>people's high opinion of it is based only on the culture surrounding it
>when it comes down to actually playing it everyone knows it's mediocre
>no one cares about this and keep praising it
Is this one of the few games that fit the literal description of a "meme game"?
The reason why the game is shit is because it's structured like an MMO. The open world doesn't exist to give the player a sense of mystery and exploration, it's there to provide a smorgasboard of loot and fetch quests.
The reason why it's so acclaimed is because this formula is starting to become the norm and everybody just unquestioningly accepts it now, as shallow and unrewarding it is in a single player game (or even an actual MMO sometimes).
See your GP if pain persists.
I enjoyed it, I don't come to to /v/ to reinforce my opinion, unlike most of you faggots who do and conversely come here to solidify yours.
If you all spent more time discussing things rather than just outright slating things you'll feel more positive in your life.
pic related, its me chilling enjoying a milkshake.
I'm playing it now - my first of the series - and it's pretty great. Probably my favorite of the past year. Combat is lacking, but the rest of the game more than makes up for it.
No idea what you're talking about.
I avoided this game for a long time, but recently bought it. I'm having a blast with it.
Fuck off neo-/v/
The problem with TW3 is yes it does have amazing graphics and it has what appears to be a pretty griping story (at least at the beginning) and some great voice acting work, but the abysmal combat system just about trumps (kek trump) everything the game does right.
Had it not for the amazing story and it just being The Witcher, there's no way I'd even be able to attempt to play this game. The overall feel is just bad. There;s no reason why running has to be always on, there's no reason why it takes 10 seconds to prepare your bow to be shot, there's no reason why the combat system feels like 1995 all over again.
And the side missions are just as interesting as the main game. If it weren't for that, I'd just say fuck this game.
And i'll never understand you people who play video games just to mindlessly play them (multiplayer games, PvP, The Elder Scrolls, Fallout, general fighting games, etc). To each their own. If everyone liked the same video games it would be a very boring world.
Also, who the fuck watches movies for the plot. I mean,fuck, come on!
Movies are movies, there is no interactivity in them
Games are games because they have gameplay, and when people play because of something that doesnt require input or interactivity, its fucking pointless.
A game is also not a good game if the gameplay is bad, no matter how good the story is. Thats just a fact.
>I dont like the combat in this game
>waaaah, you just suck
Fucking really faggot?
Why are there people complaining there are too many talking and conversations in the game? Have they ever played a RPG in their live? Final Fantasy 7, Dragon Quest, Deus Ex, they're all like this.
I thought it was a damn fine rpg in this time of Inquisitions and Skyrims. Not perfect, but fun and you could tell the dev's actually seemed to care about it. Just it's an rpg without character creation, so no waifus or crazy wild builds to replay the game and talk keep talking about it once you beat it.
I understand you are just fishing for reactions, but go shit up undertale threads or something if you want to post about actual meme games.
>Game is announced, immediately people take to shitposting
>Game receives nearly non-stop shitposting until it is released
>It is difficult to have a single Witcher 3 thread without constant shitposting
>Upon release the overwhelming praise drowns out the shitposting for about a month until people move on to other games and the shitposting becomes the predominate voice again
>Shitposting continues throughout the year
>DLC is released and there is a short break in the shitposting as again the overwhelming praise drowns out the dedicated shitposters
>A few weeks later attention shifts and this time even the shitposting dies off for awhile
>Game receives by far the lion's share of year end awards in various categories including GOTY from around the internet
>Game is yet again the target of constant shitposting as they try to push the narrative that the game's success and praise were wholly undeserved and that it was either the worst game ever made or 'merely mediocre' with 'much better' games (such as MGSV, Fallout 4, Bloodborne, Undertale ect) coming out this year that were far more deserving of praise
I'm actually kinda floored with just how dedicated this has been every step of the way. It's like there are people dead set on no one being allowed to like Witcher 3. I don't think I've ever seen people hate a game quite as much as these guys hate Witcher 3 and everything it apparently stands for.
