The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

[BubbySoup]

Just finished Blood & Wine. Thought I was nearing the end around 1:00am lol.

Never stayed up this late for a single player game - past 2am used to be strictly MMO territory and gave them up a long time ago.

Best overall single player experience for me.

 

[RichardH754]

Only just got past that big Toad, that was one hard fight!

 

[james.miller]

I've been let down by the huge graphics downgrade

I really dont get that. It's still one of the best looking titles ever made yet your still clinging on the the whole E3 saga. I dont understand why people cant appreciate it for what it is rather than what cdpr were trying to achieve waaay back when it was first show at E3. I believe cdpr just realised that level of detail just wasnt possible at that scale, but still what we ended up with was a beautiful looking game.

For what it's worth i dont disagree about the side missions, far too many of them. the ratio of side mission to main story is all wrong, as is the case with most games these days really.

I’ve encountered more annoying glitches than in Fallout 4, which says something.

I certainly havent.

The main story is cliché and played out exactly as I thought it would. You find/rescue your daughter, gather a team and have an epic fight with the grand evil which wasn’t really that epic, unfortunately. Some of the choices were nice but that was it, really.

There wasnt much of the story hidden before the game was released, to be fair. besides, the series was always gearing up for a fight with the hunt right from the beginning, we all knew what was coming in that regard.

And that was only one example. I struggle to find a single groundbreaking thing about the story in comparison to stuff like Soul Reaver, Silent Hill, Ryu Ga Gotoku, Snake Eater, Red Dead Redemption, Alice: Madness Returns, ICO, Journey, Bioshock, Heavy Rain and countless others.

Bioshock???

Maybe I’m overly critical but I'm judging it from "the best game ever made" perspective.

I believe you are

 

[Glanza]

Finished the DLC yesterday and for the most part enjoyed it. Felt the main missions didn't last too long though some of them we're quite different from the usual type.

After looking up the different endings I got the 'good' one and was surprised by the nice send off at the end.

Going to run through again on NG+ on death march, just hope I've got both my swords still when I get my gear back.

Sad that they'll be no more but I'm sorta glad they are letting it end instead of keeping the story going just to cash in like other studios would.

 

[Narj]

Only just got past that big Toad, that was one hard fight!

Spoiler

Took me a few goes until I tried Igni.

Funny how the things you *think* should work often do.

 

[Amatsubu]

I really dont get that. It's still one of the best looking titles ever made yet your still clinging on the the whole E3 saga. I dont understand why people cant appreciate it for what it is rather than what cdpr were trying to achieve waaay back when it was first show at E3. I believe cdpr just realised that level of detail just wasnt possible at that scale, but still what we ended up with was a beautiful looking game.

For what it's worth i dont disagree about the side missions, far too many of them. the ratio of side mission to main story is all wrong, as is the case with most games these days really.



I certainly havent.



There wasnt much of the story hidden before the game was released, to be fair. besides, the series was always gearing up for a fight with the hunt right from the beginning, we all knew what was coming in that regard.



Bioshock???



I believe you are

Well, if you think the game looks superb and that I'm mistaken or bashing the game then good for you. The thing is, I don't really care what you think. I don't appreciate the cardboard grass, the colour palette, clunky animations etc. If you don't agree, fair enough. I just don't think the game's anything special graphically and I couldn't even stand it without SweetFX. I've played titles I find significantly more visually pleasing.

It's the same with Fallout 4: good for you. I have. Roach itself has pulled more magical tricks that I've seen during my entire time with F4.

What about Bioshock? I believe it has a better, more engaging story paired with a more unique setting and narrative. If you don't, then whatever floats your boat. Besides, Bioshock is only one example of many.

About the story, I knew what was coming, just didn't expect it to be done so poorly in terms of storytelling and unnecessary padding. Think otherwise? Fine by me.

If my views bother you enough that you feel the need to defend the game, then sorry. I just genuinely believe it's not as perfect in every regard as many claim. After 120 hours, I think I've seen enough and nothing will change my opinion.

 

[james.miller]

The thing is, I don't really care what you think.

Well that escalated quickly.

What about Bioshock? I believe it has a better, more engaging story paired with a more unique setting and narrative. If you don't, then whatever floats your boat. Besides, Bioshock is only one example of many.

BioShock. Shooter on rails. Absolutely as predictable and clichéd as they come. As a game, yeah not bad, i played through it twice, but not ground breaking in any way. Not in the game play, the story telling, the graphics, the character development. Nothing.

