The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Arts & Entertainment => Topic started by: rooster on May 17, 2015, 08:25:19 PM
-
Finished Witcher 2. Meh.
There aren't enough quests where you are actually a witcher. It's mostly just boring politics. Since I know canon Geralt pretty well, I just try to stay out of the politics as much as possible and do my own thing. I saved Triss and I didn't kill the dragon or any sorceresses. I did kill Letho even when I don't think Geralt would have. I just want to be a witcher with a good overall story. I don't want to be someone that everyone is trying to use for their own agenda in a mostly interactive movie.
Crafting items was a cool addition and I do like the fighting better. But I really, really, disliked the flashback artwork. The third game looks like it will have plenty of sidequests so hopefully I like it better.
-
The Witcher 3 looks like an Elder Scrolls game except you can only be a guy with a gay looking haircut.
-
Amirite?! <rolls eyes right out muh fucking head and out the door>
-
(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/05/20/e231e747adfce935052ebc58f25a5f9e.jpg)
-
dat mangled face
-
(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/05/20/e231e747adfce935052ebc58f25a5f9e.jpg)
Yes, that's what The Witcher 3 is, except you're stuck with that character. Brilliant game, except for than one thing.
-
Haha gross. The Geralt mod for Skyrim is much better.
-
Haha gross. The Geralt mod for Skyrim is much better.
Maybe, but Skyrim is a terrible game.
-
But honestly, the Witcher 3 sucks because the developers wasted their expansive fantasy universe on a game where you can only play as one character. And it has no co-op.
-
Witcher 3 is great. The only problem I've had so far is being a little overwhelmed and deciding what to do next. Gwent is really fun too. I would definitely play it IRL. This is the first time I've ever just run around doing nothing and even gotten really into an ingame game. I typically make fun of A&A when he's a boring nerd that's not interested in the story. But this game is so great and immersive that I'm having a hard time wanting to pursue the main storyline myself.
-
I'm surprised no one else here has played Witcher 3 yet. This shit is great.
-
I'm surprised no one else here has played Witcher 3 yet. This shit is great.
Can't play Witcher 3 before having played Witcher and Witcher 2. Can't play Witcher 2 before having played Witcher. And I don't want to play Witcher.
Unless there's a hack n' slash mod for it.
-
You don't even have to play 1.
There's only one thing that really carries over and it's the very last cinematic video. So you can just watch that and then play 2. But there's not much about politics yet and the two groups you deal with aren't really in the other games. There's just a little bit of backstory with your best buds and the scoia'tael conflict, which is important in 2 but not in 3.
-
This is going to be really rambling.
tl;dr version: Witcher 3 is a great game, and I would unequivocally recommend it to anyone who loves RPGs. I don't think it innovates anything in the RPGs genre, though. Also I wish it were more open-world than it is.
I have mixed feelings about Witcher 3 that are at least in part caused by the hype surrounding the game. More than one person expressed to me days after the game launched that it was (in their opinions) the best game they'd ever played. Innovative, deep, replayable, great story, etc. I didn't expect to think it was the greatest game I'd ever played, but I guess I was expecting something more unique than it turned out to be. This is the only Witcher game I've played, and I'm only about 10-15 hours through this one; I'd like to leave open the possibility that the game will blow my tits off as I get deeper into it.
I'll start with what I liked. It's a great game. It really is. The setting is beautiful, the cutscenes are good, and the core mechanic is robust. I dunno how much detail I really want to go into because every time I think of an example, ten more pop into my head that I think deserve a mention. So maybe I'll just say that it's good at everything you want a RPG to be good at: there are lots of different character builds; the setting it beautiful and detailed; the fight mechanic is actually engaging; the characters, even the NPCs, are vibrant; it's massive.
Here's what I don't like about the game: I don't really think it innovates anything. I hesitate to call this a criticism because it certainly isn't required that a game reinvent a genre to be good. To me, though, the lack of novelty in the game keeps it from being as engaging as I was hoping it would be. Every element of the game is well-executed, but it's all been done before: protagonist goes from town to town finding jobs on message boards and expanding the map as XP allows. I guess it just feels like Witcher comes up a little short when I compare it to a series like TES that took the RPG genre and added something new to the underlying architecture.
This could also be because I don't give much of a shit about the story or characters. It's not that the story and characters are poorly done, just that I don't care about them at all. The Elder Scrolls suffer from the same problem for me; I really just wind up getting into all the side quests and never really focusing on the primary story. This is probably because I'm ultimately worn on out the high fantasy RPG. I'm over it. I'd kill for pretty much this exact same game in a scifi setting.
I was going to ramble some more, but you get the idea.
-
Let's talk about the lack of people of color in the game.
-
lack of people of color in the game.
Good.
-
Also I wish it were more open-world than it is.
...expanding the map as XP allows.
The map is literally completely open after the prologue. You can go and do whatever you want in whatever order. The only thing is that enemies don't level with you, so there are quests you can try to do, but might die immediately. This doesn't make it any less of an open world game.
I actually prefer it this way. It makes certain amazing items tricky to get or you have to really prepare yourself for a fight with oils, potions, the right signs, or the right bombs.
But yes, the game is very story oriented so if you can't get into the story or characters you'll likely not enjoy it.
-
But yes, the game is very story oriented so if you can't get into the story or characters you'll likely not enjoy it.
