What makes this game great?

Hi all,

New Giant Bomb Premium subscriber here, I just wanted to get some feedback from the community on a subject that has been bugging me since the release of Wild Hunt.

I got Wild Hunt with my gpu when I built my computer last year, I've repeatedly tried coming back to it, starting from scratch a few times. The furthest I've gotten(where I currently am) is right where you meet the Witch and are going through the cavern(sorry if that's not specific enough). No matter what I do though, I just can't get into it. The combat is simplistic and repetitive and Geralt just as a character seems completely emotionless, which maybe that's how it is supposed to be but it makes it hard to connect with his character.

With it becoming a topic of discussion again on the podcasts here and there with the new DLC coming out and going back to listen to the GotY discussions again, I feel like I am missing a big part of recent video game releases and want to know why so many people seem to enjoy the heck out of Witcher 3. So what am I not seeing? Am I just not far enough in? Are there mechanics I'm not paying enough attention to(crafting, alchemy, etc)? I'd like to know the communities thoughts as an open discussion.

Thanks duders!

The story, characters, combat, the quests, the world itself, the music. There's not much I didn't like. (Also I wouldn't exactly call Geralt emotionless. He tries to present himself like he is, but there are plenty of moments he presents legitmate emotion that greatly strengthen his representation as a character.)

Sounds like it just might not be for you. Not every game that is highly praised is going to appeal to everyone. That being said, I recommend at least completing the Bloody Baron questline. If you make it to the end of that and still feel nothing then the game isn't for you.

I pretty much ditto this. The combat is polarizing (personally I like it), but other than that pretty everyone who likes the game likes it because of the story and characters. If those aren`t hooking you it might just not be your thing.

I'm not into it either. I also tried several times to get into it and I did, but at some point I just fall off. I think the quests are good and well written and the world building is nice. I know the part you're talking about. I remember stepping into that witch's 'savehaven' of sorts, and it looked super cool. But more and more I am discovering just how much I value gameplay. It just doesn't have it. The combat is pretty bad. Unresponsive, sloggy and very unsatisfying. Not uncommon for a giant RPG, but I just don't want to waste my time playing that stuff anymore. I want to have a good time; not suffer through something so I can see how the story and quests play out.

Consider put the difficulty on hard (assuming you are on normal) if you think the combat is repetitive, that way you are forced to use all the tools in your disposal.

Also i think Geralt's emotionlessness is very much intentional, an important part of the story is how he's supposed to be emotionless but he constantly struggles with staying that way because the situation he gets into and the people around him. If you like colorful characters i would recommand go to Novigrad and finish Triss' story questline.

I was right there with you and, having finished it after 50 hours of gameplay, the game never gets really better. If your problem with the combat is that it is shallow, maybe raising the difficulty and dabbling with the potion system will make it more interesting to you. That being said, if you think the way Geralt moves make the combat unsatisfying, there is nothing that will change that.

I also think that Geralt is kind of a boring character. Some of the secondary characters fare better but nothing beats the Baron/Crones quests at the beginning of the game. It succeeds in achieving nuance and tackling hard topics this once, but a lot of the later storylines made me think the game was too self-serious for its own good. Some attemps at tackling racism with the elves are so cliched that the game is downright laughable.

I'm not trying to dismiss anybody that loved the game and it has a lot of great stuff. The scale of the world and the artistic direction I think are top notch. It's a great and well made game by video games standards for sure, but it didn't click for me and never did. I powered through because so many of my friends told me it would get better, it really does not.

My advice is this: if you don't like the game after 7-8 hours of gameplay, I doubt you will like it more later.

I liked everything about save for the combat system. It was just terrible in every way.

I spent about ten hours with this. Good game (combat is iffy, but probably gets better later with access to more abilities) but there's nothing compelling me to return to it. No hook whatsoever.

Honestly, that kinda made it worse for me, because there's nothing satisfying about opening the menu and scrolling through that awful inventory screen to look for the right oils every encounter (it didn't help that I was playing on PS4 before there was any kind of "storage", so those screens got more and more bogged down and laggy as the game progressed).