As for the rest of your post I can't be arsed, not with that attitude. So here's not caring :

 

[Amatsubu]

but not ground breaking in any way. Not in the game play, the story telling, the graphics, the character development. Nothing.]:

Sums up Witcher 3 perfectly, then. Except maybe for the story if you like cliche fantasy and don't mind lots of padding.

As for the rest, what did you expect? That I'll agree with you and accept the game has superb graphics and is flawless? There's nothing to discuss, really. I exhausted everything with my overly long post before. No need to engage in an argument which will ultimately reach no agreement because you think it's great and I think it's not for reasons already stated. End of.

 

[Paul_cz]

Wow, Bioshock being better written than Witcher 3? I mean, opinions and all, but wow. And I liked Bioshock (finished every one including DLCs). I will grant that there are couple specific things that could have been better in TW3, and probably would've if they had more time (having to cut Wild Hunt infiltration questline hurt Eredin's characterization immeasurably; fortunately for book readers we already know him from the book, so I didn't mind his diminished role that much), but on the whole Witcher 3 is a staggering achievement next to Bioshock (or anything else really).

 

[Amatsubu]

Wow, Bioshock being better written than Witcher 3? I mean, opinions and all, but wow. And I liked Bioshock (finished every one including DLCs). I will grant that there are couple specific things that could have been better in TW3, and probably would've if they had more time (having to cut Wild Hunt infiltration questline hurt Eredin's characterization immeasurably; fortunately for book readers we already know him from the book, so I didn't mind his diminished role that much), but on the whole Witcher 3 is a staggering achievement next to Bioshock (or anything else really).

Certainly had a more intriguing story and setting. About writing, Witcher 3 is rather poorly written compared to its predecessor, with awful padding and all.
Many Polish people agree on the story, maybe it's foreigners who hold it in such regard because of the folklore etc., I don't know. The game's even been whacked for the graphics and shoddy gameplay by some reviewers.

And yes, it's an opinion. For me, it's equally funny that people truly claim that Witcher 3 does anything truly extraordinarily, apart from the story (which is also arguable, since there are people that don't like it).

Look, I really don't want to argue this. I know you're an extreme fanboy of the game and it's the best thing since sliced bread to you and nothing ever released comes close but I really don't agree with your fanatism. Respect it but don't agree and we'll just have to end it at that.

 

[Pighardia]

The way the story is told in TW3 is excellent, and the writing of dialogue is also top class, but the story is average(imo due to the distinct lack of political intrigue I felt was missing in the game. It reslly could have done with fleshing out in that regard). It is one aspect I've never understood the praise for tbh. Imo the thing that makes the game stand out is the direction, which is hands down the greatest in gaming history for me. In fact it is leagues above everything else tbh exceot maybe the earlier Metal Gear games(im thinking MGS and Snake Eater).

Personally I'd consider Bioshock far ahead of TW3 in terms of a well written story.

 

[Narj]

Personally I'd consider Bioshock far ahead of TW3 in terms of a well written story.

Great, now would ye kindly stop saying anything negative about TW3.

 

[Amatsubu]

The way the story is told in TW3 is excellent, and the writing of dialogue is also top class, but the story is average(imo due to the distinct lack of political intrigue I felt was missing in the game). It is one aspect I've never understood the praise for tbh. Imo the thing that makes the game stand out is the direction, which is hands down the greatest in gaming history for me. In fact it is leagues above everything else tbh exceot maybe the earlier Metal Gear games(im think long MGS and Snake Eater).

Personally I'd consider Bioshock far ahead of TW3 in terms of a well written story.

Agreed, the political element was what I missed the most from the previous game, apart from cohesion and conciseness of the narrative. The story is both average and poorly told IMO. It has lots of padding, drags out for 3/4 of the game and then everything happens so quickly that the ending falls completely flat due to the lack of a proper build-up.

I consider all the games I've mentioned (and there are more) to be better written and more intriguing, especially Silent Hill 2, Snake Eater and The Last of Us (which even has better dialogue IMO and more artfully understated and immensely impactful moments than the entirety of Witcher 3's main storyline).

The dialogue is mostly very good but if someone didn't like the story that much, I just can't think of any genuinely compelling reasons to label W3 the best game of all time. It doesn't have the best graphics ever and it certainly doesn't have the best gameplay.

Well, maybe the map size but that mostly works to its advantage, a world maybe a little under twice the size of Toussaint was all it really needed and it shows with Blood and Wine being miles above the base game in maintaing a focused narrative with just enough distractions to keep you interested.



Generally good to very good game, absolutely worth playing but took me a year to finish because it was getting excruciatingly mundane at many points, to the point that I just needed a break. Expansions were a lot better.