I enjoy the game immensely; I only don't think it's in the conversation for Greatest of All Time, that's all. Basically I'm saying that Witcher is the Toni Kukoč of RPGs. holy shit that's a brilliant analogy
Open-world-ness
I probably think it feels just-slightly-less-than-totally-open-world because the last high fantasy RPG I really got down on was Skyrim, and one of the things I love most about TES is that they let me pretty much go wherever I want and do whatever I want right from the start of the game. None of the quests are off limits to me, and I can just roam the map like Scooby Doo looking for mysteries to solve and dudebros to murder.
Don't get me wrong, Witcher is really open-world. It's a far, far cry from a game like Mass Effect or Deus Ex. Personally, though, I think I'd enjoy it more if it scaled everything to the player's level like TES. You mentioned on IRC that all the zones have plenty of low level quests, so my opinion of this could change as I play more.
Let's talk about the lack of people of color in the game.
I don't think it's wrong, but I do think it's weird.
-
I think I'd enjoy it more if it scaled everything to the player's level like TES.
Right, and that's fine. I was just pointing out that it doesn't mean it's not open world.
I think it seems much more realistic when they don't scale. The first insta-death monster I came upon was some kind of gigantic cave spider. It's a little frustrating knowing you'll have to wait before you can complete that Witcher contract, but I don't think that my low level Geralt should have been able to handle it with his dinky shit armor and swords. But I can kill pretty much any human enemy at any time. Humans are really easy. I just think it makes more sense this way and adds a bit more realism and challenge.
I don't think it's wrong, but I do think it's weird.
Keep in mind, this whole story takes place in the Northern Kingdoms. And aside from that, racism is rampant throughout the series - it just involves humans and non-humans. So from a realistic stand point, there aren't going to be blacks in Northern Europe Medieval land and from an in-universe standpoint, they just have different races.
-
Let's talk about the lack of people of color in the game.
Polish game, lack of people of color in Poland.
-
$70 dollerydoos for the Witcher trilogy. I love Mass Erect and Bioware RPGs in general. Should I buy it?
-
$70 dollerydoos for the Witcher trilogy. I love Mass Erect and Bioware RPGs in general. Should I buy it?
In that case, yes. I usually recommend this game to people who love Bioware/Bethesda games. Mass Effect and Fallout 3 (don't hate) used to be my favorite games, but this trilogy beats them.
-
Keep in mind, this whole story takes place in the Northern Kingdoms. And aside from that, racism is rampant throughout the series - it just involves humans and non-humans. So from a realistic stand point, there aren't going to be blacks in Northern Europe Medieval land and from an in-universe standpoint, they just have different races.
Oh, come on, it wouldn't have been hard for them to come up with a reason for some non-white people to be around. There could be some travelers from a foreign land, maybe as part of a trade expedition, or even as refugees. Also, the fact that the game is opposed to imaginary fantastic racism is not a defense to the charge of actual racism. Anyone can make up a race that's completely unanalogous to real life and say, "The moral is, don't be racist, kids." That's easy. All you have to do is not imitate these inimitable jackasses and you're all set. It's not so easy to write something that questions the assumptions that real people make, or the behaviors that real people perform. Something that would, in other words, examine actual racism. This silly comic gets it:
(http://i.imgur.com/6Rr0W0x.jpg)
-
You're right, they should have replaced the Scoia'tael with the Black Panthers so they could really examine racism. It just isn't the same if the people aren't actually black.
-
I thought video games were supposed to be fun.
-
Saddam brings up race so often I have a hard time believing he isn't an actual racist.
-
Jesus, does every game have to explore racial conflict? Not everything has to be about race.
-
Jesus, does every game have to explore racial conflict? Not everything has to be about race.
Stop white-washing the plight of ethnic minority gamers.
-
Jesus, does every game have to explore racial conflict? Not everything has to be about race.
Stop white-washing the plight of ethnic minority gamers.
I can't tell whether this post is ironic.
Regardless, it's frankly pretty egotistical and insulting for Americans to expect the rest of the world to share their burden (and I'm using that term in the loosest sense possible). They likely have no idea what Poland has had to go through in their history at all, yet they still expect them to care about America's issues? The world does not revolve around you.
-
Jesus, does every game have to explore racial conflict? Not everything has to be about race.
Stop white-washing the plight of ethnic minority gamers.
I can't tell whether this post is ironic.
Would you like a hint?
-
Jesus, does every game have to explore racial conflict? Not everything has to be about race.
Stop white-washing the plight of ethnic minority gamers.
I can't tell whether this post is ironic.
Would you like a hint?
Yes please.
-
The post was ironic.
-
But Saddam is the thought police.
-
So from a realistic stand point, there aren't going to be blacks in Northern Europe Medieval land and from an in-universe standpoint, they just have different races.
Just to clarify, I definitely don't think that it's weird for a game not to deal with race issues. I only think it's odd for a game not to depict people of color (to the extent that people are represented at all in the game), and I think it's odd that so many games make that choice. Depicting or representing as much of your potential customer base as possible has many benefits and virtually no opportunity cost.
I guess my whole thought on it is that perfect fidelity to either the history or mythology of the people living in early Medieval Poland is neither possible nor desirable, and I don't really understand what the opportunity cost is. As in, I don't see what difference it would make to break from reality in that way.1 Fantasy stories already lose complete fidelity with history (there aren't going to be any elves, dwarves, dragons, or witchers in Slavic Medieval Europe), and Witcher as a series already doesn't maintain much fidelity with either Slavic history or Slavic mythology.
