Support NeoGAF

[robertsan21]

I dont get the Bloodbourne hype at all.

I played Bloodbourn and its nowhere near as good as people say. Hell I couldnt even finish it. It was a combination of to much hassle for a game that wasnt all that good, did not really find the gameplay that innovative as everyone else seems to think and the graphics kind of sucked. I Just lost interest playing it after a while.

This game looks miles better than Bloodborne IMO, but it is a totally different game as well.

 

[His Majesty]

I don't like the quest markers either but I am glad that CDProjekt offers options for both sides. Without markers, audio hints will guide you towards the quest giver. His exposition contains enough information to know where to search and from there you can rely on your witcher senses.

 

[Denton]

Last Wish. Is that not the first title?

Last Wish definitely is first to read.
Sword of Destiny comes out in english same day as the game, continue with that.
Personally I like SoD even more than LW.

 

[SaberEdge]

You are wrong....I am tolerant of others opinions, bloodborne is not perfect neither is the witcher. I am ok with that, you don not seem to handle witcher criticism well.

I don't want to get into a back and forth, so this is my last post to you. I'm perfectly tolerant of criticisms of games I like. I've expressed several of my own criticisms of this game. But not all criticisms are reasonable. If I went into a thread about The Last of Us and said "these character models are atrocious" I wouldn't expect people to take it seriously and I wouldn't try to hide behind excuses of subjectivity.

 

[Primethius]

I don't want to get into a back and forth, so this is my last post to you. I'm perfectly tolerant of criticisms of games I like. I've expressed several of my own criticisms of this game. But not all criticisms are reasonable. If I went into a thread about The Last of Us and said "these character models are atrocious" I wouldn't expect people to take it seriously and I wouldn't try to hide behind excuses of subjectivity.

I want to see more of your comparison from the previous page where you show that The Witcher 3 looks more visceral then Bloodborne. Not in reference to being more or less so then BB of course but in general because the combat footage I've seen doesn't at all look like (generally) the few animation gifs you posted.

In fact, in this very cargo video, the combat doesn't look impactfull or meaty at all.

Edit: I rechecked. The downer doesn't even react to getting hit for a few of them.

 

[SaberEdge]

If your argument centers around the fact that reviewers thought The Witcher 2 had good combat, you probably should stop and reconsider your position.

No, ultimately I don't much care what reviewers think about a game. Then again, I don't really care what random people like you think either (no offense). I like what I like and I know why I like it, that's all that really matters to me.

It's like if critics pan a movie I like or some person(s) on a forum tells me it's terrible do you think it matters to me one bit in terms of changing my opinion?

I only brought up the stuff about the reviews to show the falsity of this idea that there is a general concensus about the Witcher 2's combat supposedly being bad.

 

[erawsd]

Can't please everyone. Plus, we haven't gotten the feel for it yet; playing with it will be a bit different than just watching. That's the way with most games, in truth. Sense of movement will be something to experience. I'm certainly looking forward to it. Have been for years.

Yeah, its baffling that people can form such firm conclusions at a glance and then want to compare it with another combat system that is structured completely differently. Statements like "All that spinning is detrimental to gameplay"... how can you even know that?

To me, it seems to be a case where people have already decided that they don't like it.

 

[Scientificreason]

I dont get the Bloodbourne hype at all.

I played Bloodbourn and its nowhere near as good as people say. Hell I couldnt even finish it. It was a combination of to much hassle for a game that wasnt all that good, did not really find the gameplay that innovative as everyone else seems to think and the graphics kind of sucked. I Just lost interest playing it after a while.

This game looks miles better than Bloodborne IMO, but it is a totally different game as well.

You are in the minority....the concept that people,have different views then you is hard to grasp because?BB Looks,fantastic too, graphics suck? Please. Bb is fantastic in every way really.

 

[Dictator93]

You are in the minority....the concept that people,have different views then you is hard to grasp because?BB Looks,fantastic too, graphics suck? Please. Bb is fantastic in every way really.

Excluding its performance IMO and IQ, but everything else about it is great. It is a game I really would love to play.

 

[Tovarisc]

You are in the minority....the concept that people,have different views then you is hard to grasp because?BB Looks,fantastic too, graphics suck? Please. Bb is fantastic in every way really.

