• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Witcher 3 - Impressions

greenegt

Member
I don't work for any press or game companies. I know a person who was part of organizing this event in San Francisco and was invited. Take my impressions however you want. You've seen enough gameplay videos to give you an idea of how it plays and how the missions are structured. It plays and feels exactly like how it looks or how you expect based on those videos. My impression of the game is that this game is just fucking sick! This is all I'll be playing and easily will put 200 hours into this game. And I'm pretty confident most of you guys will agree with me. Time will tell of course but I'll be happy to say I told you so.

Preorder confirmed! Thanks for the impressions.
 
Unlike Souls games, Witcher has a lot more going for it than just combat though.
Plus it was in no way terrible in TW2. Just unrefined.
Combat in The Witcher 2 was also mainly about managing enemies that came at you in groups, whereas in Dark Souls you usually made damn sure that only one or, at most, two enemies were coming at you at the same time. So the similarities are, at best, superficial (i.e. avoid getting hit at all costs, because it doesn't take much for you to die, etc.).

What I liked about the combat in TW2 was the way the game really let you feel how you were gradually getting stronger, correlating with the story of Geralt slowly regaining his memory. During the prologue, it only takes one or two false moves and one lowly soldiers will be able to kill you. Towards the end, you're single handedly slaughtering an entire camp of Nilfgaardian knights without breaking a sweat. One could call this imbalanced, but I thought it reflected the story quite well.
 

Nameless

Member
My only real problem with The Witcher 2 was that the environments were small, linear, and not that interesting to explore. Doesn't seem like a problem here, though.

Any word if the Arena will return? I spent hours in it before starting the main the game, which is probably why playing through the story wasn't nearly as challenging as people made it seem.
 
Any word if the Arena will return? I spent hours in it before starting the main the game, which is probably why playing through the story wasn't nearly as challenging as people made it seem.
Last I heard a while ago there were no plans for it at launch. Didn't sound like they had decided if it would be added later or not either.
 
First, why is sleeping with many people == slut?

Second, it is an RPG. You can choose not to sleep with many people?

You can avoid sex entirely in both games but apparently having options is a bad thing for some people.
God forbid that the main character likes to get laid.
 

HeelPower

Member
You can avoid sex entirely in both games but apparently having options is a bad thing for some people.
.

Its funny.

I think you can actually play the witcher 2 entirely and there will be hardly any sex scenes.

Witcher treats you like an adult and gives you plenty of choices.

Heck you can be relatively non-violent as well.Violence is not the solution to every quest in The Witcher.
 
I don't care about that, I think it's bad there's no consequence to it. It's just pure fanservice.

Choice and consequence is what TW2 did best.
Sex is just sex. Geralt isn't married. Maybe you should read the books to understand how the relations between these characters work.
 
Choice and consequence is what TW2 did best.
Sex is just sex. Geralt isn't married. Maybe you should read the books to understand how the relations between these characters work.

I am reading the books, I know he sleeps around hence I called him a slut yet TW1 made a big deal out choosing between Shani and Triss and about Geralt thinking of settling down.

So it's not like CDPR didn't take creative freedom in that aspect before.
 
Unlike Souls games, Witcher has a lot more going for it than just combat though.
Plus it was in no way terrible in TW2. Just unrefined.

Witcher is a great series and has a ton going for it, but it's a series where there is a lot of combat and where the combat is absolutely atrocious. Games like Souls and Dragon's Dogma exist. A Polish studio full of ex-Witcher guys just threw together a Souls clone. There's no excuse for CD Projekt Red to not have fixed the combat system at this point: it's by far the biggest problem with the games. You could honestly say it's the only major problem with them.
 
I am reading the books, I know he sleeps around hence I called him a slut yet TW1 made a big deal out choosing between Shani and Triss and about Geralt thinking of settling down.

So it's not like CDPR didn't take creative freedom in that aspect before.

Geralt alo thinks about that in the books but he always knows it's an impossible dream.
And the Triss/Shani thing is not really a big deal and it's completely unrelated to what we're talking about. That decision is not a matter of sex but a matter of trust. Of course the one you don't choose will give you the cold shoulder after that but it's not because you slept with the rival, it's because you trusted her with the
boy.
And in Triss' case it's never something that would affect their relation in the long run, they go way deeper than that, in their own weird way lol.

