Witcher 3 - Two Hearts of Stone Reviews

[joxer]

I haven't played witcher 3 yet but I agree with this in general. I would like to see shorter more focused and content packed games vs 200+ hour marathons that get rather repetitive around 1/2 way through.

Guys, just don't buy this game then.

Not now, not ever.

Or upcoming FO4. I don't think it'll be less than 200 hours game assuming they didn't ditch exploration.

In fact, when I think about it, maybe the best thing for you is to skip any openworld, those games tend to keep you occupied for hundreds of hours. Sims 3, which is not RPG, but is still openworld, included as it keeps you building for ages. Or quite a few openworld AC games, also not RPGs, but still huge.

 

[zahratustra]

Yeah. Especially NOT playing the game yet but complaining that it MIGHT be too repetitive and long!

 

[CelticFrost]

Yeah. Especially NOT playing the game yet but complaining that it MIGHT be too repetitive and long!

I will wait for Fluent's game play review in 25 years to figure out if I should play it. In the mean time I am on the fence if I liked it or not.

 

[BoboTheMighty]

Finished a few hours ago. Wild Hunt came pretty damn close to beating Torment, but pacing issues, poor main villain characterization and some not fully developed quest/character arcs got in the way.
But this blows them both away, in my book. Chose the "good" ending, but left me with impression that Geralt will have trouble sleeping from now on. Antagonist actually reminded me of Al Pacino from Devil's Advocate.

 

[sakichop]

I'm glad no one overreacted to my post.

I said in general not witcher 3 specifically because I haven't invested enough time to know.

So the fanatics can put away their pitchforks and torches. No need to defend something that was never under attack.

 

[DArtagnan]

Don't worry Saki - people get very emotional about TW3 around here. All the flaws are ignored - and the flaws of other games get blown up.

I completely agree it felt overlong and I gave up after around 100 hours after reaching Skellige and watched endless cutscenes about some people I didn't care about. I expected something it simply didn't provide.

Witcher 2 had a much more appropriate length for what it was, I think.

Personally, I think it's a very good game with a lot of vital downsides.

Essentially, it's like a great mostly linear adventure game (without non-combat challenge) with mostly pointless exploration and rather trivial combat and progression. Sure, you can stray from the main path - but you won't get much XP and you won't find anything very interesting. There are some cool sidequests, but you have to do them at appropriate times if you want appropriate rewards - meaning the non-linear nature of the game is kinda lost.

Challenge is only found with combat on the hardest difficulty - until you get your hands on some upgraded Witcher Gear, at which point most encounters are trivial.

That said, writing really is very strong for a game - though I was much more invested in the stories of Last of Us and Bioshock Infinite.

I wasn't too engaged with the main plot in TW3 - and I found the gameplay segments with Ciri increasingly predictable and tiresome.

I think I had more fun with Risen 3, actually. Risen 3 was also broken in terms of challenge, but exploration and progression were both much more appealing. Writing was crap, sure, but I'm not really into open world RPGs for the writing.

 

[Thaurin]

There are some cool sidequests, but you have to do them at appropriate times if you want appropriate rewards - meaning the non-linear nature of the game is kinda lost.

Challenge is only found with combat on the hardest difficulty - until you get your hands on some upgraded Witcher Gear, at which point most encounters are trivial.

And then some people complain about level-scaling. Can't make some people happy.

 

[DArtagnan]

And then some people complain about level-scaling. Can't make some people happy.

Well, that, or you could be a smart designer and implement rewards that are independent of character level. Including useful handcrafted loot.

I could definitely live with scaled rewards, though.

But I'm not saying they should make me happy. They just didn't

Clearly, the game is more or less perfect to most fans around here, so either people are delusional - or they managed to please almost everyone.

No need to worry about naysayers like myself.

 

[BoboTheMighty]

Eh, people are subjective about everything they like...can you say fans of something like Dark Souls are completely objective? You won't find a more fanatical bunch on the internet.
I for one, raise an eyebrow or two, every time someone says anything great about Bethesda games...average exploration value, good music, virtually everything else from very poor to solid at even the best of times. Quantity over quality design in every respect.
What D'artagnan stated were minor annoyances to people who love the game...we all value things entirely differently. In his case exploration involves more tangible rewards in terms of loot and xp, in mine it is discovering quality content and stories, visual storytelling and how it's environment design contributes to "fidelity" of the world.

 

[DArtagnan]

I agree Dark Souls fans and TW3 fans do seem similarly fanatical

As for Skyrim, yes, loot and rewards are important (duh!) - but the most important thing that you keep ignoring is finding unique content and stories when you go freeroaming - and especially dungeon delving. I do love me some dungeons in my fantasy RPGs. Weird, right?

As for opinions beings subjective, that's very true.