 

[Paul_cz]

Certainly had a more intriguing story and setting. About writing, Witcher 3 is rather poorly written compared to its predecessor, with awful padding and all.
Many Polish people agree on the story, maybe it's foreigners who hold it in such regard because of the folklore etc., I don't know. The game's even been whacked for the graphics and shoddy gameplay by some reviewers.

And yes, it's an opinion. For me, it's equally funny that people truly claim that Witcher 3 does anything truly extraordinarily, apart from the story (which is also arguable, since there are people that don't like it).

Look, I really don't want to argue this. I know you're an extreme fanboy of the game and it's the best thing since sliced bread to you and nothing ever released comes close but I really don't agree with your fanatism. Respect it but don't agree and we'll just have to end it at that.

Do you realize how obnoxious you sound ? It is fine to dislike a game or some aspects of the game. Doesn't make you (nor me) objectively right though. I admit I am a fan of the Witcher franchise as a whole (and have been for almost 20 years, when I first read the books), that doesn't make me some raging fanatic fanboy as you hurl at me. I can see flaws in all three Witcher games, and in the books as well. And yet I stand by my opinion that in the 25 years I have been gaming, Witcher 3 is the first game to dethrone Fallout 2 as greatest game ever (only took 17 years..). The reasons are numerous - stunning world and atmosphere, incredible number of well written and always enjoyable sidequests, tons of choices and consequences, some of the best cast of characters ever...and for me personally, simply how CDP captured the books is unparalleled.

But is it flawless? No, in fact I even detailed one of the flaws right above in the previous post. I also agree that I would like to see bigger emphasis on politics, since I enjoyed that in both the books and TW2. But I respect that CDP wanted to focus on something else this time. Doesn't change the overall impressions though. And guess what ? The game didn't win 250+ GOTY awards because everyone is blind fanatic fanboy. The game is just really great, and for many people, a classic.

I haven't played Blood and Wine yet, so no idea about its quality, but I expect it will be also great given the reviews and general impressions.

Btw I really find comparisons to games like Bioshock quite misguided. One is linear corridor shooter (with great story and atmosphere, yes), the other presents a world with full freedom. The pacing and style is completely different (and to me it is quite clear which one is more ambitious). It is ok to prefer Bioshock's or Last of Us's linear style. I enjoyed those games too, even if I much prefer free open worlds like TW3 or New Vegas.

 

[Pighardia]

...

For someone who is so obviously a big fan and knows his stuff, how did you feel about the political aspect of the game? It really felt lacking for me. Take the first and second game where it really added another layer, and it was like something was missing from TW3. There is the assassination, but that just kind of happens with no consequence, really only confined to the 3-4 characters you encounter, and a few things that kind of threaten to get going, but overall it was all pushed to the back imo. The war which is the whole backdrop to the game just fizzles out, where there was scope for some really interesting stuff. It would have elevated the story for me to have a few more quests where you get in to the politics behind everything, as it is far more interesting than the Wild Hunt stuff.

Take the first two games. TW2 especially you had the bit with Stennis and everyone and uncovering that, plus the whole Loc Muine(sp) stuff which was really well done and added new layers to the narrative. The whole plot was very intriguing.

 

[Paul_cz]

For someone who is so obviously a big fan and knows his stuff, how did you feel about the political aspect of the game? It really felt lacking for me. Take the first and second game where it really added another layer, and it was like something was missing from TW3. There is the assassination, but that just kind of happens with no consequence, really only confined to the 3-4 characters you encounter, and a few things that kind of threaten to get going, but overall it was all pushed to the back imo. The war which is the whole backdrop to the game just fizzles out, where there was scope for some really interesting stuff. It would have elevated the story for me to have a few more quests where you get in to the politics behind everything, as it is far more interesting than the Wild Hunt stuff.

Take the first two games. TW2 especially you had the bit with Stennis and everyone and uncovering that, plus the whole Loc Muine(sp) stuff which was really well done and added new layers to the narrative. The whole plot was very intriguing.

I agree that there is much lesser emphasis on politics in TW3 and I would have preferred more. But CDP has, since TW3 was revealed, been talking about this being personal for Geralt, that he will be less involved in political struggles and more on his own quest to save his loved ones, that this will be more about family than politics. So I expected that. Plus TW2 was already huuuge on various political struggles so I am not surprised CDP wanted to focus on other stuff this time around. And it's not like the TW3 is completely devoid of it - not just the assassination, but I also enjoyed the Skelige arc which was about politics and family both, for example, or the various dealings in Novigrad with Dijkstra, who is one of my favourite characters from the books and CDP nailed him 100% (with the exception of his last 5 minutes on scene, which were out of character and another one of the flaws that I wish CDP had more time to resolve).
Would it have been great if TW3 had even more of the political stuff? Yes. But considering the game already took me 210 hours to finish and I enjoyed every second, I have a hard time being disappointed with it, particularly when CDP let me know years in advance that the focus will be elsewhere.