That is your reaction to him kinda taking shit on BB and you are surprised he isn't taking it well when you are kinda taking shit on Witcher 3? Especially when I assume no one here has played it.

 

[Scientificreason]

Excluding its performance IMO and IQ, but everything else about it is great. It is a game I really would love to play.

It looks fantastic sorry disagree, performance could be better yes, but at least its better then their previous games. The world is immensely detailed and looks fabulous, one of the best looking gamed on ps4.

 

[Scientificreason]

That is your reaction to him kinda taking shit on BB and you are surprised he isn't taking it well when you are kinda taking shit on Witcher 3? Especially when I assume no one here has played it.

Constantly shit on it? Yeah no I am a big fan of the series....reread my posts.

 

[Dictator93]

It looks fantastic sorry disagree, performance could be better yes, but at least its better then their previous games. The world is immensely detailed and looks fabulous, one of the best looking gamed on ps4.

That is why I said IQ. The art and world are great looking, but they are just marred by the use of FXAA and that really questionable CA implementation.

 

[robertsan21]

You are in the minority....the concept that people,have different views then you is hard to grasp because?BB Looks,fantastic too, graphics suck? Please. Bb is fantastic in every way really.

Obviously people can have their own opinion and I can have mine. But to complain about a game they have not even played yet is a bit sad to see.

 

[tuxfool]

Constantly shit on it? Yeah no I am a big fan of the series....reread my posts.

Ok, You're a fan. But bringing the BB uberlove to a witcher 3 thread really isn't appropriate, leave that to the dozens of bloodborne threads.

 

[loganclaws]

You are in the minority....the concept that people,have different views then you is hard to grasp because?BB Looks,fantastic too, graphics suck? Please. Bb is fantastic in every way really.

I feel like the choices and consequences in that game are non existant. Also not a big fan of the quests and the depth of the writing. I also feel like the main character's personality is lacking or non-existant. Not so fantastic IMO. Game doesn't have any character development.

 

[tuxfool]

In fact, in this very cargo video, the combat doesn't look impactfull or meaty at all.

Edit: I rechecked. The downer doesn't even react to getting hit for a few of them.

So what? I see plenty of reaction from enemies. Maybe not as much as you like but it is there. Not everything has to have Souls weightiness.

If your argument centers around the fact that reviewers thought The Witcher 2 had good combat, you probably should stop and reconsider your position.

Reviewers and players. Personally I don't think it was the best, but I enjoyed it and wouldn't go so far as to say it is bad.

 

[Yurikerr]

I feel like the choices and consequences in that game are non existant. Also not a big fan of the quests and the depth of the writing. I also feel like the main character's personality is lacking or non-existant. Not so fantastic IMO. Game doesn't have any character development.

In this sense BB is less RPG than action game, were BB is much more linear in the way the player must progress. I don't think is fair to compare a game were you create your own character with a sequel where there's two games worth of lore development.

FROM games were always obtuse with lore and in all of the souls series the main character have a lesser role in the grand scheme.

But that is way off-topic. I don't think bloodborne and Witcher are similiar, both have their strengths and weakness. The only thing they have in common is 3rd person view and swords.

 

[Scientificreason]

I feel like the choices and consequences in that game are non existant. Also not a big fan of the quests and the depth of the writing. I also feel like the main character's personality is lacking or non-existant. Not so fantastic IMO. Game doesn't have any character development.

Lmao...not every game needs story or character development....thats like saying mario sucks because it has no good,writing or characters....it is not attempting to go for characters or in depth story.its not that type of game, stop judging games for what they are not. It is fantastic for the type if game it is.

 

[tuxfool]

Lmao...not every game needs story or character development....thats like saying mario sucks because it has no good,writing or characters....it is not attempting to go for characters or in depth story.its not that type of game, stop judging games for what they are not. It is fantastic for the type if game it is.

His point exactly, not every game needs souls style combat.

 

[Scientificreason]

His point exactly, not every game needs souls style combat.

I never said it did...

 

[jim2point0]

Well that's enough of this thread for me.

Bloodborne has no relevance here unless you're trying to compare the combat. People are really arguing in this thread whether or not it's a good game? That's freakin absurd.

 

[Jigorath]

Did I enter a Bloodborne OT by accident?