It's purely because it's kind of a character action game, which sets it in opposition to the Souls games and Dragon's Dogma, which have by far the most autistic autistic fanbases on this site (especially Soulsfags, who will be euthanised if I ever come to dictatorial power).
I remember it was exactly the same back in 2002, when Gothicfags were obsessed with trashing Morrowind to a frankly unhealthy degree.
It's a role playing game, you can change the outcome of the story through dialogues, which are really well written.
I don't get the hate on the combat, it's not perfect, but enjoyable enough on Death March difficulty.
World is worth exploring, there are different Witchers sets to find, and most importantly, they are worth the effort of getting them. You can't say the same about Skyrim (which is praised for its open world), where you can click everything to death with bare hands.
If it gets too much undeserved critical acclaim it will set a new standard for the industry that no one really wants.
That's why it's your duty to point out its flaws and not just accept it at face value.
>undeserved critical acclaim
What if I think the acclaim is deserved? Witcher 3 wasn't exactly my favorite game this year but I still loved it and think it deserved it's recognition.
If more games modeled themselves off Witcher 3 it'd be quite welcome.
As much shit as it gets it still had the best combat of any openworld RPG I've ever played and it features some of the best sidequests and optional material I've seen in a game in at least the last few years.
Changing outcomes is barely gameplay. You're selecting text options on a screen and accepting. Thats like saying an internet browser is a video game.
And the armor thing is pointless when Witcher gear is always better than anything else, the loot system is shit.
>Changing outcomes is barely gameplay
I'd say it's the most important part of any game in the genre, but I can see why some people may find it boring, especially if they don't find characters interesting.
>And the armor thing is pointless when Witcher gear is always better than anything else, the loot system is shit.
It's not that bad, it takes a lot of time and ingredients to craft and fully upgrade a witchers set.
One game, Dark Souls again isn't really open world and doesn't really count.
Dragon's Dogma egh, I'm not really a fan of it's combat, especially with how the inventory and skills system work, meaning you're just holding down hotkeys or downing curatives that heal you instantly directly from the pause menu and the fact that it copied SOTC and managed to remove much of the skill and nuance from climbing in the process. I wasn't exactly impressed, I hear dark arisen did some cool stuff with it but I didn't stick around to play the DLC.
Still stands though, Witcher 3 is the best Openworld RPG combat I've ever played.
Witcher is such an over-praised piece of shit. Every time they release a Witcher game they drool over the "massive open world and thousands of things to do" yeah there may be a huge open world, and there may be a lot to do besides the story, but underneath all that it's the same shitty combat and mechanics, so you get to do more things, but in the most boring repetitive way possible. The fact that old RPG's still retain a higher value than the Witcher proves it really isn't new in terms of innovation. But don't worry, I have a friend that tries to tell me every chance he gets that "people see the Witcher 3 as a perfect game" I laugh every time, because there isn't a single thing that game has done that even comes close to being perfect.
Outside of enemy designs, which often look great, it is extremely boring. The world design is just copy/paste generic hills, shacks and unremarkable castles with your typical European fantasy shit scattered around. Combat is serviceable but not very engaging. Crafting ANYTHING is tedious and doesn't feel like a major accomplishment when you finally start to churn out gear that can beat your default armor or weapon drops, it just exists to pad the game as you wander through the hills pulling up flowers.
Think about it, Skyrim got hugely popular as well and its shitty faults became popular, like some guard only having one line of dialogue to spam. Witcher 3's so bland it doesn't even have that going for it, just nondescript praise from the CDPR defense force.
>Witcher game they drool over the "massive open world and thousands of things to do"
Witcher 3 was the first open world Witcher game anon. 1 had everything loaded off into separate maps, 2 was hub based.
2/10 Try again.
Did you even fucking play it? I don't get people like you. If you didn't put 100+ hours into this masterpiece of a game then it's because you probably can't play anything that doesn't let you hack and slash aimlessly.