1It's unlikely that there were no people of color in Medieval Slavic Europe. The Slavic states were trading as far away as modern-day Serbia as far back as 5000 BC (link (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9645152)), and by the tenth century there was a robust trade network between the Slavs and the Islamic world (link (http://www.academia.edu/1764468/Dirhams_for_slaves._Investigating_the_Slavic_slave_trade_in_the_tenth_century)). This network included both Islamic and Slavic slaves, and Islamic slave ships would sail as far as the Baltic Sea to acquire Slavic slaves. Muslims, Mongols, North Africans, and Spanish probably weren't uncommon inhabitants of Medieval Europe.
-
The Slavic mythology point in particular doesn't really hold up. They throw in a few Polish terms and names, but overall the lore of the series is largely the same Tolkien/D&D ripoff that almost every modern fantasy franchise relies on. This Polish guy agrees with me, so naturally I am going to take his word as gospel:
http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2015/06/04/witcher-3-and-diversity/
To clarify, though, I don't personally have a problem with the lack of non-white people. I just think that a lot of the excuses that some of the more dedicated fans have come up with to explain why it was very important that there be no non-white people are pretty silly.
-
The black people in LotR were antagonists. There just aren't that many black people in high fantasy. So even going based on that, the "excuses" really aren't that silly. Just change Slavic mythology to generic high fantasy and you get the same argument.
Which, by the way, a lot of high fantasy comes from various mythologies anyway.
-
The Slavic mythology point in particular doesn't really hold up. They throw in a few Polish terms and names, but overall the lore of the series is largely the same Tolkien/D&D ripoff that almost every modern fantasy franchise relies on. This Polish guy agrees with me, so naturally I am going to take his word as gospel:
http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2015/06/04/witcher-3-and-diversity/
To clarify, though, I don't personally have a problem with the lack of white people. I just think that a lot of the excuses that some of the more dedicated fans have come up with to explain why it was very important that there be no non-white people are pretty silly.
Well, this other Polish guy wrote a counter argument to that article.
https://medium.com/@adrianchm/on-the-witcher-3-and-racial-quotas-in-art-e6a9f594439
-
Wouldn't it be hilarious if the Redguards were all killed off sometime shortly before the start of the next Elder Scrolls game, and we'd only have the glorious white skinned humans left because fuck diversity? lol.
-
The Slavic mythology point in particular doesn't really hold up. They throw in a few Polish terms and names, but overall the lore of the series is largely the same Tolkien/D&D ripoff that almost every modern fantasy franchise relies on.
It's funny, 'cause you've got this completely backwards. Fantasy is derived from folklore and myth. Now, European folklore has its similarities from place to place, mostly due to trade, some fluidity of borders (where/when the concept of "borders" even applies) and thousands of years of semi-common heritage. I imagine that's where the confusion comes from, what with you having been primarily exposed to American history education. In any case, saying that the Witcher reproduces Tolkien is just about as idiotic as to say that The Passion of the Christ reproduces elements from Disney's Hercules.
To clarify, though, I don't personally have a problem with the lack of white people.
I'll assume that by "white" you mean "black". If that's the case, congratulations. Why are you getting your jimmies so rustled about it, then?
-
I think it's just Saddam rather than an education problem. I want to say that I've told him in IRC before that almost everything in fantasy can be traced back to some mythology but maybe he wasn't there.
-
In fairness, while Tolkien did derive his inspiration from a number of sources (as any work always does), I think most people would believe that his legendarium stands distinctly separate from the works that influenced it. At least in that it's pretty clear when modern fantasy is reproducing Tolkien, compared to when it's reproducing Norse mythology. Warcraft lore serves as a good example; you can tell where the Greek mythology begins to mesh with Lovecraft, which then meshes with Tolkien.
-
It's funny, 'cause you've got this completely backwards. Fantasy is derived from folklore and myth. Now, European folklore has its similarities from place to place, mostly due to trade, some fluidity of borders (where/when the concept of "borders" even applies) and thousands of years of semi-common heritage. I imagine that's where the confusion comes from, what with you having been primarily exposed to American history education. In any case, saying that the Witcher reproduces Tolkien is just about as idiotic as to say that The Passion of the Christ reproduces elements from Disney's Hercules.
Of course Tolkien drew from a number of different sources in folklore, but he still organized and tweaked them into an overall setting that was unique for its time and unmistakably his. For example, a race of people called dwarves with a talent for craftsmanship wasn't new to LotR, but dwarves being this gruff, blunt race with long flowing beards who all live in huge underground cities, love their ale and boisterous drinking songs, have few to no visible women, and speak with Scottish accents (as of the movies; obviously that wasn't in the books) was absolutely new to LotR, and that is what most fantasy franchises shamelessly copy/paste for their own universes.
I'll assume that by "white" you mean "black".
Derp. I meant non-white.
-
The exclusively using axes in battle was not Tolkien. Thorium, perhaps his second most widely known dwarf hero used an elven sword and Daín Ironfoot used a hammer.
-
Dwarves use different weapons in Witcher as well. Saddam, why are you so racist?