But I really do believe there's a monumental difference between having a subjective opinion and then having the ability to be objective about games you enjoy or dislike.

For instance, I really dislike Dark Souls - but I'm having an easy time understanding what people like about it, and I can see the great aspects of it.

I can also see some terrible aspects of Bethesda games - and I can acknowledge them without feeling I'm betraying the pleasure I've had playing them.

That said, I've only really liked Skyrim and FO3 from Bethesda. I never really cared for Daggerfall, Redguard, Battlespire, Morrowind and Oblivion. I did have some fun with Arena and the Terminator games. I hated that car game they made, though.

But only Skyrim and FO3 have been what I would consider great games. FO3 had terrible writing, crappy balance and mediocre mechanics, awkward animations, lots of repetitive content and so-so visuals. Skyrim had terrible balance, mediocre writing and a lot of repetitive content.

As for TW3 being "quality over quantity" - that's a joke to me, but maybe that's because I actually went to all of those PoIs and noticed how repetitive they all were

I feel like all games have major flaws. I don't think there's a conflict there because you both love and hate them.

But that's just me.

Apparently, TW3 has only minor or insignificant flaws to a lot of people. I think that's insanely generous - but what do I know.

Ultimately, I think the difference is that I can recognise TRULY great things about The Witcher 3 and TRULY bad things about Skyrim (or whatever games I happen to love).

Seems to me that's not quite true the other way around

 

[BoboTheMighty]

Eh, they should put them in the ring or something to fight it out.
Witcher fans are going to get their asses kicked, of course. They would spin around all time, while crazy sun worshipers would roll through their attacks and stab them in the back.
And Witcher definitely doesn't have minor or insignificant flaws...who ever designed skill trees doesn't have a clue about character progression in a good rpg, or took to Far Cry for inspiration. Experience, enemy level scaling and loot really is a mess and economy could be balanced a lot better. Poor job with game's crime system...simply placed over leveled guards to "even it out". Even the writing has no small amount of issues. UI, AI, skill balance and difficulty, some "wonkiness" with the controls and so on.

 

[DArtagnan]

Eh, they should put them in the ring or something to fight it out.
Witcher fans are going to get their asses kicked, of course. They would spin around all time, while crazy sun worshipers would roll through their attacks and stab them in the back.
And Witcher definitely doesn't have minor or insignificant flaws…who ever designed skill trees doesn't have a clue about character progression in a good rpg, or took to Far Cry for inspiration. Experience, enemy level scaling and loot really is a mess and economy could be balanced a lot better. Poor job with game's crime system…simply placed over leveled guards to "even it out". Even the writing has no small amount of issues. UI, AI, skill balance and difficulty, some "wonkiness" with the controls and so on.

That's better and thank you for being honest about it

Now all we need is for you to acknowledge that freeroaming sucks.

Hehe, just kidding!

I'm actually looking forward to playing it again - once I get the time. I've found a couple of mods that just might fix some of the major issues to some extent.

 

[zahratustra]

And Witcher definitely doesn't have minor or insignificant flaws…who ever designed skill trees doesn't have a clue about character progression in a good rpg, or took to Far Cry for inspiration. Experience, enemy level scaling and loot really is a mess and economy could be balanced a lot better. Poor job with game's crime system…simply placed over leveled guards to "even it out". Even the writing has no small amount of issues. UI, AI, skill balance and difficulty, some "wonkiness" with the controls and so on.

Yes TW3 could have been better yet it's a great game. One of the best I have ever played. I guess I grade RPGs just like books - by how good a story they tell and CDPR know how to tell a story.

 

[joxer]

I'm glad no one overreacted to my post.

I said in general not witcher 3 specifically because I haven't invested enough time to know.

So the fanatics can put away their pitchforks and torches. No need to defend something that was never under attack.

Errr...
If you mean my post, it was supposed to be a friendly suggestion on what to skip.
You don't want timeconsuming games, that's fine, there are plenty of short titles out there.
But if short games is something you don't want to do, then the choice what to buy and play is obvious: TW3 and MGS5. Most probably FO4 too. Three huge games you can't finish in just one or a few afternoons but will keep you occupied for months.

I'm not actually sure if playing those three is better than just grabbing dozens of short games. In the end you'll spend the same time. Comes down to tastes I guess.

Yes TW3 could have been better.

Can't agree, sorry.
The reason - I wouldn't change anything in the game except some UI parts, but even that UI is not horrible like in plenty of other multicontrol games.

That's just me, ofc, I'm aware some people feel that Mona Lisa painting could have been better with more realistic colors and if was bigger (what we call today - 4k resolution).

 

[zahratustra]

Can't agree, sorry.

Al kamaal lillah (only Allah is perfect)

 

[BoboTheMighty]

Well, here is something that Joxer will like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ynnk7oohU0U