What makes this game great?

True that's why i say I won't hate on anyone because they don't like a game i do, but i think TLOU had bad combat/stealth and besides cutscenes there was nothing else in the game but walking around (from the bits i played). Uncharted's shooting was never great but they had stuff to do like explore, climb and solve puzzles which took emphasis off of the worst part of the game IMO.

Wow, thank you all for the great responses.

I think, relatively speaking, I'm not super far into the story(4-6 hours maybe?) so if the story is as involved and intricate as it is I just need to give it a bit more time. There's plenty of movies like that I enjoy that start of really slow and its not until the middle that things start picking up.

I might actually turn the difficulty DOWN in order to just focus on the story. Because from what I've seen of it so far I'm sure it'll go places but I just haven't seen a whole lot develop yet. I'm in the middle of the baron quest now(I think assuming it doesn't span multiple quests) in the cave with Keira.

I'll keep plugging away at it then. I just wanted to get a good breadth of opinions from a community I know won't steer me wrong xD.

@reap3r160: The Bloody Baron quest pretty much intertwine's with every major story mission in Velen. You won't see the full conclusion until you've cleared several lengthy questlines.

No, Dark souls has just solved the problem by making you invincible in rolls and when blocking. Dark souls without invincibility frames and 100% shields would be pretty terrible.

It's not for everyone, but I wonder how you would feel if you had played the 1st 2 (I'm assuming you didn't), there is a lot of world building and repeat characters, and in jokes, and references etc. For me the the draw is the world and the people, in much the same way say Game of Thrones is.

In terms of 'gameplay' the 1st game is fairly different and a bit of slog to be honest, the 2nd I really enjoyed, and the third is really stream lined, which I think is also the appeal, if you been there from the start you feel the improvements, I'm not be preachy holier than thou about it, I just think it's an iterative and cumulative experience seeing this long saga play out and feeling the mechanical upgrades.

If one game didn't grip you on its own merits, that maybe a failure of the developers part, and perhaps your own particular tastes.

In terms of Geralts character, he definitely falls into the archetypical reluctant hero, his slightly emotionally vacant state is actually canonically explained as part of the process of becoming a Witcher, and side effect of the trial of grasses.

I would say if you have the season pass, maybe check out the heart of stone DLC, it is a little more bite sized and standalone. Also hey, there is nothing wrong with not liking this game, most of the GB staff didn't! :D

Install the brutality/gore mod on PC and the boring combat won't matter anymore because you can still mash X but every enemy will be cut in half and it's fun to watch every single time.

I liked it a lot although a lot of the same issues bugged me. Primarily I do think the combat could use a bit more nuance. Despite all the different signs available the meat and potatoes of it do boil down to light and heavy hacks. Something about it just never carried any weight for me. It's not completely joyless and is definitely a lot more involved than let's say Dragon Age but I dunno, I just wish it was "better" whatever that might mean.

What mostly sucked me in were the Witcher contracts for monsters and collecting new pieces of unique gear. I'm just one of those Vinny type people that love ticking items off on a list and having arbitrary quest arris to follow around. I enjoyed the main story for what it was but I honestly can't claim that it blew me away or anything.

No, that's not the point. It has nothing to do with iframes. The attack animation in Dark Souls and effect thereof is the exact same every single time. You perform *this* move, it takes *this* amount of time to complete and will hit at *this* distance if completed. W3 does not have that. It is very inconsistent about all three of those aspects. In the same situations Geralt just sometimes decides to switch the attack time from the usual to 0.4 seconds later, which can make a huge difference. It is the thing that makes the Dark Souls combat so good even though it is very unforgiving: it is an exact science. If you messed up or died it is always your fault. Because you can take a very meticulous approach to it and you will succeed. It's why the game has the 'Oh, I figured out how to beat this thing' moments. W3 is not like that. You can die because the game just doesn't do what you expect it to and what it has been telling you it would do. Sometimes when blocking Geralt takes a full additional second to get his block up. And there is absolutely nothing anywhere that is communicated to the player that it would do this and at which times. In Dark Souls being out of stamina would work like that. It is clearly communicated also. In W3 it's full stamina, no stamina, full health, low health, from stand still position or in moving position; it can happen at any time for no apparent reason that is communicated to the player.

The entire combat works like that. You are not controlling Geralt, you are merely telling him what to do. It is what makes the combat poor. If Dark Souls were to have no iframes and build a game around that with the same exactness it would still be a fantastic game. Primarily because I haven't used a shield in that series in ages and I only dodge on (semi)bosses for the most part.