Anyways, game looks phenomenal. My one worry is if they go the Bethesda/Bioware route of prioritizing quantity over quality. But I have faith in CD Projekt Red that they're gonna knock this out of the park. If not, well, I still have Obsidian.

 

[Vincent Grayson]

The Souls games/BB are alright, but I sure wish their existence didn't mean suffering through "Why doesn't this game have Souls-style combat?" bullshit in every discussion about 3rd person games where someone has a sword. I saw it a lot when DAI came out, I've seen it in Dragon's Dogma, and for that matter, in a ton of Skyrim discussions too.

Just enjoy your damn games and stop trying to insist all action-oriented fantasy games need to follow suit.

 

[tuxfool]

I never said it did...

Then what relevance does BB have in this thread?

Beyond feel, the combat systems have different objectives. Attempting to compare them superficially is a bit pointless when abstracting away the combat from the rest of the game.

 

[Khalifa Jayy]

He's going to kneel down to inspect everything isn't he?

Also where did the box go when he inspected it? It simply disappeared?

 

[Primethius]

No, ultimately I don't much care what reviewers think about a game. Then again, I don't really care what random people like you think either (no offense). I like what I like and I know why I like it, that's all that really matters to me.

It's like if critics pan a movie I like or some person(s) on a forum tells me it's terrible do you think it matters to me one bit in terms of changing my opinion?

I only brought up the stuff about the reviews to show the falsity of this idea that there is a general concensus about the Witcher 2's combat supposedly being bad.

Eh, I remember you bringing up reviewers back in another thread when I talked about TW2's combat. Listen, it's great that you don't care what others think. Fantastic but when your talking about combat and how good/bad a certain system is, resorting to "but the reviewers must have saw something" doesn't amount to much.

So what? I see plenty of reaction from enemies. Maybe not as much as you like but it is there. Not everything has to have Souls weightiness.



Reviewers and players. Personally I don't think it was the best, but I enjoyed it and wouldn't go so far as to say it is bad.

I'm not suggesting that it has to have Souls weightiness. And guess what? I'm glad you enjoyed The Witcher 2's combat. I didn't. I actually thought it was awful, unresponsive and had horrible hitbox/hurtbox issues. Fighting some of the Scoia'tael in the woods around Flotsam was actually infuriating with the whole "everyone's a ballet dancer" thing. That's always been my hesitation in regards to TW3's combat. I know the rest of the game will be up to par because CDPr has delivered on those fronts before in TW1 and TW2.

That's why combat was brought up in this thread. Because this video doesn't particularly make it look appealing.

And no, I'll reiterate, I don't want TW3 to have a Bloodborne or Dragon's Dogma type combat system. I simply want it to have a good combat system. One that actually is based on good fundamentals.

 

[Tovarisc]

Well that's enough of this thread for me.

Bloodborne has no relevance here unless you're trying to compare the combat. People are really arguing in this thread whether or not it's a good game? That's freakin absurd.

This thread got derailed so hard into BB arguments moment some people started to wonder how much better off Witcher 3 would be if it used BB / Souls game style of combat.

That's why combat was brought up in this thread. Because this video doesn't particularly make it look appealing.

And no, I'll reiterate, I don't want TW3 to have a Bloodborne or Dragon's Dogma type combat system. I simply want it to have a good combat system. One that actually is based on good fundamentals.

What these good fundamentals then would be? If being rather lore loyal when it comes to Geralts fighting style makes combat look unappealing what would make it appealing?

 

[erawsd]

The Souls games/BB are alright, but I sure wish their existence didn't mean suffering through "Why doesn't this game have Souls-style combat?" bullshit in every discussion about 3rd person games where someone has a sword. I saw it a lot when DAI came out, I've seen it in Dragon's Dogma, and for that matter, in a ton of Skyrim discussions too.

Just enjoy your damn games and stop trying to insist all action-oriented fantasy games need to follow suit.

Yep. I've seen people saying they hope the new Zelda is more Souls-like.

Whats funny is that the one game that did ape the Souls formula got shat on incessantly for being a rip off.

 

[texhnolyze]

Lol, for real?
Don't we have enough dozens of Bloodborne threads to praise the game already?

