Review RPG Codex Review: The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

[J_C]

This game would have been a blast if all the story and content were compressed into one of the areas. Stretching it through Velen, Novigrad, No Mans Land and the Islands makes it to lose its steam after a few dozen hours.

 

[Roguey]

I also disagree with the use of "Sawyerian" because he's very much against meaningless +whatevers that have no discernible effect.

What you perceive in a game is ultimately what matters the most -- Mass Effect had tons of weapons but they were barely differentiated. They had incremental stat differences only.

"What's the chance that a 5 percent difference is going to make you take the enemy down in one fewer hit? If it takes me four shots, but the fourth shot killed him a little more, that doesn't mean anything to me," Sawyer said.

In Alpha Protocol, "The player could get abilities to upgrade their stealth but often they couldn't see the effects in the game," he said. It was widely considered to have a broken stealth system. "It was a cool idea but certain aspects of it didn't feel good because it didn't feedback to the player."

Pillars of Eternity.

That's a D&D knock-off given a surgical makeover by JES.

 

[Infinitron]

Roguey, it's obvious that statement was made in the context of single character action RPGs. How do you make a traditional highly abstracted party-based RPG where every single character improvement typically causes you to kill enemies in "one hit less"? That's an absurd demand.

You're constantly doing this, taking statements that were made in the pre-Kickstarter age out of context. It's particularly odd that you do it even when it appears to sabotage your own position.

 

[Scroo]

Great review Angthoron

I will continue the game once I bought a new CPU fan or when it is winter, whatever happens first

 

[NotAGolfer]

A bit hyperbolic in the whine against controls, maybe.
Sure, there are issues (like an excessive inertia in some basic movements), but the improvement from the previous games is remarkable.

Also, I stand to my position that the core combat mechanics this time are actually surprisingly good (especially coming from the half-assed combat in the second game and the god-awful one in the first; I spent more or less two years thinking "it will problaby be garbage once again but I'm in for the rest" and it turned out the combat is now actually one of the things I enjoy the most in the game).

The main thing that pisses me off in combat is that it seems to have some sort of smart targeting or whatever, not sure how to describe. But instead of attacking in the direction he's facing, Geralt will always try to focus on a target in that general direction, sometimes putting you in a vulnerable position during group fights because of the wild attack animations

Angthoron mentioned it in the review

Which is just a consequence of the combat system being in the tradition of typical console combat games where the player whirls around like a dervish, doing all sorts of awesome(tm) moves.
Attacking in the general direction he's facing doesn't work for such games, all the awesome(tm) context sensitive moves couldn't be triggered correctly. This isn't Gothic or Dark Souls.
I'm okay with that though, and it is possible to keep focussing on one enemy without target locking. Just don't spam attacks as fast as you can if you are unable to readjust the camera after each attack (because Geralt will of course sometimes target another enemy after dashing forward during an attack).

Would be better if this instead was some sort of open world Dark Souls with a proper story on top of course but there is no point in mourning missed chances, the game is quite great as it is and combat on Death March is fun enough as it is.
It is not at all badly designed, just y'know ... git gud and all.

 

[Angthoron]

Great review Angthoron

I thank my inspiration sources! ^_^

 

[Roguey]

Roguey, it's obvious that statement was made in the context of single character action RPGs. How do you make a traditional highly abstracted party-based RPG where every single character improvement typically causes you to kill enemies in "one hit less"? That's an absurd demand.

You're constantly doing this, taking statements that were made in the pre-Kickstarter age out of context. It's particularly odd that you do it even when it appears to sabotage your own position.

You can make a party-based RPG with coarse character advancement. Arcanum's skills (but not its stats) are a flawed example of this. Original Sin's abilities are a better example. Wasteland 2's to a lesser extent, but they're still a lot less granular than Fallout's. They all get hung up on attributes (even 1-10 is too much when it comes to value per point), but Josh wants to remove those entirely anyway.

Moreover http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/57754-josh-sawyer-at-gdc-europe-2011/page-2#entry1139782

Honestly, though, I don't think many publishers are interested in funding those sorts of games unless they are free-to-play/browser or mobile games. If a publisher wanted us to make one, I'd have no problem doing it. I'd still make the sort of strategic gameplay and mechanical chaos revisions I suggested.

 

[Infinitron]

You can make a party-based RPG with coarse character advancement.

I'm sure that you can, but not to the degree of "one hit less".

In fact, I would say that party-based RPGs actually rely on character improvements being at least somewhat underwhelming. Otherwise, your characters would have no incentive to cooperate. Instead they'd be like six action-RPG protagonists who just happen to be together, each independently kicking the ass of larger and larger hordes.

 

[Franny Frogpill]

What?! This review isn't yet another "It's shit" rant by some autistic excel sheet nerd? What a pleasant surprise! Thanks, Angthoron .
I even enjoyed the combat. With heavy use of Yrden it practically becomes an almost turn-based dance.