-
Fine, so that wasn't a great example. I switched it with having Scottish accents and clarified LotR as the main source of these tropes rather than Tolkien himself, as the movies have proven to be extremely influential in their own right. For example, Bethesda has admitted that the LotR movies were a big influence behind their decision to go from the uniqueness of Morrowind to the blandness of Oblivion. The point is that nobody these days who wants to add dwarves to their own fantasy universe starts reading up on Norse mythology or whatever. It's the interpretation of them that Tolkien/Jackson had that now essentially defines them in popular culture.
-
At least while I thought Dwemer were dwarves until you nerds ruined that as well.
-
Fine, so that wasn't a great example. I switched it with having Scottish accents and clarified LotR as the main source of these tropes rather than Tolkien himself, as the movies have proven to be extremely influential in their own right. For example, Bethesda has admitted that the LotR movies were a big influence behind their decision to go from the uniqueness of Morrowind to the blandness of Oblivion. The point is that nobody these days who wants to add dwarves to their own fantasy universe starts reading up on Norse mythology or whatever. It's the interpretation of them that Tolkien/Jackson had that now essentially defines them in popular culture.
I don't even know what your point is anymore because your history is just incorrect.
In Witcher, dwarves do not live underground, but they do have mines. However, dwarves have always been associated with metalworking and as early as 1812 (Snow White by the Grimm Brothers) have been mining in caves. So definitely not a Tolkien invention.
Dwarves in folklore are usually described as old men with long beards, female dwarfs are hardly ever mentioned, and they were known to guard doorways into mountains.
I dunno, it really just seems like your idea of fantasy comes from Tolkien, but you have no concept of the original mythological sources. I think you give Tolkien waaaay too much credit.
-
Fine, so that wasn't a great example. I switched it with having Scottish accents and clarified LotR as the main source of these tropes rather than Tolkien himself, as the movies have proven to be extremely influential in their own right. For example, Bethesda has admitted that the LotR movies were a big influence behind their decision to go from the uniqueness of Morrowind to the blandness of Oblivion. The point is that nobody these days who wants to add dwarves to their own fantasy universe starts reading up on Norse mythology or whatever. It's the interpretation of them that Tolkien/Jackson had that now essentially defines them in popular culture.
I don't even know what your point is anymore because your history is just incorrect.
In Witcher, dwarves do not live underground, but they do have mines. However, dwarves have always been associated with metalworking and as early as 1812 (Snow White by the Grimm Brothers) have been mining in caves. So definitely not a Tolkien invention.
Dwarves in folklore are usually described as old men with long beards, female dwarfs are hardly ever mentioned, and they were known to guard doorways into mountains.
I dunno, it really just seems like your idea of fantasy comes from Tolkien, but you have no concept of the original mythological sources. I think you give Tolkien waaaay too much credit.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y
...okay, fine. Maybe you're right. But whatever the source, I still don't like how clichéd and predictable most modern fantasy ends up being. That was one of my big problems with Witcher 2, how right off the bat it drops you straight into a hodgepodge of common fantasy tropes, with very little exposition as to the nature of the world beforehand. The first Witcher does a much, much better job of easing you into the world and explaining the lore bit by bit. You said to beardo earlier that he doesn't need to play the first Witcher to get into the series, but I disagree. The devs seem to take it for granted that anyone playing the sequels has already played the first game and has a good understanding of the lore, and so they don't need an explanation for pretty much anything.
-
Of course. You shouldn't play The Witcher 2 before you've played The Wither.
-
Witcher 2 is not great. But I don't think you need either for the third game. There is some political themes that carry over from the second game, but that's about it. The scoia'tael are in the background, the Lodge is broken, and it's easy to mix up the kings even if you have played 2. Seriously, i don't remember who Radovid is. And who was the king Saskia supported? Was that Radovid?! I don't even know, they all look alike.
Really, even the first game seems to pick up from the books. Like who the balls is Triss and why is she suddenly sleeping with me?! Why is Kaer Morhen a steaming pile?!
But the third game is just all about Ciri who isn't even mentioned in the previous games. Witcher 3 does ask you questions about the choices you made in the previous game, but whatever, you can just make it up. There are continued subplots but you can still easily enjoy it without being too confused, plus there are still plenty of books and glossary pages to read for lorelorelore.
-
Why is Geralt's hair grey? Is he a really fucking fit old man?
-
Why is Geralt's hair grey? Is he a really fucking fit old man?
Gruffy McGruff.
-
It's mentioned in one of the games but I don't remember which one.
He did so well during witcher training that he was selected for more intense experiments. He almost died and it left him gray. But he is also like 100 years old. Yennefer is older than him. Mutants and sorceress live a long time.
-
Why is Geralt's hair grey? Is he a really fucking fit old man?
Gruffy McGruff.
It's explained in the first 30 minutes of #1. Witchers are superhuman monster hunters that go through a series of trials to gain their abilities. Can't remember if it was the second or third trial, but it results in grey hair and infertility by the end.
-
Eh, close.
In the game it says the Trial of the Grasses left him gray, but in the books it's the "additional experiments". Which makes more sense when all witchers are infertile but only Geralt is gray. And then It makes almost no sense in the show. So whatever, vague witcher experiments.
-
lore lore lore. I think it's funny that I got to bone Triss in the first real conversation I had with her.
-
Triss is a horrible person taking advantage of Geralt's amnesia. I hate her by the end of the second game.
-
So who should I bang/romance? Everyone?
