.
I also don't limit this to just RPGs, because at that point you're intentionally making excuses for it
>oh this turn-based combat system is good... for an RPG
is you admitting it isn't actually very good.
Turn-based combat provides a layer of depth and strategy and immersion that is absent from most combat systems,
You are placed in the environment of battle and can take time to decide which actions would be the best, while also having good audio-visual feedback from the animations, music and such, just like other games but better because there is a sense that you are not fighting a model but an actual character that has the same degree of control over the battle as you do. It's not good ''for an RPG'' it's just good, and I think you should just frick off from here forever if you hate turn-based combat.
>Turn-based combat provides a layer of depth and strategy and immersion that is absent from most combat systems,
It really doesn't. It's not inherent to being turn-based. There are tons of real-time or non turn-based games that have extreme depth, strategy and tactics. Turn-based also reduces immersion.
Turn-based is a restriction on gameplay, which is generally in place to make games easier or as a necessary concession (like with boardgames, which has tons of other necessary evils, so to speak).
Also, I'm comparing turn-based RPG combat to strategy and tactics games. Stuff that's talked about on /vst/. Compared to those RPGs have absolutely atrocious turn-based combat. Most SRPGs can't even surpass nu-XCOM. They're that bad.
>Turn-based reduces immersion
No elaboration provided
>Turn-based is a restriction on gameplay
Why is this a bad thing? Restricting something can be done to make it harder or more fun or to make you play to the games' rules, which is what turn-based is literally about
>which is generally in place to make games easier or as a necessary concession
Again, you don't provide any examples or back up what you say
>Also, I'm comparing turn-based RPG combat to strategy and tactics games
A minute ago we were comparing turn-based to every videogame combat system. Why are you doing this now? you keep making way too many arbitrary assumptions and generalizations and basically said nothing in that entire post. My stance is still, play more RPGs
>No elaboration provided
Because it's common knowledge in game design. So you outed yourself. Same reason why immersion is increased when you place the camera closer to the player avatar.
Besides, you're the one that made the claim that it enhanced, yet didn't elaborate. Ironic.
>Why is this a bad thing?
It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not a good thing either. It's a restriction used to design certain systems relating to gameplay. It brings with it a lot of baggage though. There is nothing about turn-based that makes it more deep, strategic or tactical.
>Again, you don't provide any examples or back up what you say
Because it's an easy and common concept to grasp if you've actually designed systems and combat before, even at a junior level. I guess you're saying I shouldn't treat you as an equal and explain even basic concepts and ideas?
For instance, turn-based makes it easier to control multiple units at the same time. Some of many concessions you make it that it slows the game down, limits the amount of units you can control and face, etc. Meanwhile RTS games now also demand quick thinking, mechanical skill, multi-tasking, micro and macro management, processing more info and unit actions, etc. while not reducing any depth, strategy or tactical element.
This idea that turn-based makes something more cerebral, deep and such is a common (among laymen) misconception.
>A minute ago we were comparing turn-based to every videogame combat system.
So you want to broaden it to be even less in favor of RPG combat? To really showcase how insanely bad RPG combat is? That's fine by me.
Do note, I'm not shitting on RPG combat. I do however think it really needs to step up because it's comically bad. They need to start hiring actual system designers instead of designers that just like playing RPGs, because they're clueless. RPG players being so forgiving (because they mostly expose themselves to all of these bad combat systems).
>No, the point is that most RPGs have game gameplay and especially bad combat and level design.
Even the ones with bad combat let you, ya know, ROLE PLAY. As in either create your own character and/or build one in a unique way. In the Witcher you play a predefined character who always has the same predefined playstyle, even the narrative is linear. What exactly is RPG about it?
Fallout 4 released the same year and had better combat, better build variety, and better overall roleplay than TW3. In fact FO4 was light years ahead on each of these. But because some contrarians hated minor changes here and there we have to live in a world where people unironically think The Witcher 3 is an example of a good RPG.
The Bloody Baron's quest is the only good written part of TW3.
1 has the better story of the series and one of the best in gaming, 2 has a great one if you like political schemes and the lore. 3 turns into a blockbuster past Velen and never recovers the adult themes or the complex writting.
It isn't CDPR fault, though. With 3 they followed the main plot of the books and they are garbage. If anything, they proved to be better writers than Sapkowski after making 1 and 2 and turning the story of his novels into an actually enjoyable experience with 3.