But yeah, I'll echo the sentiment on writing, characters, and exploration being what I liked about it. Consider finishing the Bloody Baron/Witch questlines, because the later parts of those quests is what really got me hooked on the game.

Wow, it's crazy to think that people don't enjoy this game.

For me its one of the best game ever, hands down. I love everything about it- the combat system included.

The big draw for me is the Witcher universe in general though. I'd say it's my favorite fantasy world and I'm super excited to see where CD Projekt Red takes it in the future. I think it's full of possibilities.

All I can say is, maybe check out more of the lore? Possibly read some of the books(available online), or try the first game out? This series is super dense when it comes to narrative. If gameplay is what your after you may never really enjoy the game, but if you enjoy great writing full of political intrigue, racism, monsters, mages, elves, dwarves witchers and how they all mingle together then keep playing.

Another big reason I love this series is because it doesn't feel like the typical power fantasy games that seem to be saturating the market. Games where you are the center of the universe and the world revolves around your every decision.

No, in the Witcher you feel like just another monster slayer, trying to survive in a crazy world that's on the brink of an apocalypse.

I've played 36 hours of the Witcher 3 on the second hardest difficulty. The combat is comfortable enough once you get used to it, but I also wouldn't call it enticing. It's satisfying to defeat an enemy gracefully, but the mechanics are shallow. Light and heavy attacks, a handful of powers and potions that often feel too powerful or too weak. For me the biggest draw has been the overarching story and the stories of the isolated side quests. To be more specific, I'm more interested in the world and random characters than the main characters. Right now that's enough to keep me playing. I have no previous experience with the Witcher series in any media, so I don't know exactly how the characters have been developed outside this exact experience.

The main characters are sometimes laughably uninteresting. Geralt is supposed to be an emotionless mutant warrior ostracized by society. The game says this over and over, but it's clearly not the case. He shows very strong emotions to other characters, makes puns, and is fortunately quite pretty despite the horrors of his training and life. He's a transparent vehicle for power fantasy. He's simultaneously no one and potentially anyone so the player can make him who they want to be. This is fine, but it clashes with the character from a story perspective and takes away any potentially interesting story to tell with his character. I've laughed out loud at how ridiculous some of the dialogue is written or delivered. The characters the game expects you to be invested in are, in my opinion, really boring and flat. Sometimes it's hard to tell whether or not an adult wrote Triss' lines considering how childish or out of place they are on occasion.

But then on the other hand you're telling me about how this spectre is haunting a well up the road, and also these people are missing and nobody really knows what's going on up there. What's the deal with that? That sounds like it could be cool. A giant, hind-walking cat keeps stealing wares from the market? What do cats need rings for, they don't even have fingers! Or that there's these people from another dimension/reality and they're all weird and scary and stuff? What do they think of puns? I need to know!

When the writers/designers don't have to tell you the story of these lifeless main characters they get to share some interesting ideas and design fun experiences for the player. That's why I keep playing.

Also the horses seem broken. Hold shift to keep them on the road, but then they'll scrape a tree/obstacle, get clear of it, then decide to stop the horse completely.

Isn't that pretty much the whole point of Geralt's character though? He supposed to be cold and detached, to be neutral and professional, but he's not, he's very much a human being. I haven't read much of the books but a recurring theme is that Geralt is totally not neutral and often don't abide by his Witcher code.

I think the choices you make fit Geralt's character very well in these games, because he's kind of a hypocrite. There are enough blanks to fill in by the player to give a sense of agency over him. But the choices are so muddy and shades of gray that they very rarely feel like they clash with Geralt's already established personality.

@zevvion: Weird, I really like the combat because of its responsiveness and depth. The several mechanics it forces the player to engage with (bombs, traps, signs, and oils) on higher difficulties I found to be very satisfying.

Correct. In the books, Geralt struggles with what a witcher should be and what he actually is/does. It's a defining trait or a main character flaw depending on how you look at it. It shows up in his actions around the world, in his love life with Yennifer, and Ciri calls him out on it at times. For example, he wouldn't have received the Butcher of Blaviken title if he was exactly what a Witcher is supposed to be. So the player actually making him do things out of character for a witcher isn't so very out of character for Geralt. Granted they do have to strip him of some things to make way for the player to make their own choices.