 

[Primethius]

This thread got derailed so hard into BB arguments moment some people started to wonder how much better off Witcher 3 would be if it used BB / Souls game style of combat.



What these good fundamentals then would be? If being rather lore loyal when it comes to Geralts fighting style makes combat look unappealing what would make it appealing?

Well, in regards to TW2, this would refer to responsiveness and combat animations. Geralt in TW2 was extremely unresponsive. So much so that I actually went and installed the CDPr dev combat re-balance mod that indicated it increased Geralt's responsiveness by up to ~80%. However, that mod gave me a host of other issues so I promptly uninstalled it.

Another issue that was quite noticeable was that the animations were too inconsistent. Sometimes Geralt would burst into an entire array of fancy moves and other times he wouldn't. This got on my nerves because the animations should never really be an unpredictable factor for the player.

The hitbox/hurtbox issues were pretty bad. Most noticeable to me in Chapter 1, fighting the Scoia'tael in the woods. They would do their fancy spinning moves where they spin for ages and I would get hit from different sides despite not visual connect.

Those are the fundamental things I'm talking about. I don't particularly care if the combat apes another games or not.

 

[Chaos17]

Twynn Lannister voice acting video in Witcher 3 *_*
Yup, that guy voice fit to a king.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mttG0dTzskY

 

[Tovarisc]

Well, in regards to TW2, this would refer to responsiveness and combat animations. Geralt in TW2 was extremely unresponsive. So much so that I actually went and installed the CDPr dev combat re-balance mod that indicated it increased Geralt's responsiveness by up to ~80%. However, that mod gave me a host of other issues so I promptly uninstalled it.

Another issue that was quite noticeable was that the animations were too inconsistent. Sometimes Geralt would burst into an entire array of fancy moves and other times he wouldn't. This got on my nerves because the animations should never really be an unpredictable factor for the player.

The hitbox/hurtbox issues were pretty bad. Most noticeable to me in Chapter 1, fighting the Scoia'tael in the woods. They would do their fancy spinning moves where they spin for ages and I would get hit from different sides despite not visual connect.

Those are the fundamental things I'm talking about. I don't particularly care if the combat apes another games or not.

This right here is what I'm interested to hear, actual feedback/criticism from personal point of view. Not some "Witcher 3 combat looks sucky shit, BloodBorne is god tier. They should have went there" arguments that don't really tell me anything.

 

[Vincent Grayson]

This right here is what I'm interested to hear, actual feedback/criticism from personal point of view. Not some "Witcher 3 combat looks sucky shit, BloodBorne is god tier. They should have went there" arguments that don't really tell me anything.

Yeah, and stuff like this is definitely my biggest concern. I retain hope that their *huge* improvement from W1 to W2 means that W3's combat will be even better, even if it's still flawed.

 

[Scientificreason]

Then what relevance does BB have in this thread?

Beyond feel, the combat systems have different objectives. Attempting to compare them superficially is a bit pointless when abstracting away the combat from the rest of the game.

Ask the people how brought it up, I just responded to someone who was ragging on bloodborne.

 

[EatChildren]

Bloodborne probably gets mentioned because it's a current critical darling of ARGPs, and its hitboxing/animations/weight/feedback of attacking feels utterly fantastic (same can be said for the whole Souls series) whereas The Witcher 2...didn't really, and The Witcher 1 speaks for itself. It's the most obvious point of comparison if not a very fair one.

Whether or not someone likes or loathes The Witcher 2's combat, there's no denying it was obtuse and unusual for a game presenting itself as a 3D ARPG. Despite at first presenting itself as one, it doesn't play the same way at all, and instead uses hitboxing, enemy targeting, and feedback surprisingly similar to the first game. It's not hitbox and animation frame relative to your character model based, but instead target based. Hence why The Witcher 2 has horrendously frustrating moments where your sword looks like it's hitting, but nothing happens. Or you dodge an attack, and still take damage. And a ton of other oddities that don't seem "fair". It has far less in common with an ARPG combat template than it seems, for the worse.

But to be fair, The Witcher 3 seems like the total opposite, and has a proper full, responsive, collision based attack combat system. And that alone should make it feel much better in play.