@rethla said:

Come on, this has been a good discussion. That type of statement is just silly. First off, have you watched Souls LPs and noticed how many players don't even use shields? Ever seen Souls PVP? Even fewer use shields. I'm not even super into PVP, but but I switch it off when I PVP because two-handing a weapon or using my off-hand for something else is typically more advantageous. I've been grinding human dregs since last night, and I see less than 1 in 4 using a shield. Dark Souls is a very "fair" game. That's the reason people like it in the first place. I get people not liking how the combat feels mind you. That's entirely subjective.

Witcher 3 wants to pretend it's like Dark Souls, but it's not. It's willing to sacrifice player control in the name of cinematic presentation, which is a cardinal sin of character action games and Souls games. And I think it's *fine* for a certain audience that likes it, but the fact there is such a disconnect at times as to what your inputs are and what Geralt is doing is going to lose some players. That's why when someone says "but the combat is so much more interesting than Skyrim," my thought is, "well visually, sure, but Skyrim is not trying to be an action game. And its mechanics work for what it wants to do." And when I hear the combat is "fixed" by turning the difficulty up, my reaction is no, the game is better on normal or easy as there's less of the game's weakest element.

@zevvioncovered most of what I'd say otherwise. Also, there's a great 2-part video breakdown on Youtube here: part 1 and part 2. Despite the title, the guy is more covering what he doesn't like about the combat and is more trying to say to players who don't like it, hey, don't feel you need to listen to those saying you should turn the difficulty up. Also he really likes the game.

@cav829: Yeh i have watched and played souls pve and pvp (mostly without shield) and likewise i have played alot of all Witcher games. The most noticable difference is that in Witcher you have to be mindful where you dodge to since you have to actually move out of the way from the blow. In the souls games its more about the timing since if you nail that one youre invincible. Staggering alot of enemies with the swords alone is also almost impossible in Witcher so you have to use spells and you cant exactly panicroll your way around.

The mainproblem with the combat in Witcher 3 is in my oppinion a really bad difficultyscaling (it quickly gets super easy at all difficulty levels) and bad samey enemies. The DLCs improves alot in these parts. Heart of stone introduce alot of new enemies and bosses which totaly screws you over if you just put on queen and "mash X" and Blood and wine introduces (optional) levelscaling enemies in the style of elder scrolls.

There aint a single mechanic in Skyrim that works good. Theres just alot of mechanics. Sure you could easily say the same about the Witcher if you come from Dark souls but its clear that they have put way more effort into it than Elder scrolls which has been the exact same low level jank for 20 years.

I kinda went through a struggle to beat the game, but I was extremely happy that I did. This is a post I made on steam right after beating it.:

I actually fell off this game for a bit after the Bloody Baron part and managed to get back into it after a few months. I think my problem initially with the game was that I was doing basically all the side quests, becoming overpowered, and not moving the story ahead enough. When I did come back to it I actually restarted the game on the highest difficulty and just steamrolled though the story until it was actually nessisary for my to do some side quests to level up, definately felt better to play it this way. Also, the higher difficulty made the combat more interesting.

Another tip, check out some mods. Friendly UI made the game much more enjoyable, the game looks gorgeous without UI everywhere. It actually allows you to only see hud elements like the mini map and quest objectives when you activate witcher senses which is awesome! oh and realtime mediation too! There is also a mod for fast travel anywhere which comes in handy if you are short of time (although i never used it)

So for any of you that may have given up on the game like me, I sincerely recommend picking this game back up and seeing it through. Although it was a bit of a struggle to get into at times and the game had it's problems (ie movement), I can look back and easily say that this was one of the greatest games I've ever had the pleasure of playing.

edit: also I've since beaten the Hearts of Stone expansion which was fantastic and I'm super excited for Blood and Wine, which looks like it unlocks at 6pm so I'll actually get to play it for a bit today!

@rethla: What I meant about Skyrim and hell all of the Elder Scrolls games is sure, they're jank if you look at them from an action standpoint.But that game isn't trying to be an action RPG the same way Witcher is. It's much slower, more deliberate, and more like an RPG where you take almost turn-based actions in real time. It is what it is And I find it silly every time I hear Witcher 3 combat and Elder Scrolls combat compared as they're totally different systems.. I would never argue the Elder Scrolls games are in any way the pinnacle of combat systems, but I think in a lot of ways it functions in the context of those games better to me than the way Witcher 3 functions. You know what I mean? There's no getting around a lot of Dark Souls has always functioned on combat rolls and iframes from them. I mean iframes are a pretty standard element of a lot of games. It is most a pretty video gamey concept, so I get if it's immersion breaking for somee.