As for Geralt and Yen, sure they are incredibly jealous of each other but they both have sex with other people when they're apart and openly admit it to each other (Yen even got into a long term relationship, something Geralt was never able to do).
So that's my point. Geralt, like all males in this story likes his whorehouses and he doesn't say no to a one night stand when the opportunity presents itself (though in the games the player can always refuse) and he also has this friends with benefits relation with Triss, but they both know it will be over when Yen comes back, both because Geralt's heart belongs to Yen and she'd just fucking kill them both anyway.
 
Imru’ al-Qays;148550087 said:
Witcher is a great series and has a ton going for it, but it's a series where there is a lot of combat and where the combat is absolutely atrocious. Games like Souls and Dragon's Dogma exist. A Polish studio full of ex-Witcher guys just threw together a Souls clone. There's no excuse for CD Projekt Red to not have fixed the combat system at this point: it's by far the biggest problem with the games. You could honestly say it's the only major problem with them.

What exactly is atrocious about the combat?
 
What exactly is atrocious about the combat?

There's very little depth and variety (everyone's Geralt plays basically the same because there is a very limited universe of viable builds/strategies), it's poorly balanced (some signs are so overpowered as to be essential, others are useless), the core mechanics (blocking, dodging, hitstun, etc) are clumsy (compare Geralt's way of moving with the Souls series), the game tries to compensate for the underlying shallowness of the combat system by just giving enemies tons of health and making them do tons of damage to make the game "challenging."
 
Imru’ al-Qays;148554848 said:
There's very little depth and variety (everyone's Geralt plays basically the same because there is a very limited universe of viable builds/strategies), it's poorly balanced (some signs are so overpowered as to be essential, others are useless), the core mechanics (blocking, dodging, hitstun, etc) are clumsy (compare Geralt's way of moving with the Souls series), the game tries to compensate for the underlying shallowness of the combat system by just giving enemies tons of health and making them do tons of damage to make the game "challenging."

I'm not denying that the combat has its issues, but what you're saying here is simply not true - I've seen tons of lets-plays where people play Geralt differently. I relied on traps, bombs and sword, but I saw others spamming Yrden and being almost invincible in most fights. Some are very fond of Axii for managing mobs and others simply buff Quen and don't bother with anything else. I think there are lots of ways to play and the combat isn't shallow at all. Its main problem was the camera, at least for me - sometimes I got trapped behind the bushes or backed into the corner and I couldn't see where the opponents were. Other than that, it was fine (YMMV).
 

dlauv

Member
Enemies have the same amount of health on most difficulties, and are taken out in five hits at the most. Usually two. Bigger enemies take more hits, but that's understandable and they're few and far between.

The difficulty usually comes in the form of how much damage they deal you.

I don't know why you're making them out to be damage sponges, when that's not even hardly the case.
 
Imru’ al-Qays;148554848 said:
There's very little depth and variety (everyone's Geralt plays basically the same because there is a very limited universe of viable builds/strategies), it's poorly balanced (some signs are so overpowered as to be essential, others are useless), the core mechanics (blocking, dodging, hitstun, etc) are clumsy (compare Geralt's way of moving with the Souls series), the game tries to compensate for the underlying shallowness of the combat system by just giving enemies tons of health and making them do tons of damage to make the game "challenging."

Not everything has to play like Souls. Witchers are master swordsmen with superhuman speed and reflexes, Soul's combat, as good as it is, wouldn't make sense.
You also can't expect Geralt to be a blank slate that can evolve into anything like in other rpgs. He's not going to learn magic or give up his swords for a bow or a lance.
You can focus on alchemy, signs or sword skills, or a bit of everything. Other than that you are limited to an established character like you are in an action game, but with a higher degree of customization.
Not to say the gameplay is perfect but a lot of people are looking for something that has no place being there.
 

Helmholtz

Member
One thing that always bothered me is that no one seemingly gives a fuck that Geralt is a huge slut.
How would anyone know about this though?
Also, it's been a while since I played the games, but aren't most of his sexual encounters optional? Aside from Triss I'm not sure you're really forced to participate in many of them.
 