It's hard to explain without writing an essays worth of opinions. I'll try my best

The Witcher 3 is like Bethesda and Bioware made a game baby. Bethesda games are massive and well detailed, but feel flat and robotic, and a lot of the quests are tedious. Bioware games have intimate, well written stories/quests with a cast of memorable characters, but its very linear.

The Witcher 3 is the best of both worlds.

The combat isn't perfect, but it's pretty good for this type of game. It's much more rewarding/deliberate on a higher difficulty.

The fact that even minor things like side quests, bounty missions, loot, treasure, etc are given decently fleshed out narratives is absurd/amazing. There are very few things in this game that feel tedious, and the things that are like that aren't a major part of the content. They're just there to flesh out the world. In most open world games 50% of the content is bullshit fetch quests. The Witcher never felt that way to me.

And yeah, Geralt is supposed to be emotionless. It's apart of witcher lore that when they are mutated they lose things like emotion, ability to empathize easily, other things that make us human. I find his nihilistic attitude and reactions to stupid things priceless.

With all that said, you don't have to like something just because a lot of people do. It's fine if you don't like it, and dont put alot of effort into liking it. For me I loved the game and am super excited for the expansion next week, but I can still respect/understand why someone might not feel the same way

I actually really like Geralt as a character, but I agree with the combat. I couldn't get into the game either. Idk. I think a lot of it has to do with having too much of the typical open-world design, which I find hard to like. I thought the fact that it was an RPG would make a difference since I like Elder Scrolls, but I guess it's just not enough like Elder Scrolls. The writing may be way better, but the world feels so much shallower. If it had tighter controls (less GTA, more Infamous), then I could maybe force myself to get into it, but as it is I don't think I'll be playing any more of it. Shame really. There are a lot of things I like about it and it seems like a quality product. I just hate the way it feels to actually play, and a typical open-world is much less interesting to me than smaller, denser, discreet levels would have been.

One of the standout lines (from the books or games, I don't remember) is him thinking that they screwed up his Witcher ceremony somewhere, because he knows he's supposed to be cold and detached like a Witcher should, but deep down he knows he's not, and it often leads him into conflicts a Witcher would normally avoid. He's not human, but he's not a normal Witcher either. That's why he's the lead character and not some other Witcher.

Exploration for me finding new missions once you think you found them all. I install the game again for the DLC next week and I thought I did every mission but I found at these 5 new missions it felt great.Also the soundtrack I find is very relaxing combat is definitely the weak link for this game but the positives still out weight the negatives I can't wait for cyberpunk 2077.

These are both fair points. I hadn't seen anything in this game to suggest the writers' awareness of this hypocrisy in his character so for me it felt more like a mistake than a choice in design. That's one of the problems of coming into a series late; you don't need to know everything that's happened before but some things can be important and are difficult to repeat without becoming tedious to the long-time fans.

Characters, writing, story, acting, visual design, probably one of the only games with entertaining side quests, conclusion to a wonderfully well adapted trilogy.

I started playing this again recently and, well, as everyone has said - pretty much everything except the combat is great. I enjoyed the combat but it's not very demanding on lower difficulties and it's kind of obnoxious on higher ones. I understand why people like it, but I wasn't fond of depending on potions/oils/grenades/etc while playing The Witcher 2 and I'm not really fond of it here either, especially since you can only keep four things on a shortcut. The default difficulty is just right for me.

This thread is a pretty good summary of what you're going to find about this game. A lot of it comes down to how you feel about the combat. I personally don't really like it. I often describe it to friends as "watching someone try to LARP Dark Souls." It just doesn't feel good to me. And the game already has some serious pacing issues, so its not something that is made better to me by adjusting difficulty and extending combat that already feels bad. But I also get why this is "the" game for some people, as it does a lot of other things rather well. Its certainly a game with some amazing production values.

Anyway, don't feel you're somehow in some super minority if you find yourself bouncing off of the game. It's not for everyone.