Back to my problem with Witcher 3, there are aspects of the combat that are certainly well-designed, but they just don't matter to me because the game lost me at the point it wanted to be more of an action game, but wouldn't give me the tools to properly control Geralt. It's an intrinsic issue that can't be fixed by manipulating the difficulty level or by CD Projekt Red introducing new enemies or what not. It's just not a fair game. There's too much input lag, the weird way Geralt switches actions based on context mean you take damage that isn't your fault, etc. If they wanted the combat to function the way they seem to want to, they needed to sacrifice cinematic quality at the expense of letting me control Geralt's actions. But I also recognize it might be for a different audience at that point. I'm willing to sacrifice presentation and even some immersion (and let's face it, Geralt's fighting style is laughable anyway and would get him killed in about 10 seconds in a real sword fight) for control. But that's me coming from the realm of loving games like Bayonetta, Devil May Cry, and so on. Like I go back to the Mass Effect 2 issue I mentioned some people have. Some fans of cover shooters can't stand the sacrifice that and other first person shooter RPGs make to introduce RPG elements. And even as a Mass Effect fan, I get where they're coming from. Any time you have a hybrid combat system, you lose some players over those types of sacrifices.

I do totally agree with the difficulty scaling being pretty terrible though.

BTW, for reference, I probably like Witcher 3 a bit more than any of the Elder Scrolls games. So it's not about fandom of Skyrim. I'm more of a Fallout fan.

I... Disagree.

Regarding the Bloody Baron quest, I baffles me that it seems to be the litmus test by which all other content of the game is held against. It's great; fantastic even. But I don't understand why the Siege of Khar Morhen (spelling, I know...) doesn't get spoken of as highly. That whole section, returning back to the Witcher keep, drinking with Lambert and (other dude), and the snowball fight with Ciri had a rippling effect on me. I suddenly cared about those characters in a way that I hadn't before. And having completed the Witcher 2 just before, it was incredible to have the decisions made in that game have such a snowballing effect on that quest specifically.

Also, regarding the racism with the elves being laughable; I get it, but I think it's an inheritance from Witcher 2, which was an inheritance from Witcher 1, which was an inheritance from the books. There's a lineage there that needs to be considered, and I think part of that consideration needs to be the understanding that we can laugh at it now because it's so "been done before", so cliche, but it was a cliche that was invented by the Witcher series. For them, it's just self-reference. And certainly not laughable compared to the 'alienage' treatment of the elves in Dragon Age.

There's a scene in Witcher 2 where, if the player chooses to side with Iorveth (a choice that will put you on either side of a conflict that will change the entire back third of the game), you partake in a ruse by which you pretend to turn him over to the local captain in an effort to... the details aren't important. What is important is that it involves escorting him, a terrorist, through the village of Flotsam which he's laid guerrilla siege against for so long, and hearing his side of the story which being jeered at from all sides. It remains one of my favorite little asides on the nature of terror as a weapon in any media.

For me, the Witcher 3 is a cumulation of hundreds of little moments like this. I forgive the combat because I don't consider the game the lesser of the From Software school of combat, but the greater of the Bioware schools. Maybe that's too forgiving, but for me at least, I enjoyed this game indefinitely more than anything Bioware has produced since the year 2000 (and when was the last time a complaint against Mass Effect 2's combat was ever taken seriously?) I'm planning on replaying the entire game once Blood and Wine comes out, effectively doubling my already 150 hours with it, and looking at it from that metric, I think about the other games in my Steam library which have engaged me for even as long. It's an expected list: Skyrim, Metal Gear, Fallout, Dragon Age... And with that, one thing that strikes me is that video-game stories hardly ever end well. But with the Witcher, at least for the ending I landed on, there was an incredible finality to it, nothing about the world had really changed, or at least wouldn't be undone by the crown's next inheritor, but there was absolutely a sense that I'd accomplished something, even if it was only to nearly unmask the stoicism of the Witcher and present him as he really is; a tragedian trapped inside a comedian.

For me the characters were the only interesting part, but not interesting enough to get me through it.

The combat feels awful, inventory management is a nightmare and the setting didn't seem that wholly unique or original to me. It's just generic fantasy stuff.

Also the armor sets aside from a few look awful, my Geralt looked like a pajama wearing lunatic with a huge beer gut.

@cav829: I get your point. I guess what im trying to say is that alot of the things you call "bad combat" is intentional designchoices and not poor execution. If i was only after good combat i would probably play a souls game instead of the Witcher but i also would never play the souls games for their combat alone without their amazing worldbuilding and atmosphere.