Such as? I am asking for suggestions here. I play a lot of games anon, maybe I haven't played everything but I do get around.
I mean if you've got better examples of combat in Openworld RPGs I'm fucking open to them, but I've played the only other Openworld RPG someone suggested so far and I preferred Witcher 3's combat.
Because its beautiful, interesting and
Combat is not shit, theres faaar worse combat out there - you don't even have to go far - TW1 and 2 both had much worse.
Huge scope, high level of detail and care put into the world, quests and characters, atmosphere.
Plus I read the books so I'm ofcourse more attached to it all.
And I enjoy the combat too, pirouette dodging is satisfying, they basically nailed the "witcher dance" that witchers are supposed to do, and if you freshen it up all over with signs and bombs its absolutely enjoyable, especially with the great combat themes playing.
This is why I prefer the first one overall. Controls and combat is everything, for some reason Witcher3 and 2 feels slow as fuck, not very responsive. And the moves that Geralt does is based on RNG, something he dances when the motherfucker should be quickly cutting heads off, and you don't know when he does this. It's retarded. This combat system ala Batman and Shadow of Mordor is retarded.
>mfw 99% of these fags saying "combat is abysmal" will go back to play asscreed, bamham and skyrim after posting
Combat is the weakest point of TW3, still better than copypaste bamham combat, still leagues above Skyrim's combat, you people are just sour because TW3 did everything else far better than whatever your biased fave choice of an action game is. (and then you don't even think about the difference between an arpg and an action game)
It's like Ass Creed but for the RPG crowd. Advertised to hell and back so Chad next door probably plays it and that means you should too, it's accessible, casual, with pretty graphics. What more do they need?
Combat, level design, character progression, story, itemization, etc.? Nah, doesn't matter.
Yeah, your argument is shit.
My point is that you have none, you just keep calling things shit shit shit.
TW3 is GOTY for self explanatory reasons anyone who actually played it for longer than an hour gets, you just WANT to berate the game so you pick its weakest - but still solid - point and go
>shit shit shit shiiiiit
You actually managed to find an even worse argument for the game to be GOTY
>Well... hmm... it's self explanatory
Also, just for your information, I haven't been complaining about the combat, I've been complaining about the open world design of the game.
>witcherkids defend their beloved game by saying how much time they wasted playing it
>you must like it if you played it, it's a masterpiece
>if you dislike the game you definitely play Skyrim or Dragon Age
But then what would you reply to with your low level trolling?
As usual, another shiteating anon who thinks that if someone doesn't mention something he gets to ASSUME whatever he wants and attack it.
Eat shit man.
this is true though
the point of this is to post something that isn't true anon, you aren't doing it right
the only people shitting on this game are contrarian hipster souls autists, because the game is great as an all around package. like the other anon said, the combat isn't incredible but it is likely the best or second best in an open world rpg, and in general it is decent (as long as you don't lock on to targets)
you can complain all you want, both the critics and the people have spoken, and this game is good
>hating this game because it doesn't have causal accessible combat
>couldn't play a game because it requires you to read a bunch of text and backstories
>would rather play a game about black muslims gang raping white girl on the street
Is the one of the few games that makes race mixing degenerate going buttmad?
>make a green text of basically what the other guy said
>pretend it's an argument
Assumptions: The Post
I played TW3 on PC when it came out based on the solid reputation of the developer and the series. I enjoyed it immensely because I didn't go into it with specific expectations (didn't play TW1 or 2, didn't read anyone's opinion on TW3 before playing it). I especially enjoyed the roleplaying and excellent storytelling, which was present even in menial side quests.
Why so many plebs make it difficult for themselves to enjoy vidya is beyond me... People more often look for a reason to dislike a game than to enjoy it, which can be attributed in part to the fact that people pick sides in imaginary conflicts (console wars, muh storytelling, muh developers I don't like, etc.) and then judge games based on preexisting notions that are often inaccurate....
