Archer88's forum posts

Avatar image for archer88
#1 Posted by Archer88 (359 posts) -

@deachem@yellownumber5 That's basically what The Witness is; fun gameplay and an interesting world without much of a payoff outside of a sense of accomplishment. A good 3/5 game IMHO.

Avatar image for archer88
#2 Posted by Archer88 (359 posts) -

Antichamber. It was a tight choice between that and Portal, but Antichamber gets the edge due to mindfuckery.

Avatar image for archer88
#3 Posted by Archer88 (359 posts) -

@paulmako said:
@archer88 said:
@paulmako said:

The graphics of Witcher 3 with the story, mechanics and world building of Fallout 4.

Best of both worlds.

Huh...if I were to combine those two I would only really want the setting and some of the mechanics from Fallout 4. Witcher 3 has superior story telling, world building and graphics.

I would argue that Fallout 4 has superior recoil, range and sighted accuracy but poor hip fire accuracy.

Fallout 4 jams every other clip, but that should be expected. After all, it is Bethesda made. Expecting them to change now is asking too much.

Avatar image for archer88
#4 Posted by Archer88 (359 posts) -

@frodobaggins said:

I also really don't like the way the go round the table and cut games, it gives the whole thing a certain edge. When compared to all the previous categories where games were brought up one at time and discussed as a group on their merits and flaws.

Jeff and Austins oppinions seemed to carry more weight than the rest of the crew. Dans arguments for and against games felt very flat, uninteresting and at times somewhat child like. Jasons oppinions seemed to get lost in the fray/not carry as much weight as the rest. Thought Alex did a good job throughout.

Finally, couldn't believe when Bloodborne was kicked from the list. As in, I actually thought it would come back on at some point because it seemed so absurd to me.

I know you said you consider @danryckert's opinions child-like, but to me his argument about The Witcher 3 rang strongest: nobody on staff finished it, even the one guy who genuinely liked it and didn't have a list of complaints for it. The staff all made time for long-as-fuck games like MGS V because they felt compelled to play it whereas they all dropped off The Witcher 3 over and over. It's crazy that they'd put The Witcher 3 on when no one finished it then exclude Life is Strange because the Beast crew (even though they all genuinely love it) simply haven't had time to finish it yet because they play it as a group as content for the site. They just need to come to terms with the fact that it's OK to say that some parts of The Witcher 3 are really strong, but ultimately as an overall package they just don't like it. It's OK.

And yeah, I also thought it was crazy that Bloodborne got cut for the reasons it did: because it doesn't give you the freedom to replicate the Souls experience. Like, it's not a Souls game, Brad! Yes, it looks and plays a lot like one, but regardless, it is not one and shouldn't be judged by how it measures up to Souls standards. Bloodborne was a focused experience that wanted you to play in a certain style. There are plenty of legitimate things to knock Bloodborne for, like all the ways it follows Dark Souls II in regressing from the improvements Dark Souls made (i.e. having to warp to the Hunter's Dream to level, consumable health rather than an Estus Flask equivalent), but it's not fair to cut it just because it doesn't let you play the kind of build you'd normally play in a Souls game. To me, the biggest thrill with Bloodborne was that it forced me as a Souls veteran out of my comfort zone in a way Dark Souls II didn't. It's kinda maddening to hear them all boot Bloodborne -- a game they all liked -- off the list and stick on The Witcher 3 -- a game they all dropped off of but feel the need to publicly recognize its perceived quality and prestige.

With regards to The Witcher 3, it wasn't that some part were really strong, it's that certain aspects of the game were better than any other game that came out this year, regardless of whether or not they finished it. Playing through to the end of the Bloody Baron/"Family Matters" quest line left enough of an impression that it earned a spot on the list, and likely took as much of a time investment as several other games on the list that they did finish. It really is a shame they didn't finish TW3. There are so many rad moments in that game that likely would have propelled it into a better spot on the list. That being said, in the end they judged it based upon what they had played, and it still made it to number 10. That should be seen as a testament to the strength of the game, not an indication that it wasn't very good.