-
So who should I bang/romance? Everyone?
You don't have a whole lot of options in 3. If you try both Triss and Yen then they'll know about it. I picked Yennefer. She's canon and Geralt clearly loves her. She's not a great person either but they're well suited.
-
So who should I bang/romance? Everyone?
You don't have a whole lot of options in 3. If you try both Triss and Yen then they'll know about it. I picked Yennefer. She's canon and Geralt clearly loves her. She's not a great person either but they're well suited.
So you go from getting to bang everything that moves to this shit? Lame.
-
Yeah, the real cut back happened for the second game where you also only have a few options. Such a shame, getting laid was like its own mini game and then they took it away. :(
-
getting laid was like its own mini game
Just like real life.
-
I like how you can just walk around and rob everyone blind in their own houses.
-
Triss is a horrible person taking advantage of Geralt's amnesia. I hate her by the end of the second game.
Why do you hate Triss? I didn't do completionist playthroughs of 1 and 2 but I'm still ambivalent towards her. I think it was Sila or Phillipa that said she's not telling me everything, but I never figured out what that meant.
-
She tells you that you loved a sorceress but won't tell you anything else about it. So she basically takes advantage of Geralt's amnesia to be with him. Then she tells him the rose of remberence will help his memory but it's the same thing Phillipa uses to control Saskia which seems awfully suspicious of Triss.
But aside from that, I just don't think she's Geralt's style. She's young and political. Geralt is sullen and a loner. Yen seems a lot more his style.
-
I have now beaten The Witcher! It's definitely got a lot of flaws, like the bizarre combat, wonky animations, re-use of distinctive character models, some shitty voice acting, and an extremely hostile camera, but under it all, I found a solid, well-written, and addictive RPG. Like I said earlier, the lore is introduced into the game at just the right pace, giving you enough new information to keep you interested without being overwhelming, and to the end of keeping true to the source material while also being accessible to new fans, giving Geralt amnesia was a great idea (I never thought I'd say that about a trope that's widely regarded as one of the laziest gimmicks in all of fiction). And as far as the quality of the lore goes, well, there were a lot of tired fantasy clichés that I think the game would have been stronger without, but it wasn't entirely a Tolkien rehash. For example, I liked the weird fish-people race and the sub-plot in which some of them worship a giant sea monster. That's a pretty blatant ripoff of Lovecraft, of course, but we don't see that in video games nearly as much as we do the same-old elves and dwarves, so it didn't feel as obvious and predictable to me.
My biggest criticism of the game would have to be the level design. Most of the levels in this game feel like they were designed to be frustrating and confusing to navigate. The swamps are the worst of all.
-
George Weidman just put up his first video of the Witcher re-play review. I feel he describes the first game pretty well, despite his love for it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZohodiFCOTU
Also, took you a while Saddam ;) I got 1 and 2 done over a weekend. Granted, I rushed.
-
I did a big completionist playthrough, largely because of the whole "now or never" attitude the game has towards its optional sidequests. That was annoying at first, but as the game went on, I appreciated how they were all woven together into one big narrative, where the choices that you made had consequences on the story going forward.
-
That reviewer hit the nail on the head. The game looks terrible and runs awkwardly, but it's just so great. The flavor of the game just wasn't there in 2 as they seemed to be going for more generic AAA RPG. I think 3 does a better job, plus the game is just masterful. But, Witcher 1 still has the best flavor. Geralt is hideous, you collect sex cards, the dialogue is weird, the endless fetch quests are mind-numbing, but the themes are so good. And yes, the music is objectively perfect.
Witcher 1 is just great.
-
Witcher 3 is just great. 22 hours in and still not out of Velen. There's so much stuff to do, and while some of it is similar, it's varied enough with contracts and side quests to never get old.
-
Witcher 2 is more fun this time around, partly because I now know the backstory and who the returning characters are, and partly because it feels much smoother and more playable coming from the first title. Also, I'm now playing it on the One True Platform, PC, which has made for a marked improvement. That being said, and while I'm going to keep a more detailed critique for when I've beaten it, I have to complain that the game has included not one, but two (so far) examples of this bullshit (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeadsIWinTailsYouLose). That just pisses me off. It feels almost disrespectful in a way; the player uses their skill to win a boss battle, and then the game just handwaves it away and says "nah man you lose anyway." If a game wants to put the player in a boss fight that they lose, then they shouldn't present it as a regular boss fight that the player has to win to advance the story.
-
Remind me which fights used that trope?
-
I don't remember any fights like that.
-
He might be talking about the fight with the other Kingslayer witcher, where mid-game you have to win a fight against him but you don't actually win. From what I remember though, you don't lose, he just runs away.
-
And also maybe the fight where you choose between Roche and Iorveth. But you don't lose that one either.
-
He might be talking about the fight with the other Kingslayer witcher, where mid-game you have to win a fight against him but you don't actually win. From what I remember though, you don't lose, he just runs away.
That was one of them, but the cutscene shows him stunning Geralt and making a point to spare his life. Still, at least that's only with his health partly reduced. There's also a fight with Dethmold near the end of the second chapter (if you sided with Iorveth) that ends with a cutscene of him stunning you with a spell, but in that case, it didn't bug me because I had been focusing on his men, so his hitting me unaware didn't clash too badly with my gameplay. The fight that really annoyed me, though, was the one where you play as Stennis meeting with Henselt (again, if you sided with Iorveth). In a curb-stomp battle in my favor, I reduced his health to zero, and all of a sudden, boom, there's a cutscene that shows him kicking my ass. What? Why? It's not like it was even important to the story to have Stennis lose that fight, because then that priest interrupts and the story goes on, etc. There was literally no need to throw in that extra little touch of undermining the player.