/v/ is as guilty at promoting this shitshow as anywhere, although it's true that tumblr / game journalism / reddit are each guilty as well.
Tl;dr, try enjoying games instead of looking for reasons to hate them
>in a game that doesn't let you make your own character
Just calling my points bad doesn't actually mean anything.
I don't really see how you think you are making ANY kind of a point when you are literally just insulting me.
Grow the fuck up child.
You seem to have posted the wrong picture, you described Undertale but accidentally clicked a picture of the Witcher.
I'll help you out.
Not sure why I'm responding because it should be obvious those who aren't mentally handicapped that roleplaying can be plentiful regardless of if you're given a character to play
Well lets see, you posted
>your argument is shit
>your comments are retarded
>your argument is shit
While you haven't provided an argument of your own, or even just asked me to elaborate.
So yes, you are a shitty troll who doesn't even realize that his posts aren't worth replying to at all.
Atleast now you may know.
That does not fit every game but it is interesting to note that the rise of video games coincided with the rise of tabletop RPGs, with the fanbases probably having significant overlap, and that you don't usually play a character in a tabletop game whereas you do in a video game.
But I wasn't trying to make an argument, you were. I was just telling you your arguments were bad. The normal reaction to this would be to try to convince me your arguments weren't bad or to find a good argument, instead you insulted me multiple times. And then, which is the funny part, you complain that I insulted you.
Retarded argument, if you actually play TW3 it's clear that there are plenty of roleplaying and customization elements. In fact, the only thing that's really missing is character creation which I'm totally fine with given that it serves the story.
>But I wasn't trying to make an argument
No, you were shitposting, exactly my point.
As I said, I elaborated above already - but you are only looking for posts that you can attack (but don't want argue with).
If you could think for a moment you'd realize your actions are ridiculous.
You're playing the role of Geralt of Rivia. You can customize your Geralt of Rivia in many ways including armor, weapon, skills and skill slots. You can imbibe potions, craft equipment and consumables, and gain levels through experience.
Sure sounds like a role playing game to me.
I wasn't shitposting, I was reading a thread, saw a really stupid post, told myself that person really ought to know how stupid he sounds right now, replied to that post to tell him. Somehow that person managed to sound even stupider in his reply to me, and here we are on this wild ride.
And so right now, we are back to the point when I told you to stop making retarded posts and I'll stop calling you out on being retarded.
Besides, in the Final Fantasy games, which are without question role playing games, you don't make your own character. You play as the set characters of the story and the only difference is you can name them Buttmaster420 instead of Locke or Terra.
>I didn't know equipping materia was roleplaying
>I didn't know equipping an esper was roleplaying
>I didn't know junctioning magic was roleplaying
Character creation is not even a priority element of roleplaying games. It's pretty low down on the list actually.
sorry, should have said flavor of the shitposts, because there's not much to say beside shitposting about it.
its goty like inquisition, skyrim, tlou were before it, and it will be forgotten in a relatively short time.
No, it's not, at all.
The best role playing games in history have you play characters that are preset. Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy, Valkyrie Profile, in fact, most RPGs, do not have character creation.
What about it? It's not important or necessary to a roleplaying game. Geralt has a personality, just like Locke, just like Squall, just like Tidus. All roleplaying game characters.
Nah m8. It's pretty standard. Also great for one-offs and shit like that.
But you're already admitting that creating your own character isn't a requirement for RPGs. How can it be the very foundation if you can do without it?
Except almost every location and quest in the game has a neat story attached to it.
Even a simple "find the hidden treasure chest" quest in the first area is a story about a Temerian Special Forces unit that was ambushed by Squirrels before the current Nilfgaard war, and how their mission failed.
As the game goes on, these quests DO get lazier though. The witcher equipment quests start out with neat stories about old witchers and how they died, but the upgrade quests are boring "go to x, get y" quests with no exposition or story in them.
My favorite equipment quest is the wolf set quest, since it really expands Kaer Morhen's history.