I have tried to play this game several times now, but I just don't like it. The only thing I like about it is that it looks nice. I don't really like the dialogue, the characters, the gameplay... So yeah, I have pretty much given up on playing through it. Which annoys me, since so many people seem to like it like a whole lot. I kinda want to feel the same way, but I just don't.

Accidentally deleted my post on mobile, but basically I loved everything about the game. Never had a problem with the movement but they added an option in the settings if that was an issue at all. I love the combat and never got the dark souls comparison at all, it feels nothing like it and if anybody is playing it like or expecting it to be dark souls then of course you will be upset cause it's completely different. I'm honestly finding it a bit disturbing that any semi difficult combat game is "dark souls" or compared to souls in some way, like just let it be its own thing you know? I played all 3 games so I grew attached to the returning characters and i thought they did a good job of making the quest for Ciri feel important to Geralt. I spent hours and hours doing side quest missions of hunting down monsters and reading the lore to find weaknesses and doing detective quests to find them. Obviously the game world is beautiful and felt full of life with plenty of things to do that felt interesting IMO. I always loved how the witcher games just seemed like a guy dealing with his own shit while big world changing stuff happened around him, and even though this one felt a bit more important it still gave me that "I just want to save my daughter" feel.

I won't harp on anybodys opinion as someone who absolutely hated playing the last of us I undertand not every acclaimed game is good to everybody.

I still haven't finished the game because after MGSV came out i never got back to it, but i sunk 120 hours into it and plan on going back and finishing it along with the dlc's .

@cav829: What do you mean for "some" people? I thought it was recognized by majority of critics and gamers that it is a great game? I thought sales and universal acclaim are proof?

@oursin_360: Why you hated tlou? I thought W3 and Tlou themes shared few things in common and the writing in those games are a few notches above most games.

Whoa, you sound kinda aggressive and his post doesn't really warrant that.

All he really means is that for some, Witcher 3 was pretty much a mindblowing game. Not just one that got a lot of critical acclaim, one that does everything they want to see in a game exceptionally well, better than pretty much anything before and probably better than pretty much anything after for a long time.

In any case, nothing is universally acclaimed. I've come across a handful of posts that call the new Doom boring and that's fucking unfathomable to me, but that's subjectivity for you.

@justin258: Sorry, it was not the intention. I was curious. I thought overall consensus based on word of mouth and critics are very positive? Maybe I misunderstood by the specific wording. My bad.

And doom is kinda boring dude, it's good combat and solid level design, but I want more from my entertainment than that. I maybe even prefer Doom 3.

@edgaras1103: the story and characters were great (at least for the few hours I ) but I hated the actual gameplay. It controlled like. A modern manhunt and I fucking hated manhunt(another game that I thought I'd like). I may try and go back to tlou one day but man it left a sour taste, I guess naughty dog is just not great at combat IMO.

It has everything a great game needs , and does it phenomenally well .

@oursin_360: Oh man, the same exact criticism can be directed to Witcher 3 by some people. Then again a lot of people have problems with GTA 5 controls and I quite like the weighty feel to it.

I loved everything about Doom, though. I feel like it's just the perfect mix of everything, from story to gameplay to level design. But then, I'm the kinda guy who would have loved everything about Doom if there weren't any story and the levels were just there and you had no idea why. (I also liked Doom 3 a lot more than most.)

I thought overall consensus based on word of mouth and critics are very positive?

Yes, but that doesn't mean that everyone will love something that much. It just means that people generally accept that The Witcher 3 is a great game. Some will love something so much that it becomes "the game" to them, meaning they will play it for hours on end and dwell on it and spend some of their days thinking about it. Some will hate it. If you're looking for what most people will do, most people will play a great game, perhaps finish it, look back on their time positively, and move on with their lives.

The thing that stood out to me is that the world just exists and everyone is known to this world, Geralt has been living in this world for a long time and knows its in and outs. You're playing Geralt and not player that needs to be explained what everything is.

@justin258: Really? I think lack of story is my main issue with the game, I like the concept but not the execution. I also feel guns don'f feel as powerful compared to Wolfenstein TNO. Like I want more kick out of them, even shotgun just feels alright so far. There's no "oomph".