As for the argument that they took the time to play through other long-as-fuck games, the difference there is the driving force. The Witcher 3 is driven by it's story, which is best consumed in longer play sessions and sustained play until completed. Once you drop off or break it up, you lose investment in the characters, the quests, the world and the story as a whole and as a result have less of a reason to go back to it. The other story driven games that were up for discussion (Undertale, Life is Strange, SOMA, Cradle, Cibele, etc.) benefit from being a)short or b)episodic. It's much easier to finish a story driven game that is over in five hours or has set break points that are designed to wrap up plot lines and be walked away from until the next episode drops. So what about other games that they invested a significant amount of time into? They're all mechanics driven. Super Mario Maker, MGSV, Rocket League, Kerbal Space Program, Splatoon, Invisible Inc. Even when present the story is secondary. MGSV was easy to stop and start because it had strong mechanics and an open world that encouraged creativity with a story and characters that were largely background noise. While I enjoyed the mechanics of The Witcher 3, it wasn't why I wanted to keep playing. This is likely true for most fans of the game.

Avatar image for archer88
#5 Edited by Archer88 (359 posts) -

@paulmako said:

The graphics of Witcher 3 with the story, mechanics and world building of Fallout 4.

Best of both worlds.

Huh...if I were to combine those two I would only really want the setting and some of the mechanics from Fallout 4. Witcher 3 has superior story telling, world building and graphics.

Avatar image for archer88
#6 Posted by Archer88 (359 posts) -

Here's a secret: Butter your bread first. Makes every PB sandwich better, and makes PB toast fucking amazing.

Avatar image for archer88
#7 Posted by Archer88 (359 posts) -

I think it's a shame nkne of them played the Hearts of Stone dlc for The Witcher 3. Excellent Witchery story in a shorter more digestible package. I'd even say that if treated like a separate release it would stand a chance at taking best story.

I can understand TW3 not winning best story. While enjoyable, it expects a lot from the player, especially in terms of keeping up with the lore. The Witcher is far better suited for the Best Moment category. Bloody Baron, Finding Ciri, Battle of Kaer Morhen, Drunk dialing the mage (in drag no less), Through Time and Space, Cat and Wolf, etc. And then there's the DLC...

Seriously guys, Hearts of Stone is amazing.

Avatar image for archer88
#8 Posted by Archer88 (359 posts) -

@fear_the_booboo: Yeah no worries.Your comments were fair.I was just talking about the discussion around The Witcher 3, in general.

Avatar image for archer88
#9 Posted by Archer88 (359 posts) -

@fear_the_booboo: We'll have to agree to disagree. I never had an issue with the movement or the timing, both before and after the patch. It was pretty clear to me from the start that movement had momentum, much like GTA, and I played the game accordingly. I can understand people disliking that, but The Witcher 3 is hardly the first game to handle that way.

As for not wanting to engage with the systems, that's fine. You can play the game how you see fit. I wouldn't say you're playing it wrong, I just think you are missing out on part of what makes the game enjoyable. I would be bored too if I never delved into the signs/crafting/alchemy/etc.

My point isn't that Dan fucked up by not playing the game a certain way, it's that he, and others, may have enjoyed it more if they changed the difficulty. There's an argument to be made that the game should be engaging and the systems interesting at any difficulty level, and I can accept that as a criticism of the game and why it isnt deserving of a higher spot. I also don't think his opinion is wrong per se. Like everyone else he can like whatever he likes. I just don't agree, and there's nothing wrong with that. At the end of the day I just think The Witcher 3 is a game worth experiencing and I want to encourage people to give it a shot.

As an aside, since when is having a healthy discussion about a game "being butthurt"? Comments like that produce a toxic environment and doesn't really fit with Giantbomb, IMHO.

Avatar image for archer88
#10 Edited by Archer88 (359 posts) -

@asilentprotagonist said:

Completely agree with Dan on Witcher 3. I could write a really long critique on everything that game did wrong. Scary to think how much praise it gotten..ugh. However MGS is way too high for my liking, but Dan is a blind fanboy of the series.

Please start :) ... the game had hands down the best storyline/quests in and RPG at least this year. It was really really good looking, had great music and voice acting, great combat and was actually a deep RPG.

I think this is what a lot of people will criticize The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt for, which I don't really understand. Clearly they didn't play at an appropriate difficulty level. Blood and Broken Bones or Death March actually makes signs, alchemy and combat prep necessary for you to excel. With those elements thrown into the mix I don't see how anyone could argue that it is boring and one dimensional. If I played every game on easy so I didn't have to use more advanced mechanics I might call them boring too.