Anyway, now I've beaten it. Solid game overall, but I have some issues with it, beyond what I just talked about. The story is a convoluted mess that basically comes down to a bunch of assholes yelling, "I double-crossed you!" "No, I double-crossed you!" "Well, I triple-crossed you!" "I triple-crossed you back!" "I quadruple-crossed all of you!" And as I said earlier, it feels pretty generic at times, like it was trying to be more of a "typical" fantasy game that just fit in with the crowd rather than its own unique thing, and the quality suffers for it. For example, I appreciated that while there was an ongoing war in the last game, it largely stayed in the background, simply forming the setting for the central conflict between Geralt and Salamandra. But here, you're forced to take part and be an active player in all these political shenanigans - why? Geralt is a witcher, a monster-slayer. His job is literally to protect people from monsters, no matter who those people are or what they believe. Isn't that good enough as a basis for a game? Did we really need another fantasy franchise revolving around epic battles, stirring speeches, and overthrowing tyrannies?
-
I told you, it's the worst game of the trilogy.
-
Rooster, how does the lore regarding the Wild Hunt work? Are they just a bunch of alien elves that teleport around the place? Do they bear any relation to the elves in the Witcher? None of their backstory is really explained well.
-
She tells you that you loved a sorceress but won't tell you anything else about it. So she basically takes advantage of Geralt's amnesia to be with him.
No, she doesn't. In the quest from the first game where Geralt is trying to establish his identity, he notes in his journal that he has vague memories of once loving a sorceress, and wonders if Triss was that sorceress. Obviously, he's wrong, but Triss certainly doesn't try to trick him into thinking they were ever involved. And she tells him about his relationship with Yennefer early in the second game.
Rooster, how does the lore regarding the Wild Hunt work? Are they just a bunch of alien elves that teleport around the place? Do they bear any relation to the elves in the Witcher? None of their backstory is really explained well.
Perhaps they're similar to their mythological inspiration:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Hunt
-
Rooster, how does the lore regarding the Wild Hunt work? Are they just a bunch of alien elves that teleport around the place? Do they bear any relation to the elves in the Witcher? None of their backstory is really explained well.
Not really aliens. There are different spheres/realms. It was during the Conjunction of Spheres that magic, monsters, and humans arrived in the Witcher realm.
Ciri and her elven friend have teleported from a different realm.
So the Hunt is apparently from a different realm and their ability to phase in and out isn't the greatest. Which is why I assume they want Ciri's power.
Here's the game lore on it:
According to tradition and eye witness accounts, the Wild Hunt abducts people, forcing them to join its mad gallopade on the sky. It's harvest is especially rich just before or during a great war, like a few years ago in Novigrad, when over twenty people went missing without a trace after the Wild Hunt passed. Some of the abductees managed to escape the cavalcade back into the world of the living, but the stories they told were so extraordinary that they were always considered insane.
Stories of the Wild Hunt do not appear in the dwarven and elven cultures. It is quite interesting, for the Elder Races must have faced the Hunt long before humans did. As it seems, the dwarves ignore everything on mutual terms, while the elves are mysteriously silent on that subject.
Sorceress Yennefer of Vengerberg was abducted by the Wild Hunt, just like witcher Geralt of Rivia. Her fate remains unknown, though she certainly did not join the host of wraith horsemen, unlike her lover who was one of the Hunt's riders for some time. The motivation of the gallopades leader, the King of the Hunt, remains, as always, unknown.
According to the Nordlings, the Wild Hunt is a procession, or rather a cavalcade of skeletal horsemen. They rush across the sky on the bony remains of steeds. Clad in rusty remnants of armor, they wear jagged swords at their waists. Like comets, the Wild Hunt is an omen of war, which has been confirmed beyond all doubt. The spectral cavalcade ventures out in search of victims every several years, but its harvest was never as rich as just before the last war with Nilfgaard, when over twenty souls went missing in Novigrad alone after the Hunt passed through. Curiously, elven and dwarven legends make not the slightest mention of the Wild Hunt.
One of the insane asylum's patients claimed to have been abducted by the Wild Hunt and taken to a world where unicorns saunter about lush elven gardens. When he finally succeeded in escaping the Hunt's grasp, he returned to this world only to find that his children had aged and died, so many years had passed...
According to the notes of a sorcerer, who spent his entire life studying the phenomenon of the Hunt, there is a mysterious power behind the wraith host's incursions into the world.
Philippa Eilhart also has a theory about the origin, motivation and essence of the Wild Hunt. It is a surprisingly shallow theory for such a learned woman and not worthy of mention next to such illustrious deductions as the ones above.
Síle de Tansarville showed absolutely no interest in the spectral riders of the Hunt. This was puzzling to say the least given her reputation as a very learned sorceress.
There are more opinions about the Wild Hunt than there are stars in the sky. Some claim the Hunt is a retinue of the specters of knights who perished in various worlds. Others think the phantoms were created by a powerful force that sends them out into different worlds in search of slaves.