If you can't recognise what's great about The Witcher I'm not sure what can be said. I never seem to have this issue with well received games. Even if I don't enjoy them, I always see why others would, even though it perhaps doesn't speak directly to me.

A lot of side content, and most of it good; after 200 hours, I was still finding things to do where you'd walk up to a random NPC and take a minuscule quest with a cutscene, but a quest nonetheless. The great open world, with mostly beautiful music to accompany it. Beloved characters that'll be a joy to see (and sad not to once the story is finished). In this case, along with the overall story, I do recommend people play the first two games. I think for an open world game that deals with swords, it controls well in and out of combat. After 270 + hours of playing in the same game (as in, not starting a new game plus), I still have the joy of just walking around the environments, whether that to be just to do that, or to see if I missed anything, which I think there is a good chance of. I'm excited for Blood and Wine, and 40 hours is quite a lot more to go.

I will say though, once you reach the level of 38 and 39, it's extremely hard to go up more. I'm at 39 all those hours in, and I find it hard to go up more. I'm about 800 points shy from 40, and enemies I fight now give little. It's not near the highest level either, but it's also high enough for anything you'd need or want to do. Also, I like Geralt a lot. Him not showing emotion is a part of the story, and in this, it kind of (kind of) shines through as things he feels about potentially break away from him. He also mentions at one point that he can't cry or something due to his training. I do agree that the combat is simplistic, but I've come to the conclusion it's not in how it works that makes it simplistic, but again, due to story reasons: it's the weapons Geralt is allowed to use. If I am correct, I think you're talking about the part where you're with Keira Mets, or maybe Philippa Eilhart (though neither of which are near the beginning).

About Geralt though, I got the feeling that he had feelings, but had a hard time showing it due to what he went through. I didn't get the feeling he was emotionless because he simply didn't care. I think you have to understand his character. While it's not really relatable, as any normal person would feel for certain, simple emotions, Geralt is quite interesting. He isn't lacking high morals.

@reap3r160: do you like rpgs where you don't create your charecter ?

I think the side quests are more interesting than most games. The story is pretty good too despite being pretty straight forward and predictable. It also has a lot of interesting characters(not Geralt, he fucking sucks).

That said, the combat is subpar, the UI is atrocious, it has one of the worst leveling up systems I've ever seen in a RPG, a lot of the armor is hideous and the open world is pretty but way too big for no reason and pretty uninteresting outside of quests. It doesn't have the great environmental story telling that Bethesda games have. Despite all that, it was probably one of my 5 favorite games from last year.

Yep, this is what I meant. I Like if you wanted some kind of almost meaningless unbiased recognition that in fact Witcher 3 is a well-made game, I think you'd find few people would argue with you. But it's a game that certainly hit for a group of people in the way say Persona 4 or Mass Effect 2 hit for me personally. And I actually can say I totally see that perspective.

Even knowing the game's combat has its fans, I think there's a bit of a phenomena with the RPG genre where gameplay involving combat is almost seen as rather unimportant. I do think RPG fans tend to be pretty forgiving with combat gameplay as its not what people go to the genre for. And this does seem to lead to some of the reason of say big Witcher 3 fans not understanding why this might sink the game for some people, or for people who didn't like the game not understanding why it's some players' favorite game. It honestly reminds me of some of the divide between people who thought Mass Effect 2 was one of the greatest games ever and people who thought it was a mediocre cover shooter.

ME 2 isn't the greatest cover shooter ever, but to me its close enough to what the better cover shooters in the genre do that it worked for me. Action RPGs rarely are "the best" at whatever combat style they're trying to replicate. So even with the more popular ones, I think there's always a dividing point between where it was good enough for this group of players, but for others it just didn't work.

I found it to be complex, but not having too much depth. I played one short of the highest difficulty and didn't have to use anything over combo's except signs. It is legitimately one of the worst combat systems I've played with. You don't control Geralt, you can only tell him what to do and then he decides how to do it. Pressing X one time can yield a very different move from pressing X another time. Sometimes I can get attacks in just before I see an enemy attacking, other times I start attacking first and they still hit me first because Geralt is doing an uncalled for pivot before striking. Twice. Same button, same situation. It doesn't help that none of it has polish. It's an unfair comparison, but games like Ninja Gaiden or DMC have great combat, partly because if you press a button, shit happens. Immediately. In W3 stuff happens anywhere between 0.1 and 0.8 seconds after you pressed the button. The game feels very sloggy. It's different from Dark Souls where the movements are deliberate. There is still an exactness to that game that W3 just lacks. It's not consistent.