@mach_go_go_go:Yeh i dunno why the baron quest is held to such high regard. I mean its dark and gory and full off guilt which ofc. easily translates into "good writing" for people and its also the first quest of the game so many people have seen it. Dont get me wrong its an awesome quest but its not in a league of its own to the rest of the game and series which seems to be a popular oppinion from the bombcrew and its community.

There are many more both lighthearted and heartwrenching moments of equal quality.

@rethla: The Bloody baron quest isn't considered to be great because people confuse dark and moody with good. It's a great quest line because deals with an incredibly difficult topic (spousal abuse) without falling back on cliches or using one dimensional characters. It makes you feel sympathy for a man who beat his wife into a miscarriage because it shows him as a fully realised and very flawed person (his wife is shown in a similar light). It's a very emotionally mature portrayal of a relationship that I think is only matched by Geralt's relationship with Ciri. I've played a lot of fantasy RPG's over last 20-30 years but I never came across anything that had the same emotional impact on me. There is lot of good stuff in the Witcher 3 but I don't think anything else hits that high note for me.

I mean, I get it. It's a very Witcher take on a very real world problem - alcoholism fueled family abuse. I loved it, I loved the way the whole backstory unfurled from "my wife and child left me to "okay, maybe I hit her a few times and she miscarried... Also the stillborn child turned into a demon". And maybe the issue is the game showing such a strong hand so early, even if it was such a Geralt-agnostic storyline. And if you haven't played Witcher 2, then the events of Velen probably come off as nonsense, and the latter Ciri stuff seems like you're starting a book from the middle chapter. But even still, moments like the Whoreson Junior story arc involving the halfling-mimic are fantastic little narrative setpeices (although the combat inside his mansion was a slog for me), and the game devotes an incredible amount of time into unbinding the relationship between Geralt and Yennefer, which is refreshing given that so many video-game storylines involving relationships are basically explorations of falling in love, wheras the G&Y is a much more convoluted, Witcher take on it.

I think the Bloody Baron gets tauted the reason it does because it's so removed from the history of the previous games and books. You don't need to know who Ciri is, who Yennefer is, etc. Bloody Baron is encapsulated entirely, and within 10 or so hours, the player has taken part in it's entirety. But for me, who was finishing my last conversation with the antagonist of Witcher 2 immediately before starting this game, the best parts of 3 were seeing how and where the events of 2 led up to this.

@arabes: Well i dunno about feeling sympathy, he seems like an all out asshole to me but yeh hes an fleshed out and believable asshole at least which is rare in gaming. Many characters in the game are fleshed out and believable however.

Regarding combat in Witcher 3, I feel like it has a lot in common with the Arkham series. You can mash through most fights (even on the harder dificulties), but it feels better to fight like a professional monster slayer (or cowled vigilante) and use all your gadgets/magics/moves.

The main diferences between the two games are combat design and rewards per battle. Batman has verticality, stealth, humanoid enemy variety and grades your performance every combat encounter. Witcher has a lot of different enemies, but you rarely fight more then one type at the same time and XP is handled like most rpgs, a point reward system based on task completion, not style.

Also, I remember Witcher 2's combat being considered too hard on release and patched to change it. Maybe CDProject just toned it down from the start this time.

@rethla: It all comes down to personal worldviews of course, but I found the baron to be very symphatetic.

The reason he drinks is because of his PTSD from the shitty wars he fought in while trying to provied for his family. It is shown that he deeply loves his daughter and has done everything in his power to give her the best possible life. In his interactions with Ciri he is also shown as being jovial, charitable and good friend to her.

So while he has a temper he can`t control and drinking issues the game does a really good job of showing you the shitty life he has had that has led to him being the way he is.

I wasn't really enjoying the game at first when I played it on the ps4. It was my first witcher game and I didn't really have a proper context and appreciation for the world and characters. I gave up halfway through on ps4 before I played all 3 on the PC. Loved every single moment of 2 and 3 after that. 1 is pretty rough to go back to

My girlfriend and I are 100+hours into the game and we haven't finished Act I. We're literally doing everything. And she's not really into video games.

@mach_go_go_go: That's a really good post.

I also agree on the Bloody Baron not being the end all for that game. I agree with the assessment that he is a shitty person but is fleshed out with motivations and doesn't just look evil and brooding all the time. He is interesting to watch. I don't care if he is a shitty guy because I think some characters like that are my favorites in fiction (stuff like Game of Thrones and The Wire). I'm not here to morally agree with everyone. There are shitty people like that in real life and they also have motivations and personality. And for the greater good of the people, it might be better to have the shitty Bloody Baron there than others who are even worse, especially to the commoners (which you see in game as his men ravage the townspeople when he is absent from the fort).