 

[Roguey]

In fact, I would say that party-based RPGs actually rely on character improvements being at least somewhat underwhelming. Otherwise, your characters would have no incentive to cooperate. Instead they'd be like six action-RPG protagonists who just happen to be together, each independently kicking the ass of larger and larger hordes.

This isn't much of a problem when the enemies you face either match or exceed you in power and are fought in equal or greater amounts, as is the case with D:OS.

 

[Bubbles]

What?! This review isn't yet another "It's shit" rant by some autistic excel sheet nerd? What a pleasant surprise!

We haven't had one of those since April.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Honestly, the game mostly impresses me as a production. Sure, it's not bad, but ultimately not so different from previous entries in the series. Good storytelling, music and art design, mediocre-to-shit combat, itemization and character system, plus their own peculiar brand of C&C. They just added a good looking but mechanically irrelevant open world to glue all the discrete locations together.

However, as a production, it's mind-boggling. All the content in the game is of a consistently above-average quality, and usually good-to-great, even. And it's all so consistent, both aesthetically and thematically, the same tone and style are preserved throughout all the dialogue, VA is great, characterization makes sense. How do you even do that if you have over 100 people in your team, plus subcontractors for stuff like voice acting? Most AAA games are all over the place because it's practically impossible to get so many people on the same page. I honestly just don't know. CDPR either have some god-tier project managers or an HR department full of wizards who can find the exact right person for every job. A mystery for the ages, truly.

This post was deviously calculated to tread the middle to harvest as many brofists as possible. It's not clear whether you're praising and criticizing it.

Eh, you don't get brofists by treading the middle, but rather by being an opinionated asshole, preferably in the form of an edgy oneliner.

I thought I made my opinion of the game clear, in any event. I enjoyed it, but it didn't completely grab my attention and monopolize my free time like my all-time favourites did. What I did find remarkable about it was the overall level of content quality - in a sense, it's a rare kind of game for which "AAA" is actually a positive descriptor.

For what it's worth, I liked it more than PoE. Of the more recent RPG offerings, I'd say it's comparable to Dragonfall on my personal enjoyment scale.

 

[DeepOcean]

"Witcher 3 is a bit of a mixed bag. Weak in its gameplay yet surprisingly strong as a story and a game world"

Oh, you mean like Planescape: Torment? The number one game in the Codex RPG chart of all time?

There are some vitriolic motherfuckers around here that want to look edgy and bash things just for the sake of it and believe in their narrow mind that this makes them oldschool and true defenders of good RPG making.

And when you draw the line and take things at really face value,
Witcher 3 is a better game than Divinity: Original Sin with all it's "truee rRpeegiiee!!" mechanics.

Nah... too obvious retarded trolling, . Next time, try to add some sense on your trolling or its hard to take seriously.

 

[Angthoron]

"Witcher 3 is a bit of a mixed bag. Weak in its gameplay yet surprisingly strong as a story and a game world"

Oh, you mean like Planescape: Torment? The number one game in the Codex RPG chart of all time?

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. I even wrote it in the review.

There are some vitriolic motherfuckers around here that want to look edgy and bash things just for the sake of it and believe in their narrow mind that this makes them oldschool and true defenders of good RPG making.

Well, I was hoping for more butthurt from them but it seems my points are a bit too hard to argue against. Oh well.

Witcher 3 is a better game than Divinity: Original Sin with all it's "truee rRpeegiiee!!" mechanics.

I like both games but for different reasons. D: OS has great mechanics but average writing and, sadly, atmosphere is all over the place too, Witcher 3 has great writing and atmosphere, but very average (A)RPG mechanics and the controls are all over the place. Combining both while removing the flaws would've made a Game of the Century but sadly it didn't happen.

Btw, to all upset about the review:

Spoiler

 

[meanwhileInPoland]

It's just shit after Velen.

Disagree Novigrad area has the best sidequests and Novigrad itself is best designed city imo in rpgs. Also Velen is lower part of map where whole upper part is Novigrad.

nope. Athkatla > Novigrad. Novigrad is just at least a 10 hours long stream of cut-scenes with brief pauses for dialogues with two options and shitty combat/detective mode

 

[Cassidy]

Well, I was hoping for more butthurt from them but it seems my points are a bit too hard to argue against. Oh well.

Maybe most of those willing to argue didn't even play it and have no interest, considering how silly the point of playing an Action RPG for the sake of its story is .For one, I'd rather behold a miracle in the form of someone else than PB(no hopes left after Risen 2 and Risen 3) creating a true spiritual successor to Gothic 1: a PC action RPG with excellent game mechanics and exploration and a simply serviceable story.

 

[Trash]

Best game I played in ages. Fuck the haters.

 

[Angthoron]

Well, I was hoping for more butthurt from them but it seems my points are a bit too hard to argue against. Oh well.

Maybe most of those willing to argue didn't even play it and have no interest, considering how silly the point of playing an Action RPG for the sake of its story is .For one, I'd rather behold a miracle in the form of someone else than PB(no hopes left after Risen 2 and Risen 3) creating a true spiritual successor to Gothic 1: a PC action RPG with excellent game mechanics and exploration and a simply serviceable story.