It's not good when a game has me yelling: 'Oh goddamnit, just do what I tell you!' at the screen.

Its quite ok not to like the game:)...people have different gaming tastes. Also some people seem to like the combat while some people think combat is one of the worst things in the game.

While the combat can be a bit clunky at times for me the combat in witcher 3 seems to be pretty responsive with the sidestepping and rolling options. But as I said tastes vary.

I love the combat and I don't think it's simplistic at all. Also I can't understand why people think it's bad, I mean sure if you don't like it but that still doesn't make it bad.

Super boring game for me too but I still felt good for buying it (and the others) since I just love CD Project's philosophies. Maybe some day if internet dies and I'm alone for a month with a PC, maybe then will I finally play it proper.

You could totally flip this logic on its head and say that just because some people enjoy it, it doesn't make the combat "good". When I played it, the combat felt clunky and awkward. There was way too much importance on animation as opposed to responsiveness (they even patched the movement at some point, but I can't tell the difference because Geralt still had the turning radius of a small tank). All of the animations for attacks had weight to them, but the visual feedback from those hits connecting never matched those animations and made everything feel messy to me.

Aside from that stuff which is probably more personal, there just isn't much variety in enemy tactics/AI or your own strategies. It's a long game and it wears thin fast. They did a good job of switching stuff up in the last DLC, so hopefully they keep that up for the next one.

The combat is what it is, but I really enjoy the mechanics of investigation and preparation before fights, those are pretty novel concepts for me that I don't need to see in other games but they work here. I also loved the story and world, I never really got into Game Of Thrones but this really scratched that itch.

I don't think the combat is bad, and I have also never seen combat as being something that makes or breaks a huge open world RPG. All of the Elder Scrolls game have horrific combat, and that is almost always said to be "not the point". In comparison, Witcher 3's combat is fast, fluid and most importantly makes you feel like a badass Witcher. Dodging and dancing around enemies is just a lot of fun.

To me, Witcher 3 will probably go down as one of the all time greats in the RPG genre. Its just such a quality product throughout. All from story, to world building, to graphics I just love the game so much. Just riding around and exploring is one of my favorite things to do in the game, because the world and characters are so engrossing. There is so much quality there, and its also one of the very densest games I have ever played. The amount of things to do in the game is almost ridiculous.

To enjoy it, I think you mainly have to like the world and characters, and just let yourself be absorbed in it. Its not really a game to just rush through and be done with, you really should just dedicate a hundred hours to it and let it take its time. Its a big ask, but I think that is when the game is at its best.

Cannot wait for Blood and Wine to come out, and I will do every little thing there is in that thing. And then probably start on a new game+.

I don't think I have ever experienced what you are describing. The light attack does all the different animations roughly the same speed, and same goes for the heavy. I also don't feel the lag I have seen some people talk about, I think it feels like any other game.

That makes you bad at the combat, that doesn't make the combat itself bad.

Best parts of Witcher 3 are the writing and world-building. Pretty much the whole reason I played the game. I didn't love the combat, but I was happy to put up with it for the next cutscene or conversation.

Literally none of the reasons I gave in that post are reflective of skill. The animations, responsiveness and AI are going to be the same no matter how "good" I get at the game.

That's exactly makes the combat bad. He explained it better than I ever could. It's sloggy and unresponsive. Dark Souls is slow, deliberate combat with animation priority. That is how you do that type of combat right. W3 is not that. It controls poor. The animation priority is poor and inconsistent. The intended weight to the movements is not equal with what is shown on screen.

It's totally fine if you enjoyed the combat, but that doesn't make it good. In a sequel, they could keep the system exactly as it is, not add any other features or change anything apart from the issues described above and you would love the combat even more. Because it would be the exact same system except it would work properly.