Astronomical observation can be used to calculate the frequency of the Wild Hunt's appearances. This seems to confirm the hypothesis that the spectral riders come from another world.
Mages remained silent about the Hunt, as if beset by a hoard of tongue-hungry cats. This silence from so many learned minds was as telling as words, but you'll not learn any more on this subject from me within this tale.
The poem "The Song of the Hunt" is a book as rare as hen's teeth, and a pile of rubbish about the Hunt at the same time. Experts on the subject are willing to kill for that item, but fortunately there are not many of them. The multilayered narration sends the reader into the world of the author's rich imagination where each verse equals another interpretation. Truth mingles with fantasy in that work, but there's nothing of interest there for one researching the Hunt.
No poem can remain vague when interpreted by a consummate poet. Master Dandelion thinks that "The Song of the Hunt" symbolically describes how the cavalcade enters our reality from another one. It means that the wraiths of the Hunt are the inhabitants of another world, not necessarily the world of shades, who use the primordial magic of chaos and entropy. The poem, however, fails to explains the reasons they might have for such journeys.
Aramil, an elf from a parallel world, was pursued by the spectral riders
No, she doesn't. In the quest from the first game where Geralt is trying to establish his identity, he notes in his journal that he has vague memories of once loving a sorceress, and wonders if Triss was that sorceress. Obviously, he's wrong, but Triss certainly doesn't try to trick him into thinking they were ever involved. And she tells him about his relationship with Yennefer early in the second game.
But wasn't Triss the one who told him he was in love with a sorceress? Even if she wasn't, he at least says as much to her but she doesn't confirm who it was. She absolutely takes advantage of the situation - I never said tricked, but she is misleading. Also, she tells you the rose of remembrance will bring back memories, but it's what Philippa uses to enslave Saskia's mind.. sooo..
-
I still think Yen makes a better canonical love interest, now that she's been fleshed out in W3.
-
I still think Yen makes a better canonical love interest, now that she's been fleshed out in W3.
Geralt clearly loves her more in the game. I think her brusque assertiveness suits his stubborn loner complex better than Triss and all her politics.
-
This thread has been about the Witcher series for about five pages now. Can't we just have a dedicated Witcher thread?
-
Finally finished the Witcher 3 at 72 hours. Unknowingly stumbled into the 'best' ending, so be aware that various decisions throughout all 3 acts (but mostly those regarding Ciri) can strongly influence how the end turns out. Completed every side quest I could, in addition to all contracts. Ignored Gwent completely.
The game was pretty stellar, with the only bad stuff being control of Geralt (including horse racing), and a weird difficulty curve. Previous games allowed pretty fluid control of Geralt, whereas they decided to make it clunky as fuck here which resulted in me falling off of various things throughout the game (sometimes to my death).
Towards the end of the game, major bosses became extremely easy to kill. In fact, everything on blood and bones (or whatever is 1 step below deathmarch) just kind of fell over once I put together the Wolven armour set and built the talents around it in a combat/signs style. Contrast this to earlier on, where some fights (especially those with multiple enemies) are extremely hard. Overpowered talents like Whirl and alt-Quen trivialize much of the later fights, and doing every quest/place of power makes you stronger than just about anything in the late game.
Overall, don't think I've played an RPG quite as good as W3. As noted previously in this thread, it didn't really buck conventions, but nearly everything it does is done extremely well. The story was also pretty solid, which is more than could be said for W2.
-
Aw yay, I'm glad you liked it. I still haven't beaten it and will likely be taking a long time with it. I just can't stop playing gwent. I beat everyone, now I just need a deck in real life and will be a real loser!
-
Gwent is odd, I never really warmed to it. Whenever I played it, I always seemed to win with ease, despite not having made a special deck outside of cards I just picked up along the way. It's the kind of thing that could use a multiplayer feature because of that.
The only quests I have left to do are Gwent quests and bugged hand ins. Also a few ? marks left on the map. I've no doubt missed a few minor quests as well, so I'll probably go looking for them. The game really is huge, I have no idea how they managed so much content on top of such a good looking game in a traditional 3 year development cycle.
-
The toughest people to beat in gwent are the Baron and Skelligers.
-
Roos, you were right about the open world-ness. At the particular spot I was at right after White Orchard, it didn't feel like I could roam much. All the marked locations I kept finding had nothing but high level bros in red, and the story missions were marked red, too, so I wasn't really sure what to do next. After I advanced a level or two, though, it was fine.
I think this game's best feature is the combat. Combat felt clunky to me at first, but as I figured out some of the nuances I discovered that's it's really robust. It rewards skill, and it allows the player to choose lots of different combat styles. Neat. I fucking love alchemy.
The game's worst feature to me is inventory management. I wish it would give me more information about the various uses for the loot I collect. Much of it is obvious, but I suspect that I'm hanging onto plenty of things I'll never use. That's pretty common to fantasy RPGs, though. Skyrim is the worst about it. I don't understand the need for developers to simulate that kind of realism. I don't actually need to collect every broken rake in Westeros or whatever.
Also please fucking stop it with placing candles on every fucking box that I'm trying to loot. FFS.
-
Yeah, the amount of shit I picked up started to bug me. Until I got saddlebags large enough to never worry, anyway.
Second Witcher video is up. It's a bit longer, but I feel he did a good job once again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF860MCMUfQ
-
I rented The Witcher 3. It's brilliant except for the fact that you can only play as one guy. So pretty much my original assessment.