Having played both of those games I don't see how you could consider them "better". The combat in TW3 and Dark Souls doesn't even seem all that different except for the fact that you're dodging in TW3 instead of rolling, and Dragon's Dogma's combat is different but that doesn't necessarily mean it's better.
One of these days you should try looking up where roleplaying started and what it's supposed to be.
Your shitty japanese games are nowhere near the standard of what an actual RPG should be.
Are you saying when I am PLAYING the ROLE of Geralt, and making my decisions as I see fit in the ROLE that I'm PLAYING - its not roleplay?
Theres a spectrum of how deep you can get into roleplaying anon - want the utmost highest degree?
GTFO out of video games then and grab pen and paper.
Since no game can give you absolute freedom AND a compelling world/story at the same time, they have to place your involvement in the role you will be playing somewhere in that spectrum.
Being able to decide how your character looks and maybe choose from 2-3 shallow background stories is what you think of as roleplaying - but that has its problems - for example that you have no history or past, or a very pathetic one.
TW3 gives that up - in return Geralt has real history, recurring characters and memories from his past. The world was made to react to him nicely because his role is clear from his past.
Its still roleplaying, and I'd say its better than the alternatives in 3D video games, where nobody really gives a shit about your "role" and acts neutrally and the same way towards you even if you are a saviour of humanity, or a serial killer.
Until the world can dynamically react to what you are doing this will be true too.
FO4 is much less of a roleplaying game, even though it has a character creator.
You mosst often don't have real choices, you just choose attitude, your history is set in stone, hell even your voice is set in stone so even if you are a cutthroat nigger you'll still sound like american dad.
So no, character creation is not the foundation of it.
I rarely like to use the "backpedaling" argument but you are doing it very harshly.
Its a 7 month old game, it won every award above its competiton and we have legit threads about it every day - and like 4 more shitposting ones, usually incited by people like you.
Whats a relatively short time for you?
However long it'll take for TW3 to disappear?
It doesn't matter where it started, it has nothing to do with the fact that character creation isn't necessary for the game to be a roleplaying game.
It only matters if you're playing a role, and whether there is a degree of customization and progression to the character. That's it. Whether it's your own created character or a premade character.
You're just wrong.
They are real RPGs. You just don't want them to be because it proves you are wrong.
What do you call
>choosing what your character says including impactful decisions that branch and have actual consequences
>managing all of your relationships both with individuals and with factions
>using perks to specialize your combat strengths and weaknesses
>choosing between lots of varied types of armour, weapons, equipment
>open ended gameplay that allows you to pursue what you wish and dismiss what you're not interested in
It doesn't matter, yeah. Greentexting my correct statement and insulting me won't make it less correct.
Character creation does not have to occur for a game to be a RPG. Sorry.
Youre thinking of assassins creed. This one actually has quality quests and retarded busywork to waste your time at aminimum, unlike mad max, assassins creed, far cry 3 -4, shadow of mordor etc.
>Is this one of the few games that fit the literal description of a "meme game"?
I think extending the term beyond stuff like Goat Simulator and Showering With Your Dad Simulator is kinda pushing it. And they should be called novelt games instead.
>faggot arguing jRPGs aren't real RPGs
>faggot arguing a game isn't an RPG if it doesn't involve intricate character creation
>faggot arguing TW games aren't RPGs
You're basically saying PS:T isn't an RPG because you start with a premade character that you only get to customize a bit. Literally the same as with TW games.
I want Skyrim and modern Fallout kiddies to leave.
> you don't really enjoy this game you just think you do
Holy shit are you serious? Did you bust into some meme philosophy book this year and now you think you got shit figured out?
Get the fuck out of here, kid
Yes, I am implying you're young, because if you're not I seriously pity your naivety
You have no argument. You just greentext and insult.
There's no reason why they aren't RPGs. You are playing a role, progressing and customizing. You just can't admit you're wrong, just like everyone on /v/.