Imru’ al-Qays;148554848 said:
There's very little depth and variety (everyone's Geralt plays basically the same because there is a very limited universe of viable builds/strategies), it's poorly balanced (some signs are so overpowered as to be essential, others are useless), the core mechanics (blocking, dodging, hitstun, etc) are clumsy (compare Geralt's way of moving with the Souls series), the game tries to compensate for the underlying shallowness of the combat system by just giving enemies tons of health and making them do tons of damage to make the game "challenging."

I will agree that the build options that are provided are rather narrow. But Witcher 2's combat was actually fun, if you prepared adequately. Atrocious is pure hyperbole. You are comparing it to games that were built from a stat and combat first perspective. If you compare it from the other side to something like DA:I or Fall Out, which seem to be built from a world /quest/character first perspective, Witcher 2's combat acquits itself fairly well.
 

magnumpy

Member
I can recommend the first two games to anyone who hasn't played them. especially the first game. adjusting your "stance" to effect the type of damage you deal is a surprisingly good mechanic.
 
How would anyone know about this though?
Also, it's been a while since I played the games, but aren't most of his sexual encounters optional? Aside from Triss I'm not sure you're really forced to participate in many of them.

Even the scene with Triss is optional.
 
I also want to mention the map of the game. This is the closest comparison map on the internet of the giant map they had displayed.

latest

After the prologue i described, you start at the south east of the map. You're on your way towards a small village tracking Yennefer with Vessemir in toll.

I've asked about the ocean and what I can do there, but he didn't want to spoil any surprises. But there were a lot including some hints about underwater caverns.
 
Combat is just not particularly good, even the developers somehow acknowledged that by revamping it for either title. With TW1 playing very, very different.
 

Exentryk

Member
I guess the combat will decide whether I pick this game up or not. The videos show it looking fluid, but I haven't played any game in the series to know better. So, waiting for some informed comments.
 

Gattsu25

Banned
Pressing one button will automatically steer you in the direction you need to go? What?

It sounds like it works similar to Shadow of the Colossus. In that game, your horse is an intelligent creature and can navigate the map by itself. You point it in the direction you want to go and the horse avoids obstacles, doesn't kill itself by running into walls/over cliffs, and traverses the terrain like an actual horse would.

It was the first game I could think of where controlling a horse didn't control like you were driving a car.


It's an awesome control method and it's good that other games are starting to adopt it.
 
I'm trying the free Witcher 2 on Xbox 360 and the combat is so bad. Specially coming from Kingdoms of Amalur. I'm having a hard time forcing me to go back to it.
 
I'm trying the free Witcher 2 on Xbox 360 and the combat is so bad. Specially coming from Kingdoms of Amalur. I'm having a hard time forcing me to go back to it.

Agree with you and everyone else. Could not get past how terrible the combat was. One of the few RPGs in recent years that I did not finish.
 

magnumpy

Member
It sounds like it works similar to Shadow of the Colossus. In that game, your horse is an intelligent creature and can navigate the map by itself. You point it in the direction you want to go and the horse avoids obstacles, doesn't kill itself by running into walls/over cliffs, and traverses the terrain like an actual horse would.

It was the first game I could think of where controlling a horse didn't control like you were driving a car.


It's an awesome control method and it's good that other games are starting to adopt it.

sounds like the horse in ZeldaU :D
 
It sounds like it works similar to Shadow of the Colossus. In that game, your horse is an intelligent creature and can navigate the map by itself. You point it in the direction you want to go and the horse avoids obstacles, doesn't kill itself by running into walls/over cliffs, and traverses the terrain like an actual horse would.

It was the first game I could think of where controlling a horse didn't control like you were driving a car.


It's an awesome control method and it's good that other games are starting to adopt it.

You hold down "A" and your horse "Roach" will basically follow a path to your destination. But like i said before, the mechanics is very similar to Red Dead as you tap "A" to hit your horse move, and tap double "A" to gallop.

Roach also serve as a storage for your shit. I am sure you can upgrade Roach or your storage but i never got a chance to see.
 
I also want to mention the map of the game. This is the closest comparison map on the internet of the giant map they had displayed.



After the prologue i described, you start at the south east of the map. You're on your way towards a small village tracking Yennefer with Vessemir in toll.

I've asked about the ocean and what I can do there, but he didn't want to spoil any surprises. But there were a lot including some hints about underwater caverns.

They've shown that in trailers that you can sail and swim.

io0K004qDyUxt.gif

iDOi8TmDFCiwU.gif
 
Top Bottom