-
But wasn't Triss the one who told him he was in love with a sorceress? Even if she wasn't, he at least says as much to her but she doesn't confirm who it was.
No, I'm pretty sure she didn't, and Geralt didn't bring it up with her. She makes a point not to tell him anything about his life prior to his amnesia.
Also, she tells you the rose of remembrance will bring back memories, but it's what Philippa uses to enslave Saskia's mind.. sooo..
I'm sure it has more than one magical use.
-
No, I'm pretty sure she didn't, and Geralt didn't bring it up with her. She makes a point not to tell him anything about his life prior to his amnesia.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I remember there being dialogue where she alludes to him being in love with a sorceress (or he says that he remembers such) and she doesn't say who it is.
I'm sure it has more than one magical use.
That's all you got? You think it has more than one magical use? Good one.
-
After comparing both romance endings, it is pretty apparent that Yen makes for the more 'canon' one. Can't really add much more without spoiling, although it is a pretty minor part of the overall ending.
-
Final free DLC is a new game difficulty setting after you finish. Keep your character, gear, exp and get tougher monsters. This was one thing I really wanted, and I'm so happy CD Projekt Red had it planned.
-
Final free DLC is a new game difficulty setting after you finish. Keep your character, gear, exp and get tougher monsters. This was one thing I really wanted, and I'm so happy CD Projekt Red had it planned.
That's really awesome. It's an excellent incentive for me to finish the game.
-
So who should I bang/romance? Everyone?
You don't have a whole lot of options in 3. If you try both Triss and Yen then they'll know about it.
And then this happens:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSp5IcQAMB0
Very amusing. But speaking of the love interests, I have to say that Yen is a million times better than Triss. To paraphrase Rushy, Yen feels like an actual character, while Triss is just there to be Geralt's love interest, nothing more, nothing less. I'm actually kind of irritated now that the first two games didn't have a female lead as interesting as Yen. Or they could at least have given us one who wasn't as bland as Triss.
I have to complain that the game has included not one, but two (so far) examples of this bullshit (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeadsIWinTailsYouLose). That just pisses me off. It feels almost disrespectful in a way; the player uses their skill to win a boss battle, and then the game just handwaves it away and says "nah man you lose anyway." If a game wants to put the player in a boss fight that they lose, then they shouldn't present it as a regular boss fight that the player has to win to advance the story.
Argh! They did it again! And this time it's the worst of all!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Smmyk5MdecI (around the 2:15 mark)
What the fuck? Seriously, what the fuck is this? They couldn't even be bothered to have it be, I don't know, someone sneaks up behind you and hits you with something heavy. In fact, they didn't even need to have Geralt be stunned - they could have just shown the guy getting killed in a cutscene while Geralt continues to fight them. But no, instead they had to show Geralt, the legendary monster-slayer, getting his ass kicked by a drunken yokel in a bar fight. Unbelievable.
The trick ending to the quest "Possession" is a real letdown. It should have been you, the player, coming up with a way to trick someone else into thinking they had done something terrible. It could have made for a very interesting puzzle-like setup that encouraged player creativity. Instead, they just went with a cutscene that's apparently supposed to shock us. As if anyone playing the game would think that Geralt would really cook a baby. And then it requires you to genuinely kill the jarl's innocent men, despite the fact that the whole point of this charade is supposed to be that you've done nothing wrong? What the fuck? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhatMeasureIsAMook)
-
After 138 hours of gameplay, I have finally beaten TW3. What a gigantic game. And I'm not even fully done with it - there are still a few sidequests and the Hearts of Stone add-on left to do. Anyway, this is easily one of the best video games I've ever played. It has choices, consequences, solid writing, distinctive characters, a sense of humor, and satisfying emotional payouts, all while having the trappings of an unquestionably modern, mainstream title. It's almost as if gamers aren't complete retards who need every franchise to be as dumbed-down as possible, contrary to what some devs think. ::) Hell, it's even pretty accessible as a standalone title for newcomers to the series, unlike TW2. I'd still recommend playing through all three games from the start to anyone who's interested, though, just because I loved guiding Geralt through the series and seeing the consequences of his actions play out in the later titles.
Anyway, time to baw and nitpick. I'm not a fan of the fistfights in this game. They just aren't as fun and satisfying as they were with the (admittedly much too easy) QTEs of the last game, and it doesn't feel right that every character you can fight is apparently an experienced boxer capable of skillfully blocking your every punch, promptly counterattacking, etc. Also, I found the final act to be awfully stretched and padded. The game would hint that shit was getting real, the action was ramping up, the plot hurtling towards its conclusion - and then pfffffff, all the tension dissipates as I find myself back in the overworld with a quest to "prepare" for what's coming next. I mean, there's a quest called "Final Preparations" that isn't final by any stretch of the imagination. It's immediately followed by a quest called "Battle Preparations." And while I'm not sure how much leeway the devs had to be creative in their portrayal of the world, given that this series is ultimately an adaptation, I wish their portrayal of the Northern Kingdoms had been a little bit less generic and homogeneous. Is there any real cultural difference between, say, Temeria and Redania? Finally, Geralt is so zippy that guiding him through precise actions is tricky, like Vindictus noted.
-
Did you ever activate "alternative movement" in the game options? It makes Geralt's movement much more precise.