I think, especially for series vets, there were some big series moments like Kaer Morhen. It was actually crazy to me how I remembered the layout on got Deja Vu for the area and the Salamanders stuff since I haven't played Witcher 1 since it came out and didn't really love it either. I felt like I didn't remember much of any of it before that part but it came flooding back. It was really cool to see from a not isometric perspective how I played the first game. My personal favorite stuff in the game was in Skellige, where they showed a pretty interesting and different culture. There were really cool quests, awesome scenery, and my favorite music in the game as well. But some of the stuff near the end with the build up is pretty crazy as well. Parts with Radovid and Dijkstra are fantastic as well depending on your choices. The romance with Yen was handled very well (and was much more interesting than typical personality-less and tension-less romances in most RPGs). It's really fantastic throughout. The Bloody Baron is great and the Crones are the best villains in the game so I get why some are really drawn to that part. Practically I think it's the best part of the game most of those people have seen and they didn't make it much further. There's just a ton of great stuff after.

I loved all these type of aspects you mentioned, but then further than the other games I liked the "monster hunter procedural" type feel it had, where you felt like a Witcher going through the world. Especially in the early game when you needed every dollar and having a "fuck you, pay me" attitude was justified. The detective type gameplay kept things an interesting mix through quests and touches like people spitting at you on the street made it feel real.

I really enjoyed the combat. It has a tactical feel with all your options and often you can find pretty glaring weaknesses for certain monsters to certain spells if you did a little research (furthering the job feel of it). Plus when you get into mutagens you can really have a lot of cool effects going on that keep it fun. I think it has a Batman-y feel to the raw combat, not great perhaps but good and felt really good on the harder difficulty for me. I avoided playing mashy by focusing all my upgrades on heavy attacks, magic, and then a few things for toxicity. Only used the fast attack rarely on certain enemies. Personally I will always try to adapt my game to what is fun in the gameplay. It was fun to have super powerful heavy attacks so that my swings did some real damage and felt rewarding. Having criticals on your heavy attack upgraded, their crit chance upgraded, and then using a mutagen that gives you greater chance of crits was a fun way to improve your character with multiple systems to feel super powered. The limit of slots for upgrading your character is not a great design decision though.

@odinsmana: He also comes home and kills his ex wifes boyfriend and drags her back to his home with force. They are then basicly living in house arrest while he rapes and beat the mom and gives the daugther "the best possible life". All jolly good ;)

I feel like some people compare souls Games with Witcher are missing the point of these games. One is very focused game that is all about the combat and enemy encounters. The other is open world rpg that combat is 40% of actual content. Someone is comparing to character action games like dmc, Bayonetta. Give me a break.

At no point did I compare it to Bayonetta. Go back and read what I wrote. I'm assuming I'm the one you're responding to since I'm the only one to mention Bayonetta here (in reference to how I play character-action games and to make the point I don't fundamentally like Witcher's combat because it doesn't fully let me control Geralt's actions the way other games do).

That's the second time now you've sought a meaning that wasn't there in something I wrote. I mean no offense, but you're coming off a little rude. Especially after I spent a lot of time trying to clarify what I said and have gone out of my way to constantly clarify this is my opinion, I like this game, and like what you like. Sorry if this seems harsh. I just don't know how else to communicate this.

In my opinion, simply put: Attention to the Details. Every bit of this game is dripping with polish and detail, I cant wait for B&W later today.

If the game doesn't grab you immediately, I wouldn't recommend trying to like it. I made that mistake and ended up actively despising the game by the end.

I think the opposite is true. The reason this chapter is the de-facto favorite of so many players is, I feel, the fact that Geralt is such a stand in detective figure with no real particular standing in the events of the Red Baron's story. He might as well be Batman - all he has to do is figure out what happened. It resonates with people who, for them at least, the Witcher 3 is there first introduction to Geralt, whereas the diving into his backstory with Ciri quickly becomes an informative overflow.

I meant to imply that The Witcher as a video-game was among the first to use those themes among video-games. All fiction, fantasy or otherwise, uses stand-ins to convey real world issues, but even in the early 2000s, video games were not really a medium for conveying commentary on issues of any sort. Good guys were good guys, evil was evil, so on. But that mould started breaking around the first Witcher. I remember reading interviews with the development team at the time, talking about how the player shouldn't be quick to assume that an orcish type character, for instance, was instantly evil only because it was an Orc. Certainly, all fantasy fiction is a stand-in for conveying real-world proxies, but in terms of visiting the meaning behind 'good' and 'evil' used as definitions by the characters you interact with, I feel the Witcher 2 (and others - KOTOR2 for instance) were unique.