How does it make them less RPGs when they have every element of an RPG that matters? You have no answer because there is none.
it's simply a game that doesnt bring anything new to the table, that's why it will be forgotten.
its fanbase is weak, redkit2 brought few mods when it was released for w2, w3 mods are even less. little fanart, no need for discussions when a game tells you everything.
it simply wont resist more than 1-2 years, and it will be dead once c2077 releases.
but that's still speculation, and im ready to eat my shit if it doesnt happen. screencap this if you want and post it in a few years.
and, just to be clear, by dead or popular i mean scenarios like dark souls and witcher 2: released pretty close to one another, one is still discussed after 2 more games of its genre, the other is pretty much dead.
The game play is pretty fun and most of the storylines in each quest are pretty absorbing.
Yeah the gameplay would be boring in 20 hours if the writing wasn't so strong, but as it stands I think the game is great and you're just a salty faggot who hates anything enjoyed by people outside of /v/.
>You spend more time thinking about this game than people who actually played it and like it.
/v/ in a nutshell
I see. I never bothered with the Witcher series and if this is an actual thing, I don't really want to keep going. Does it at least become useless down the track? Like enemies ignore it or something?
Because it doesn't matter. It's not the deciding factor in what RPGs are. And to that point, even at it's origins there were modules where you played premade characters in a story, even in tabletop RPGs.
That does not make it less of an RPG because the role you are playing is provided for you.
>DM hands you all premade characters
>suddenly it's not a tabletop RPG anymore
Let's also keep in mind that a machine is still not as flexible as a DM when it comes to crafting a narrative, combat situations and awards and shit. So game devs have to make sacrifices because all content is premade and the player has to fit into the game's mold instead of the game being molded around the player by the GM. Bethesda sacrifices story for character creation, CDPR sacrifices character creation for story. Neither make games that are RPGs (as in they fit into the RPG genre) any less than the other. One could however argue that one makes better games than the other
hint: it's not Bethesda
tl;dr fuck you
Probably just self insert fags mad they can't make some shitty OC of themselves and have to play as Geralt. Seriously this game has no tacked on multiplayer, no micro transactions, real expansion content, constant game updates, actual different endings unlike bioware trash, and great writing.
You mean shitposted about right?
Thats all souls games get afterall, just like TW3.
I'm not sure what kind of staying power you are looking for, I think you just don't participate in TW3 discussion and thus don't think it exists - while you participate in das discussion and thus assume its ever-present.
Btw I agree - the only outstanding thing TW3 did is that it did most of its aspects very very well - while being huge in scope.
No gimmick, no one trick pony here, just a good, big game.
Meanwhile, just to use souls once more - now thats a one-trick pony thats being ridden to fucking death.
>does it at least become useless down the track? Like enemies ignore it or something?
what do you mean? you can just upgrade and tank more hits (3-4 hits per use) or use its variation to gain health when enemies it you
I enjoyed it.
Combat is excellent. Played Death March, but the side quests make you level up too easily so mid game you're too overpowered. That's the only real flaw of the game in my opinion.
Certainly better than Dark Souls' combat, not as good as Dragon's Dogma which I'm waiting for to unlock right now.
>without tumblr tier characters
Yeah how often is some demonic military leader portrayed in tumblr?
Jesus Christ WITCHER faggots are so defensive over their lame sword and sorcery garbage
>I'm not sure what kind of staying power you are looking for, I think you just don't participate in TW3 discussion and thus don't think it exists
yes, i participate in the few witcher 3 threads that arent made by haters or drones with the same goty pic.
last time there was a favorite gear thread that got deleted after 6 replies.
(now compare it with bb gear threads)
waifuposting is pretty popular as well, at least 20 replies before being archived.
didnt bother to read the rest of your post since your over-defensive attitude is pretty clear
>you can just upgrade and tank more hits (3-4 hits per use) or use its variation to gain health when enemies it you
This bothers me. And what I meant was, were there enemies that could ignore the shield (i.e. a huge boss with a huge strike that would just bash through it), but I guess not by the sounds of it. Thanks for the info anon.