 

[SaberEdge]

Eh, I remember you bringing up reviewers back in another thread when I talked about TW2's combat. Listen, it's great that you don't care what others think. Fantastic but when your talking about combat and how good/bad a certain system is, resorting to "but the reviewers must have saw something" doesn't amount to much.

It matters when some guy takes it upon himself to unilaterally decide for all gamers what constitutes "bad combat".

Simply pointing out that 'hey, your opinion isn't a fact, there are plenty of people over here that liked the combat' seems perfectly reasonable in that context. Reviewers were just a convenient example to point to.

It's fine if you personally didn't like the combat. No system is going to appeal to everyone. I know there are people that legitimately didn't like the combat system, just as there are people who don't enjoy Bloodborne's system. The problem is when people state their opinion as if it were a hard fact. I mean, who is the final arbiter on things like this? People have different tastes. And I think there is definitely more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[The Illiterati]

Its abit complicated to explain, but the stories in last wish actually take place before the sword of destiny.
Either is a fine start, but if you've played the witcher 2 the first story of SoD is very cool.

Can someone clear up for me: The Witcher Games take place after all the novels/stories, correct? If I'm wrong, when?

 

[erawsd]

Well, in regards to TW2, this would refer to responsiveness and combat animations. Geralt in TW2 was extremely unresponsive. So much so that I actually went and installed the CDPr dev combat re-balance mod that indicated it increased Geralt's responsiveness by up to ~80%. However, that mod gave me a host of other issues so I promptly uninstalled it.

Another issue that was quite noticeable was that the animations were too inconsistent. Sometimes Geralt would burst into an entire array of fancy moves and other times he wouldn't. This got on my nerves because the animations should never really be an unpredictable factor for the player.

The hitbox/hurtbox issues were pretty bad. Most noticeable to me in Chapter 1, fighting the Scoia'tael in the woods. They would do their fancy spinning moves where they spin for ages and I would get hit from different sides despite not visual connect.

Those are the fundamental things I'm talking about. I don't particularly care if the combat apes another games or not.

Perhaps not to the same degree, but I do actually agree that these were all issues in TW2. I think that even CDPR itself has noted that TW2 was unresponsive and animations were too unpredictable and elaborate. They've spoke about both these flaws a lot and insisted that TW3 would address them, and based on what people who've played it have said, it sounds like they've potentially succeeded. Yes Geralt still does some leaps and spins, but who says they aren't deliberate on the part of the player?

Can someone clear up for me: The Witcher Games take place after all the novels/stories, correct? If I'm wrong, when?

Yes, they are set after the novels.

 

[Primethius]

It matters when some guy takes it upon himself to unilaterally decide for all gamers what constitutes "bad combat".

Simply pointing out that 'hey, your opinion isn't a fact, there are plenty of people over here that liked the combat' seems perfectly reasonable in that context. Reviewers were just a convenient example to point to.

It's fine if you personally didn't like the combat. No system is going to appeal to everyone. I know there are people that legitimately didn't like the combat system, just as there are people who don't enjoy Bloodborne's system. The problem is when people state their opinion as if it were a hard fact. I mean, who is the final arbiter on things like this? People have different tastes. And I think there is definitely more than one way to skin a cat.

And I said this before and I say this again. This is a discussion forum. Yes, it's my opinion that the combat in TW2 was "awful". But again, when you discuss the actual workings of the combat system, you can actually categorize certain things as being factually good or bad. Like hitboxes. Reviewers liking a games combat system has nothing to do with how the combat system actually functions.

Perhaps not to the same degree, but I do actually agree that these were all issues in TW2. I think that even CDPR itself has noted that TW2 was unresponsive and animations were too unpredictable and elaborate. They've spoke about both these flaws a lot and insisted that TW3 would address them, and based on what people who've played it have said, it sounds like they've potentially succeeded. Yes Geralt still does some leaps and spins, but who says they aren't deliberate on the part of the player?

I don't disagree and I don't even lobby the same complaints at TW3. The combat in TW3 looks much improved over the predecessors. However, it's literally the only area of the game that has me concerned because I know everything else will be fantastic having played TW1/TW2.

 

[Emperor_Uriel]

It makes me wonder how much different the combat would have been if Bloodborne had come out in 2011 instead of Dark Souls. I can almost guarantee CD Projekt would've tried to use something similar in TW3. It seems like a very natural fit.