Right new patch, time to really try play this time!

@reap3r160: @artisanbreads: @mach_go_go_go: I just booted it up today in an attempt to dig into Hearts of Stone and prepare for Blood and Wine next weekend. I am a series vet as well and just loading up my save and looking at the character glossary after a year is really something. Some posters point out some issues on here (the combat is not that bad) but there are some fantastic things to dig through in this game.

The little moments that Mach gets into, the breaths of personality, the spaces for pathos that inject that intangible sense of heart into the game, heart that is seen in projects like Bound by Flame, Mass Effect, and Dragon Age Origins, but never executed on a scale like the Witcher 3. The Witcher 3 goes to exhaustive lengths to bring to life key exposition scenes and small character pieces alike. There is a small scene where Geralt talks to Roach, his trusty steed, about the qualities he desires in companions, facetiously projecting himself onto the horse and elaborating on his relationship to the name "Roach". There is another scene early on when Geralt can be guided back to the scene of a battlefield and a wholly unique track (as far as I am aware it is not used again) scores the scene of the destructive engagement and injects a sorrow into the the scene that I've rarely encountered in rpgs.

But these scenes don't even touch on the character work done in these games. Character work that somehow manages to remain respectfully to the novels it is derived from while remaining engaging to newcomers. AB already mentioned Dijkstra, but there is quite a cast of colorful, dynamic characters throughout this game, and really throughout the series. Annabelle's haunting storyline, Cerys' rise in Skellige (her playful relationship with Geralt is a solid example of the quality of writing to be found in the game), Thaler's as a cobbler, and Whoreson Junior's questline that dominates Novigrad, this small set of characters are just a small portion of the ones encountered in the game but I feel that the quality of writing that goes into all of the characters is, and remains, remains high for most of the game.

Speaking of Novigrad, wow what an accomplishment. Like how many times are urban areas properly depicted in games? GTA and the Assassin's Creed series are really the only examples that come to mind that feature cities that aren't horribly underpopulated and robotic. Novigrad feels huge and is artistically rendered to fantastic results. The harbor, the sprawling, distinct districts, and most importantly, the quests that take place within are fantastic and feel like it can justify its own game if placed in a vacuum.

I don't want to spoil more things about this game so I'll be stopping here. I've been a fan of RPGs for a long time and looking back at this game just reminds me of how much of a triumph it is. A lot of people have issues with the combat and movement, but I really think those systems are fine and they certainly didn't detract from the game (using Igni as a soft parry was when it all clicked for me). But yeah there it is. I love this game. It has made such a strong run at being my favorite game ever, which really speaks for itself.

Gwent. Gwent makes this game great.

So I got to the Nithel(sp? first wild hunt guy) fight. And I am by no means bad at games. I've played plenty of action rpgs/3rd person combat games(Dark souls, blood borne, batman, mordor, assassin's creed etc) and I have died maybe 6 times in a row.

Did I just underestimate how big crafting is, I have zero healing potions, damage is almost nil against him(my sword is busted which might be part of it but I can't repair it).

The only thing I've found to do is use my stun ability, get A SINGLE hit on him for minimal damage, and then wait 15 seconds to do it again and just a second hesitation on the dodge(which is sluggish to begin with) and I get smacked twice for a quarter of my health. This one boss fight has made me rage harder than any dark souls boss, or any other bosses I can think of in my years of gaming. Is there just something I'm not getting here? The story was starting to get interesting again, but then I hit this batch of mandatory sluggish, repetitive combat that I for some reason am just not getting.

Am I better off just restarting again, or loading a save outside of the cave and just buying a bunch of healing items and upgrading my gear? The leveling is another thing that seems off, I am way to low level for most of the quests I have(even the story one technically) but I don't see how I can level up anymore.

@reap3r160: When you say you don't have healing potions, do you mean you are out of them or you didn't craft the base healing potion at all?

Don't feel bad about your sword being broken. Mine was too for that fight the first time I played through. It was an unexpectedly long mission for me and I hadn't visited a blacksmith.