 

[Amatsubu]

Do you realize how obnoxious you sound ?

Probably just as obnoxious as you trying to ridicule my preference of Bioshock's narrative I even remember you saying in this very thread that my problems with Witcher are just words and it doesn't matter at all. You're a bit of a hypocrite as you can say anything to me even with that cocky attitude "wow, opinions and all" and get all defensive when you get a response in a similar tone. Clearly anything goes as long as it's in favour of the Witcher 3.

As for misguided comparisons, we compare storylines, not gameplay so what does it mean whether it's a corridor shooter or not? Witcher 3's story is still bland, plodding and awfully predictable especially for the best "RPG"/game ever made, which fact it tries to cover up with huge amounts of dialogue and padding. Characters? The only ones who weren't so painfully one-dimensional were Lambert, Dijkstra and the Bloody Baron.
Yennefer only knew how to throw a hissy-fit and act cocky through the entire game, Triss was your typical romantic sorceress, Zoltan an Dandelion were practically non-existent. Don't even get me started on Ciri and Vesemir.

Yet you can say things like it's an outstanding achievement next to anything? You've just said comparisons with other genres are "misguided" so maybe let's narrow that down to RPGs Especially that games like Silent Hill 2 or The Last of Us IMO crap on Witcher 3's core feature from immense heights.

You're entitled to your opinion but you don't have to try and get all cocky because someone prefers the narrative in Bioshock or other games like your opinion is in any way superior, especially that it didn't take long for someone who thinks the same to show up. That's what makes you come off as a bit of a fanboy. Remember, it's equally funny for me that you genuinely think this is the best story of all time but I try to understand that. Best dialogues? Maybe up there. The rest, hell no.

And Bioshock is very, very far on my favourites list, BTW.

 

[james.miller]

bioshock had enough story to push the OTR shooter along, which is absolutely fine for a shooter. i just cant take it seriously when people compare bioshock to TW3, sorry.

And for all your not caring, Amatsubu, you are sure going on a bit. Nobody wants to change your opinion as you claim, nobody has said TW3 is flawless as you inferred. You are making that up. At the end of the day we all have our opinions and we've all aired them. If you cant have a sensible discussion without the aggressive undertones and insult throwing then just move on. It's not worth getting so worked up about it.

 

[Amatsubu]

bioshock had enough story to push the OTR shooter along, which is absolutely fine for a shooter. i just cant take it seriously when people compare bioshock to TW3, sorry.

And for all your not caring, Amatsubu, you are sure going on a bit. Nobody wants to change your opinion as you claim, nobody has said TW3 is flawless as you inferred. You are making that up. At the end of the day we all have our opinions and we've all aired them. If you cant have a sensible discussion without the aggressive undertones and insult throwing then just move on. It's not worth getting so worked up about it.

Well, James, you haven't proposed any arguments on which to base a discussion. You've just said it looks fantastic, has a brilliant story etc., to all of which I have a different stance, and had to throw in the cheeky "I believe you're overly critical".

About caring, I care when someone calls me "obnoxious", yet feels he's perfectly excused to do the same thing in favour of the game. And you still took your time to make a post with no arguments whatsoever with an another comment "I can't take it seriously when people compare Bioshock to TW3", perpetuating the same thing I'm talking about. So you still care. And where are the insults?

As I said, IMO the story tries to be bombast and epic but it's ultimately shallow at its core, quita a lot of people also had that impression. I'm Polish and thus not impressed by all the unique folklore etc. since I'm well acquainted with it, the rest about the story except dialogue was passable.
If Bioshock's story, lore and setting were ok for a shooter (though Bioshock is not the best example, there are better ones), then I think the Witcher 3's story is too weak and shallow for the best game ever made. Simple as.

I respect your opinion and I'm sorry if I came off a bit rude but I just don't know how I could respond to someone resurrecting my post from weeks ago and saying things like "I certainly haven't", "I believe you are". Was that patronising attitude really needed? If you'd said something sensible in the first place, I would've just commented whether I agree or not and moved on.

 

[james.miller]

I came off a bit rude but I just don't know how I could respond to someone resurrecting my post from weeks ago

You posted on the 1st of July, i replied on the 3rd. That's two days, not weeks, and if you didnt know how to reply then the answer was dont reply. My post wasn't patronising; you read it wrong. give it a rest now ffs.