whicher 3

[kob]

the reason roche rubbed me the wrong way is his demeanor and the way it tied into some of the things people were saying about him. he seemed like the type of dude who'd tell you to fuck off once he found justice, where as iorveth seemed like a true bro until the end, even if Geralt and him didn't always get along

but the great thing about this game is that i have no idea if any of that is true because i never got to know roche beyond some early dialogue and conjecture from random folks

[kob]

hgngnhhh an hour into witcher 3 and i'm already enjoying it more than 2. it's practically an entirely different game

[Gordon Frohman]

It really is. I feel that TW2 is the weak spot in the series.

Just my opinion. TW1>= TW3>>>>TW2.

Wait til you get to Skellige... the music, graphics, and design combined make it one of the most beautiful (atmosphere-wise) places in any game I've played.

[Ransom]

TW1 >= TW3 is the ravings of a lunatic

hgngnhhh an hour into witcher 3 and i'm already enjoying it more than 2. it's practically an entirely different game

ONE OF US ONE OF US

[kob]

yeah i'm curious why 1 is equal or better than 3. mind you i haven't played 1 at all and i'm only 2 hours in on 3, but it seems like 3 is straight up better across the board in almost every respect

[Gordon Frohman]

While it is weaker in some respects than the others, the music, the combat (which I am very partial to), atmosphere, bestiary, and RPG elements all make it the best for me. As I said, it's just my opinion, and TW3 is not far behind at all.

To put it in a measurement perspective, let's say TW1 is at the top of a ruler. For me, TW3 is probably less than half an inch behind it. I know that's not technically greater than or equal to, but it may as well be.

Oh, almost forgot, ALOT of people hated TW1, especially its combat. While it is pretty simple, I feel it has a complexity that the other two don't have, especially with the styles and the various monsters resistant to it (drowners being resistant to Strong Style, more susceptible to Fast, for example). I use the FCR mod for TW1 and it makes it a new game basically, with oils and preparation 100% necessary, while oils and preparation in TW2 are not as important and TW3 practically non-existent since potions only last ~20 seconds un-upgraded.

Plus, when you level up your combat skills in TW1, Geralt gets new, fucking awesome animations to use in combat, which is more than you can say for the other two. The combat is the same throughout the many hours you'll be spending in TW2-3; at least you get some new animations to look at in the first game.

I don't know, TW1 just has a special place in my heart. It's why I'm thankful Ransom recommended it to us 8 years ago, otherwise I probably wouldn't have played it. Thanks Ransom.

[Ransom]

W I T C H E R B O Y S

[kob]

so i picked this game back up after getting burned out on RPGs a while back and, to my surprise, i didn't make it very far before i put it back down

now maybe i'm still burned out on the genre, but one of the problems i initially had with the game was the combat. before i could put up with it, but i suppose its worn out on me now. it's just... not engaging at all. the optimal way to play is to use Quen on cooldown and just roll around while smashing quick attack. not even oversimplifying it, either. that's EXACTLY what i did. i didn't have to think where i was rolling, or learn the timings of their attacks. with Quen up you are invulnerable. if i get hit i simply need to wait until i can use it again (i.e. very often).

that might sound like i'm bitching because i found a cheesy way to play through the game, but honestly, the reason i played this way goes back to a point Saladin made earlier in this thread about open world games wasting your time. the most engaging way to play this game may be to crank up the difficulty and harvest herbs for potions and all that, but to me that's my time being wasted. i find it tedious and boring to do all the extra steps.

i don't mean to make a general statement about the witcher 3 being a bad game (although i think we can all agree Quen is objectively overpowered - it trivializes what you fight completely). more or less the point i'm making in long-winded fashion is i hate that i have to fight shit all the time. the combat is by far my least favorite aspect of this game and all i wanna do is go about exploring the world, talk to NPCs and all that. at this point in time, it feels like a slog trying to make it through the game. funnily enough, i had this *exact* same criticism with witcher 2. everything about this game was great to me until i sunk more hours in and realized my motivation was slipping because of the combat.

i dunno, maybe i'm just spoiled by souls games.

[Saladin]

That sounds about right to me. I've abandoned many similar games for the same reason.

It's not that I don't like the Witcher, it's that there's too much of it that's tedious as hell. Like standing in line at Disneyland, or if Game of Thrones was six hours an episode with the same content. There's just only so much waiting that's worth the good part of the experience.

What I've seen of the various games is gorgeous and well written, but the core gameplay, like what you do minute to minute, is boring as hell.

I do think Souls games spoiled us. It's hard for me to play a game with crappy mechanics now. But usually I can look past that if the game has other compelling moment-to-moment gameplay, like Fallout and its silly gore.

A game isn't solely defined by its best moments, it's defined by the experience as a whole. To me, the Witcher is mostly mindless tedium, and like maybe 20% amazing.

If I played every game I own with that ratio of tedium, I couldn't finish them all even if it was my job to. So it's just not worth it. I have other shit to play.

Maybe it's better with like teleportation to quest markers and cheats. Fallout and TES frequently are.