It sounds like you may be under geared and underleveled, but it should still be possible. Make sure you are not roll dodging. Sidestep instead. You'll get more spells cast that way. He was a tough fight for a friend of mine too. Kind of the first character who teaches you what kind of general pattern you have to follow in combat. Make sure you are using Quen to avoid taking damage. Cast it back up whenever he breaks it, but if you're dodging well he should not break it often. It's your safety net basically. It's easier to prevent damage than it is to heal it.

Oh and to clear up your confusion on how to level, do quests. Any quests that show up in your journal. They give the most chunks of xp. Don't think about grinding the question marks on the map for xp or monsters for xp . I made that mistake and couldn't understand why it was taking forever to lvl. Some quests are easier than the recommended lvl so take advantage of those. That being said, definitely go to the question marks on the map for gear. They give great free gear assuming you can find some events around your level.

@mezza: Thanks for the tips. I had actually forgotten about the shield. I'll give that a shot.

As for healing I was more referring to the food items as I didn't see a health potion, maybe I missed it?

As for the leveling, every quest I have is higher than my level by at least one. The only ones that are green are the story one, the one to find the Baron's daughter(i think that's who it was) and one to find a hunters wife, and then of course the gwent ones(do these give xp after you play someone new?). Note however, I am level 4 and the lowest of these is for level 6.

As a huge Witcher fan and replaying the first and second game countless times, the only good thing that came out of the Witcher 3 was the writing behind it. Everything else was very disappointing in terms of RPG mechanics, art style, and open world exploration.

Player progression is shallow, loot drops suck, every utility you're given is imbalanced by how weak they all are. Why the fuck is my sacrificing a perk point either going to give my quen a 5% chance to knock enemies down or a 5% increase in weapon damage? Why does the former exist? How come the developers were too fucking scared in making you feel stronger and ready for anything tough to overcome? Why does it take only one alcohol of any type to refill everything? Why is it so fucking easy to reach 99 dwarven alcohol in a measly five hours? Why did they remove preparation? How come weather and day-night conditions effect nothing about monster behavior unlike its predecessors? Why didn't they take advantage of their open world design by making the monster types they design dynamically create their own nests, infest certain pocks of land that perturb towns and villages, ect? Why did they take so many fucking steps back, causing their own game to be boring as fuck?

Seriously, if Witcher3's storytelling wasn't good this game would be appalling as hell. I wouldn't be able to finish this thing if I wasn't a Witcher fan. This game was a massive disappointment.

It's because Triss is really hot.

Otherwise it's just a neat world to be in, look at, and with a ton of fun/interesting quests. I never found the combat offensive, and it improved when all of your signs got more sophisticated. There were times when I had fun with it(especially with that sword you got from Hearts of Stone) which is more I can say of Witcher 2, where as I pretty much wished I never had to go through a combat sequence. Can't wait for tomorrow. I can't wait to explore a new place in that game.

@dan_citi: #TeamYen

@dan_citi: I assume you're talking about the expansion? If so it's already playable since about 4 hours ago (I got it from GOG).

@newhaap: Yup. I've been playing it and I'm enjoying it so far. Wineboys.

@reap3r160: You can get a formula for a healing potion that gives you 3 charges every time you meditate as long as you have alcohol. It heals a lot more and a lot faster than food. I think you can still make it, but you may have to back track or get it from a shop. Kiera may sell it.

Also don't worry about being a couple levels under. You want quests to be above your level otherwise you'll get reduced experience points because the game considers it too easy. Especially with the Baron quest. The mission you're on right now is one of the hardest out of the beginning of the two quest chains. If the wild Hunt fight is too hard you can quickly start the baron quest line and get some easy xp just for talking to people and walking around (there's more than that but I don't want to get too detailed).

I thiiiink the major Gwent quests give you xp if I remember right. Only the ones that tell you to play specific important people though. You won't get xp for just challenging merchants and random people.

If you have the opportunity to fast travel back to White Orchard, there are ruins scattered around that map which give you free skill points. You can boost your skill tree by a good 3 or 4 points to make yourself stronger this way.

Gwent

I think when it comes down to it, the storytelling is masterful. Now, that doesn't mean it's for everybody. Same way that Uncharted 4 is masterful storytelling, doesn't mean everyone will dig it. Apart from the subject matter, The Witcher isn't at all, in any way whatsoever, an American piece of fiction at all. And what I mean by that is that American storytelling, in general, tends to get to the point and resolution quicker and the theories of storytelling in America cater more to what American and Western audiences want. I think them sticking so much to the novels, and CDPR being a Polish developer same as the creator/writer of the novels, means that the storytelling is a little different than most Western pieces of storytelling.

Thus, you get some complaints about it spinning the wheels for so long. For anyone whose read the novels, it's not a problem because that was the more or less the approach it had.