That said, if the game plays like... say... Shadow of Mordor, I won't have any complaints. The few leaping and spinning attacks we've seen do worry me a bit, but I'm hoping they're multi-button presses like the attack + dodge and attack + jump animations in the Souls games.

 

[StrongBlackVine]

I really liked this gameplay trailer. The music was awesome, I thought the voices/dialogue was good...

The facial animation is so off from the audio though. It broke immersion badly, but it is tolerable and I'll probably get used to it.

 

[tuxfool]

If their perception is that the models look like lifeless mannequins, so be it. They have different standards than you and other apologists have. That's cool and doesn't and shouldn't take away from your standards and feelings on the matter.

So realistic expectations makes somebody an apologist?

 

[Emperor_Uriel]

Skyrim has stilted animations, middling voice acting, and decent graphics. Still GOAT for some people.

Dark Souls has no lip synching and framerate issues. Still GOAT for some people.

TLOU is linear, has an functionally invisible partner character, and meh crafting. Still GOAT for some people.

You can launch pretty major complaints at any of the best games of last gen, and I'm sure we'll have plenty to complain about in TW3, but it'll still be phenomenal overall and that's largely what we'll remember it for years later.

Be positive, people.

 

[ironcreed]

Skyrim has stilted animations, middling voice acting, and decent graphics. Still GOAT for some people.

Dark Souls has no lip synching and framerate issues. Still GOAT for some people.

TLOU is linear, has an functionally invisible partner character, and meh crafting. Still GOAT for some people.

You can launch pretty major complaints at any of the best games of last gen, and I'm sure we'll have plenty to complain about in TW3, but it'll still be phenomenal overall and that's largely what we'll remember it for years later.

Be positive, people.

 

[pakkit]

I think the removal of roll in Witcher's arsenal will profoundly effect the gameplay. And, even though it doesn't quite line up with the lore, the decision to improve the moment-to-moment gameplay by nixing the necessity of drinking potions before battle is appreciated. This should especially help since the game is now open-world, and there will be more random encounters to accompany a sense of discovery. The game is less RPG-like and more RDR. I find it fascinating that all three Witcher games are generally distinct from one another, despite having a larger plot and world that ties them all together. Comparing the changes in scope and combat from TW1, 2, and 3, to Mass Effect's more minute changes is pretty incredible. TW2, to me, was analogous to a game like Mass Effect 2, with different hubs and side-missions that resonated throughout the endgame. TW3, meanwhile, is a different beast entirely. I really hope that CDProjekt nails the gamefeel. I definitely get the sense that they've done their homework and worked hard to emulate those elements that made RDR so successful.

 

[zkorejo]

Skyrim has stilted animations, middling voice acting, and decent graphics. Still GOAT for some people.

Dark Souls has no lip synching and framerate issues. Still GOAT for some people.

TLOU is linear, has an functionally invisible partner character, and meh crafting. Still GOAT for some people.

You can launch pretty major complaints at any of the best games of last gen, and I'm sure we'll have plenty to complain about in TW3, but it'll still be phenomenal overall and that's largely what we'll remember it for years later.

Be positive, people.

Agreed.

No game is perfect. Just enjoy the game for what it is. Best part about Witcher series is not exactly its combat or lip syncing or animations. Its the storytelling.

 

[misho8723]

3 new gameplay videos by Gamespot:
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/the-witcher-3-s-bigger-than-skyrim-world-and-magic/1100-6426827/

 

[Nabbis]

3 new gameplay videos by Gamespot:
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/the-witcher-3-s-bigger-than-skyrim-world-and-magic/1100-6426827/

What a shit quality stream and yet they dare to put ads. My eyes hurt just looking at it.

 

[injurai]

Skyrim has stilted animations, middling voice acting, and decent graphics. Still GOAT for some people.

Dark Souls has no lip synching and framerate issues. Still GOAT for some people.

TLOU is linear, has an functionally invisible partner character, and meh crafting. Still GOAT for some people.

You can launch pretty major complaints at any of the best games of last gen, and I'm sure we'll have plenty to complain about in TW3, but it'll still be phenomenal overall and that's largely what we'll remember it for years later.

Be positive, people.

Beautiful. Needs to be plastered on the front page of neogaf.