>were there enemies that could ignore the shield
there arent, even ground aoe can be absorbed by quen.
most of the fights in all witchers consists of waiting for stamina to regen, use quen, attack, get hit, retreat, wait, quen and so on
but im sure some witcherdrones will attack this and say otherwise
I don't challange that at all, its just rarely done well and its till fun.
I'd rather take maigcal knight filled britain-clones over half-assed sci-fi, and ANYTIME over military settings, especially ones involving the US OF A.
Also, the Witcher universe is atleast not nearly as generic as most others, the same elements sure, but usually with nice twists, a lot of realistic conflict (instead of just good vs evil) and all the polish/slav folklore stuff.
Well that sucks. I don't want to use it because it seems lazy and cheap so I'll probably just stop playing. The whole "instantly heal" thing on normal difficulty was bad enough.
I asked a friend of mine what he thought of it and he said the battle system was really quite shoddy but he said the story makes up for it so I guess witcherfags don't even try to defend it and he can go fuck himself.
There are strikes an enemy can do that can still stagger you even with Quen. So the shield bursts and your staggered for a few seconds, enough time for them to get a few good hits on you.
As you gain in level it becomes harder to find real challenges, sure. But that's the way it is with most games. I'm playing now, and I just did a contract to kill a vampire and it was the hardest fight thus far because the vampire was really fast, like it would attack relentlessly. No time to reapply Quen to the point that it was breaking the game and I almost died.
My issue is mainly that I reached a point where all my attacks seem to stagger the opponent (or most opponents), so all I have to do is keep hitting them and they can't retaliate because they are staggering over and over again.
Yes you can cheese your way through the game that way.
So does that fact that Souls combat is
>sidestepping until I slam them with a lightning zweihander/backstab
mean that that is all that Souls combat is capable of?
Its up to you how to play, if you are cheap - you'll get a cheap experience.
I have plenty of fun with the combat, it's just an opinion and some people seem to be able to enjoy it and some people don't.
I have a feeling though that most people who don't just find ways to dislike anything they are doing. That's fine, but it isn't the game's fault.
>huge boss with a huge strike that would just bash through it
when a "huge boss" attacks the hit is absorbed by quen and geralt is thrown a few meters away.
but i wouldnt complain about it since hitboxes and iframes are a bit shit
I'm pretty sure this is all because TW3s popularity has brought all these degenerates like
out of the woodwork who come in for a fucking action game and nothing else.
Protip: If you want good action, go for an action game, not a hybrid ARPG that was always far heavier on the roleplaying and story side.
You people were literally lured by the pretty graphics I guess, moth to fire, etc.
Meme games are more like Dark Souls/Bloodborne and Undertale.
Witcher 3 is a genuinely good game, it's just not for you it seems.
>There are strikes an enemy can do that can still stagger you even with Quen
Oh well that's not too so bad I suppose. I noticed the hitboxes and dodging was a bit weird but it's nothing awful.
What are you even trying to say here?
>the action can be bland because the story is there
That's all I'm getting. There's no reason the game can't have both.
>So does that fact that Souls combat is
>>sidestepping until I slam them with a lightning zweihander/backstab
>mean that that is all that Souls combat is capable of?
sorry about this
deflecting to another game doesnt make it any better, i hope you'll agree with me on this
secondly, that doesnt work with bosses in souls games, while the quen tactic still applies for witcher bosses
lastly, but i know you havent played it, they fixed the backstab problem in bloodborne.
also mind you souls have backstep, not sidestep. the game with sidestep fixed that problem
i know you'll come up with other excuses or deflections, but i had to leave it here
Also it's worth noting that (at least on higher difficulties) if you get hit one or two times from an enemy your level or higher you will be almost dead. So if the enemy does get a staggering strike that breaks Quen, with enough time to get some hits in, you will be on the brink.