>quest design
Most of the quests in the game consist on a dialogue with an npc, followed by using your witcher senses to reach a certain location where you have some more dialogue and/or fight some monster or npc (or not, depending on your dialogue choices and the quest itself). That's true for main and optional quests throughout the entire lenght of the game.
The Witcher 3 is the best of the series in terms of techincal performance and presentation, nothing else. You would know all of this if you'd actually played 1 and 2.
>The Bloody Baron's quest is the only good written part of TW3.
>1 has the better story of the series and one of the best in gaming
At this point you made it clear to me that you're not worth my time. You do not have the knowledge or intelligence for this discussion.
Only someone with not even a basic concept of storytelling and narrative design could've made this downright idiotic statement. This became cemented when you made it clear that you don't even know what quest design is.
Thanks for saving me time and effort early. I only expend effort on people worth my time or can challenge my ideas. You don't qualify.
Always this filtered casual making the same thread.
How can you even be filtered though? Its an easy game.
99% of video games are easy. Witcher filters by requiring mature, immersive mind.
*hides thread*
>Skyrim is good
Legit have a nice day you have garbage taste
why is this board filled with troons and ledditors?
>Implying TW3 isn’t Reddit: The Game
holy mother of cope
Now that I'm replaying this, I'm seeing all the wasted potential in the witcher contracts, mainly the ones in Novigrad or any other big city. They should have made a spin-off focusing solely on the detective work, making a meaningful investigation system instead of the whole "follow your witches senses" bullshit.
Anyways, the game doesn't suck that much but I guess you'd need an extremist response to all the unwarranted praise the game received. My biggest problem with it is how much the story sucks past Velen and how the game forces you to work with and develop a love-hate relationship with the likes of Philippa Eilhart after all that happened in TW2.
I can see how Witcher 3 is popular among people who like TV shows. Kinda weak game though. Character building is bad, forced tree investment and many boring incremental abilities are inspiring. The loot is also really bad, 800 million swords that aren't any better than what you already have and junk everywhere. For an exploration oriented RPG having very little interesting items to use is a major failure.
Witcher 3 is focused on having a huge world with tons of great quests along with reactivity. This is what it does better than pretty much any other RPG.
It makes other RPG quests look like jokes in comparison.
Yep, that's why I feel like TV show lovers would find it good. To me a quest with shit rewards isn't a good quest.
>To me a quest with shit rewards isn't a good quest.
The reward is literally the least important part. It's an extrinsic reward. As in something that's only needed if the quest itself (the thing you spend time doing) is shit. A good quest is something you'd do even if the reward was low or even 0.
Most people have hobbies because they enjoy doing it (not because they get money or something), most people go to work because they want money (not because they enjoy it). i.e. one thing you'd do for free (or even pay for) while the other you wouldn't do for free.
Nah, it`s pretty damn good man. Where more games have shitty quests Witcher has stuff like the Pestae quest which writing is on par with the main story. Combat is pretty damn good too. You can not only roll but side step, back step, parry or counter (If you only use Quen because you like your fights boring and non epic that`s on you) plus signs. Granted it could use some more variations on the swordplay combos but it`s still pretty good. And you have potions and you have traps and bombs. Music is also pretty good and atmospheric. Char design is pretty good too. The world itself, i would agree, it`s a bit weaker than the one on Witcher 2 and so is the lighting but there are mods for that. Story is also pretty rewarding too. Honestly i don`t see why you frickers complain so much about it. The game is good.
You're absolutely right and the fanbase are just a bunch of tasteless porn addict teenagers with zero sense of fun gameplay. The game is just too braindead with a really amateurish cinematic presentation. Everyone talks about how the game is about story and inmersion and yet there is practically no cinematic scenes at all, and the few we get are actually porn-level with some of the worst particles (special effects) I've seen in a videogam
You're absolutely right and the fanbase are just a bunch of tasteless porn addict teenagers with zero sense of fun gameplay. The game is just too braindead with a really amateurish cinematic presentation. Everyone talks about how the game is about story and inmersion and yet there is practically no cinematic scenes at all, and the few we get are actually porn-level with some of the worst particles (special effects) I've seen in a videogame. I could also add that the map is really badly designed with the assets all over the place and with no sense of proportion, I mean, have you seen those roads? There is absolutely no way that two people could ride horses simultaneously in opposite direction because they would be colliding every single time. Also Geralt and co. are boring af and combat is a bad joke. Game is just cringe.