But, storytelling, characterizations, the dialogue was pretty great also. I think if you want to see good characterizations of female characters, as well, The Witcher is a great piece of fiction that treats female characters as individuals with diverse sets of motivations, and characteristics. Women in the story of this game really forge their own path and aren't there to cater to the storytelling of the male lead. Hell, the most important and powerful character in the story is in fact a woman. It's nice to see the writing and storytelling actually treat female characters like characters, and not have the "we have strong female characters" only be this line of bs meant to convince people of it like you get in other media.

I love the combat, and exploration because the world is brimming with life. Even side-missions, or random one off events, all have narrative hooks that pulled me in. I remember the saying that you can't have an open world game filled with storytelling in everything because it's impossible, and too much work. Well, that's wrong because nearly everything you do in this game has a storytelling angle. One Witcher contract, something you thought may just be filler to check off the content box, has writing and dialogue and there's backstory and such to it all. I think The Witcher 3 has done something special by interweaving so much storytelling into the game and informing so much of this world that it's unlike anything I've ever seen before.

In the end, I think it depends on how into the subject matter and characters you are, and how important storytelling is to you. Also, I'm not listening to Polish Folk music. I blame the soundtrack to this game for that.

What makes it great for me might be something other people hate about the game.

I really like the world. I think it is the best example of world building that I've seen in a game. Every area of the game feels like it belongs and the villages feel lived in. The story quests are mostly great and every side quest has something solid behind it. There are no simple 'fetch' quests really. Yes the game uses a lot of the same mechanics over and over (holding LT to do Witcher vision), but even doing that it is different enough each time (for me at least).

I really like Geralt as a character and his story. People think he is bland but I liked role playing as him. My Geralt will always try to get the most money out of a contract, but he deep down really wants to help people. If he sees that people are under a proper hardship, he'll cut them a break or a deal. If they're just trying to knock down the price, stuff them. I liked the pacing of the game though I agree that the Dandelion section dragged a bit.

The environments are great. I think I added an extra 20 hours to my game by walking everywhere. I don't even mean not fast travelling, in the first 30 hours or so of the game I would often walk, not run or ride, through a lot of areas.

The combat is as deep or as light as you want to make it. I enjoy having to read the bestiary, using oils and the right signs and tactics. Fighting humans is tough and requires a different skill set, more parrying is required.

The first Witcher game I missed out on and really can't go back to it. The Witcher 2 was pretty good but didn't really grab me. I played 30 hours of it and stopped. I'm about 200 hours in and have just started Blood and Wine. I really like The Witcher 2, but I can see why it grates with some people.

Note: I don't play Gwent. I didn't get in to it early and now I'm too far in the game to even bother. Maybe on a second run eventually I'll get in to it.

Oh man, Gwent. I can't stop playing it. There's been more than one sitting where all I did, for hours, was just play Gwent. If they wind up releasing a stand alone Gwent game...it could mean the end of me.

Given the recent announcement I fear for you. :D

For me it was the vast open world that really drew me in. On the standard difficulty the combat really isn't that great but I had quite a bit of fun once I tuned up the difficulty, forcing me to make more use of my abilities. Of course that also kind of depends on how you build your character. For me the combat was the most fun when going up against large groups of enemies with an equal or higher level, forcing me to constantly be on my toes and having to keep moving all the time.

I also don't mind Geralt as a character. I actually kind of like him. I'd call him a lovable bastard.

@zevvion: Generally speaking the combat didn't feel sloggy or unresponsive to me. On a few occasions it did seem to not do exactly what I had intended but 90% of the time Geralt performed his moves and did his actions exactly as I intended and failure felt like it was largely a case of bad timing from my end.

@kazona: We've had different experiences there. But I will admit I am extremely critical when it comes down to stuff like this, moreso than other people. 90% still would be unacceptable to me.

I would like to add that i didnt find Witcher 3's main story to be THAT engaging. imo Witcher 2's story is vastly superior.

Like, dont't get me wrong, i still had a great time with this game and it has a lot of legit cool moments. It just felt like in order to get to those cool moments i had to slug through a pretty even amount of "meh" quests. It got especially tedious once i got to skellige. I also dont think that going open world helped this game in any way. It just artificially lengthened the time it took to get from a to b, add to that Roaches unbearable movement controls and pretty long loads on ps4 and the game had me fuming more than once.

Then again, im a player who more than anything appreciates a good story with decent pacing in his games. I can fully understand how people who just want to go off and explore the world would have a blast with the Witcher 3.