I am pretty good with the combat but I've died a few times from various combat configurations, like getting jumped by multiple bandits of higher level and getting pincered. You still have to be careful in the higher difficulties when you engage in combat, using potions and spells intelligently.
>That's all I'm getting. There's no reason the game can't have both.
Actually there is, no game is perfect anon, you cannot come up to me with a game which has the scope, size, graphical quality, story, voiceacting quality of TW3 AND very very solid combat.
Games cannot be developed infinitely, so the makers have to focus on some things, prioritize, and combat being "super responsive high-octane action" (or whatever you'd describe good combat as) was low priority for TW3 - because its mostly an RPG, and only action in part.
I played like 5 hours yesterday and haven't drawn my sword once in 3 of those...
Its a parallel example cunt, my point was made - YOU deflected, my point was that you can cheese through any game with the cheapest shit if you want, or you can employ all your utility and spice up your own gameplay.
I never implied the two combat systems are on par at all, also by sidestep I simply mean strafing.
Theres no excuses here, Souls have better combat - but shit all for characters, story, decisions or roleplaying in general, TW3 has worse combat, but it fits much better to the forementioned elements of the game, which are actually there and good.
I can always tell when a person just goes out of his way to get offended, you guys always do this
If you were to try and honestly reply, you'd quote me, and not write up your own quote to respond to.
reread the post you replied to, dark souls isnt even mentioned.
now, you can either agree with what is stated, disagree and bring examples or refrain from replying.
following your logic i could say the order 1886 is good because there are shittier games
Actually you need to re-read the post.
Why is it that you guys either
>lol you mentioned another game how pathetic
>lol give me examples of other games, if you can't thats pathetic
I'm playing on the step up from normal right now and it's progressing relatively smoothly, unless I'm fighting 3+ things and I get stunlocked to death.
Alright then all things aside, would you say this game could be enjoyed by the combat alone or is this just too much of a story driven game? A lot of my friends who played this recommended it to me on the combat and I'm just not digging it.
It's definitely a game where it's a lot harder in the beginning than it is as the game goes on. I got all the first level cat school gear and it's made me pretty capable in most combat situations.
>but shit all for characters, story, decisions or roleplaying in general
how can decision making be shit in dark souls when there's no decisions to make? aside refraining from killing shit or choosing good/bad ending
>but it fits much better to the forementioned elements of the game
shit combat fits story, characters, decsions etc?
are you insane?
either combat is good or it isnt, and a good combat always suits a game better
No I wouldn't, at all.
Protip: no game that has a literal 'story mode' will ever have combat that is worth it by itself.
TW3 is all about the world, the story/sidestories, the characters, and Geralt's interaction.
I practically consider combat part of the graphics - because you can make it very pretty and fluid.
Thats the point - Souls games lack something that TW3 has, and TW3 lack something that Souls has.
Back to my point earlier - all games have priorities on aspects, and TW3's combat is not "bad", simply low priority.
The same way the story/roleplaying of those games aren't 'bad' just low priority (or not a priority at all).
Bad combat is that literally gets in your way and annoys you, that has zero depth or variation and yet is endlessly required. TW3 is not that at all, its definitely good enough to support the high priority aspects of the game - and on harder difficulties can even be challanging.
Well that's disappointing to hear. Thanks for some insight instead of being a frothing at the mouth idiot.
you need to re-read again, then once more time: either refrain from writing bullshit or bring examples FROM THE GAME IN QUESTION in order to refute the statement.
that was pretty obvious. it seems you have to defend the game in every single aspect.
the gameplay is shit, so what? you have to tell me there are shittier games with shittier gameplay to make it sound good?
im fucking done with witcherdrones, i myself praised the story, lore and characters, but the controls and combat is shit.
cant fucking believe how defensive you are, game is good, not perfect, deal with it
Stop pissing yourself in rage you cunt
are both my posts, you read-around them it seems or would just prefer to not get my point even when its shoved down your throat.
Or maybe you only follow (You)s like a good drone.