Well, with a bit more effort on mechanics, W3 could've been that game. It has everything going for that - better world interaction mechanics, more risk/reward in exploration, and better controls and it'd get there. Hell, it's a better Gothic than Gothic 3 to me personally. I guess I blame CDPR's schizophrenic chasing of modern gaming trends WHILE trying to create their own thing AND try to copy the better ideas of the past.

 

[Israfael]

Is there any balanced (tm) review by VD planned for this one? Haven't had such a good laugh after i read twicher 2 review

 

[Tigranes]

Well, I was hoping for more butthurt from them but it seems my points are a bit too hard to argue against. Oh well.

I think in the case of TW3 there isn't too much scope for variance. Pretty much everyone knows the open world bits are shitty and combat is mediocre, the story / setting is good to great. So then it comes down to what bothers you more.

I do find it hard to agree with your claim that it has fantastic pacing and has little to no filler. This is definitely true in the first half of the story, but things start to get very stretched after a while. Why did Novigrad have to basically be a wild goose chase? Why does Novigrad section start off with a fantastically ominous meeting with Menge, but he ends up being reduced to having basically no role in the main plot, and only a passive peripheral one in Triss'? Why does the war in the underworld thing, which is how Novigrad is defined in many ways for the player, come to nothing besides getting Dijkstra as a questgiver? Why do you get so many pointless "go from x to y" quests after Kaer Morhen, with more teleporting than an early alpha Age of Decadence? The story was fantastic and twice as long as anyone needed it to be, so a lot of that shit should have been cut and reorganised.

On the whole, though, TW3 does have the best storytelling out of any 'Age of Incline' RPG, the best since TW2, really. They have done Bioware better than Bioware ever could, and they've been the only ones to produce really good writing in RPGs since MOTB, more or less.

I'd also say it's a bit silly to point out how the most important stat by far is Geralt's level, character development is lacklustre, and combined with the way enemy levels work you're essentially staring at one and one number all the time as if it were some super-pretty Progress Quest... and then call it a 'minor flaw'.

The only AAA worthwhile franchise in the last few years, and it does a great job, but the flaws are real.

 

[Infinitron]

Am I the only one who noticed already after Witcher 2 that CDPR probably had the best writers in the RPG industry?

Their only flaw (and you might consider it a big one) is that they're wedded to a particular setting, so it's unclear how well they'd do if more imagination was required.

 

[Bubbles]

Am I the only one who noticed already after Witcher 2 that CDPR probably had the best writers in the RPG industry?

Probably. Most people noticed it after the first game.

 

[Infinitron]

No

 

[Angthoron]

I do find it hard to agree with your claim that it has fantastic pacing and has little to no filler. This is definitely true in the first half of the story, but things start to get very stretched after a while. Why did Novigrad have to basically be a wild goose chase? Why does Novigrad section start off with a fantastically ominous meeting with Menge, but he ends up being reduced to having basically no role in the main plot, and only a passive peripheral one in Triss'? Why does the war in the underworld thing, which is how Novigrad is defined in many ways for the player, come to nothing besides getting Dijkstra as a questgiver?

As side-stories, these are internally paced well each on their own. They may not fit well into the pacing of the main plot, but that part was never my claim - open world games will always drop pacing the moment you decide to stop following MQ, pretty much. Menge plot resolution comes rather abrupt though, yes. Dijkstra though... You're not supposed to solve everyone's problems, so to me, it works. He only needs your help with a certain task, you do it for him, each goes on the merry way. What was there to expect, exactly? Besides, you do get to choose a rather major thing involving him down the road.

They have done Bioware better than Bioware ever could

I get what you're saying but that's like, not exactly a compliment of any sort.

I'd also say it's a bit silly to point out how the most important stat by far is Geralt's level, character development is lacklustre, and combined with the way enemy levels work you're essentially staring at one and one number all the time as if it were some super-pretty Progress Quest... and then call it a 'minor flaw'.

That was sarcasm. I know some people don't read it well, but considering I just went over said features with hot iron, I'd expect people to pick up on it.

 

[Angthoron]

Am I the only one who noticed already after Witcher 2 that CDPR probably had the best writers in the RPG industry?

Probably. Most people noticed it after the first game.

Yeah, I noticed the writing being pretty damn good in W1 already. It wasn't consistent at that point yet, though - some parts were great, some were, well, average I guess. A lot of it might've had to do with translation as well, of course. Still, there were some great highlights in the game - the investigation, the werewolf, the striga, to name but a few - and the really well-made endgame sequence that is pretty much the direct opposite of PoE ending and is, in my opinion, what PoE ending should've been more like - showing the consequences of your actions in the present through a prism of someone else's point of view. I really liked that part, though, funny enough, in hindsight of W3 Wild Hunt revelations it doesn't make sense.

W2 is very well written, but it loses pacing several times, especially in the third act, unfortunately.