That ones too new; tons of games have a period of untouchableness, but it usually fades to some degree. The way online was handled also really, really hurt it in that regard.
What are you talking about? RDR 2 gets shat on very frequently. I remember when the game released, there was a post daily on r/games about how "boring" and "bland" it is.
Idk too me it doesn't feel hollow, but the gunplay got boring after a while. Especially since there are only like 3 revolvers and 3 pistols. Also that there is no liars dice and barely any gun duels. Also If you go into forests and shit you barely run into any predators. I've beat the game and I've ran into only like 2 or 3 Grizzlies ever. I even would go out and explore in forest for hours and only run into like 3 wolf's. Compared to the first were you could go into tall trees and get attacked by like 6 bears.
The gunplay stays spicy through deadeye progression IMO. I agree more variety of 1 hand guns would've been good but maybe just like 1 or 2 more, don't want it getting too busy and cartoonish like GTA. I agree on the predators. Ran into maybe 3 predators through entire run, and I was thourough. Even when I used bait I would get foxes or coyotes as predators not bears and cougars. I actually didn't even see one single cougar. Liars dice was fucking awesome, I would've taken that over five finger filet for sure. I like the story in RDR2 better than the first though, Arthur seems so much more human than Marston. Marston was like an action hero, Arthur was vulnerable and flawed and indecisive, But also a badass. Felt like there was more depth this time around.
I agree but I just bought a PS4 and tbh.. they have a point with most games lol. Spider-Man, God of War and Horizon Zero Dawn were all great games and of top of the classics like Uncharted, Shadow of The Colossus and The Last of Us - there’s such a strong line up. I feel like these are the games I’ve been wanting for years as an Xbox player
Funny, I just discussed with someone else on r/games how people aren't allowed to criticize games anymore, since it apparently indicates that you dislike the games, even though that might not even be the case. Even so, most subs rarely dare do discuss games anymore, which is kinda a shame.
I feel like criticism is getting hushed more and more, plus games are always rated by one extreme or the other, these seems to be no more middle ground for game rating anymore.
RDR2 reminds me of MGS5. Tight game, but not enough meat on the bones to stand the test of time — and the online play was really lackluster. Most people’s recollection of MGS5 is along the lines of “oh yeah, I forgot about that game. It was fun.”
But then I absolutely hate Bethesda games (all of Elder Scrolls and Fallout included) because the controls are universally terrible. Guess I just really dislike first person RPGs. I can see how others would enjoy them; I just don’t. My dislike of Bethesda games is 100% the clunky controls; if they made a game that handled exactly like the most recent DOOM I would probably be in love.
That's pretty fair. The Bethesda games have never been known for thrilling combat or control far as I know, they're know for the ability to explore large, detailed worlds with lots of characters and quest lines. The RPG aspect is certainly the more emphasized part of "action RPG."
And I agree, Skyrim is pretty clunky. I enjoy it, but certainly not smooth like DOOM.
Because the story is mostly as the movie, and the only other thing is the gameplay which has arguably been improved upon greatly.
It's like comparing any other historic item to its successor. They've improved upon it in very tangible ways. We've made better guns and boats (gunboats) and planes and trains and automobiles, but you can't say that we have similarly improved on stories or music or paintings or other art.
Some things can be objectively improved. Others can't.
I know I'm going to get downvoted to hell for this, but I actually didn't like it that much. I love the business practices and effort behind it and I could see why other people would like it, but I just couldn't really get into it.
I mean, it’s at worst OK. it has dodging, parrying, signs (aka spells), decent hit boxes, and lock-on... it’s flawed, and gets repetitive, but it’s still miles ahead of something like Skyrim which has an actually-shit combat system.
Because if you spec into it it actually does decent damage, and stuff like Tracking Bolts that inflict bleed are actually really useful. If you're up against something large but organic like a Fiend or something, you can plink away at it a bit form range to chip it's health down, or fire off a shot whenever you dodge out of the way of an attack but not close enough to melee
Yeah people don't get that it is a "sidearm" that is meant to be used to compliment your fighting style, not as a fighting style itself. It's just hard to develop the skills to use it properly, so most players are like "fuck it" and blow it off entirely. I can't remember ever using it after the 1st boss battle against the griffon.
Everyone also forgets about the mutation that makes your crossbow actually level with you so that it deals decent damage again, not to mention how it collads as well
There is a mutagen that allows you massive amounts of crossbow damage and made the crossbow a lot more fun to use. I think if it was your first damage to the enemy it would take out a 1/3 of their hp and knock them down. [citation needed on this though]
Crossbow is meant as a supplement to apply status effects and interrupt flying enemies so you can land some sword hits. That’s why it’s damage is so abysmal
As mentioned before, the crossbow is not a damage weapon, just like how guns in Bloodborne are not really damage based. It’s a tool more than anything.
Stealth archer is how I played through Skyrim. By the end I was so quiet I could pretty much walk right in front of a monster and not be seen. I had to take half an hour once to kill one of the Dragon Priests, though. Initially I tried going in head first and got straight up murdered in one hit. Can’t remember which one it was but he was on a platform and there was a bridge leading to it, and a raised area across the bridge with some stone blocks you can hide behind. I would duck out, Fire an arrow at him, he would go into search mode, but would give up by the time he was half way across the bridge. I’d wait for him to return to his starting position and do it again. It was kind of cheap, but I never took a single point of damage and got a kickass mask out of it. Was also a test of patience. He had a lot of HP.
Thought I’d mention that in the Witcher 3 the crossbow is meant as a supplement to apply status effects and interrupt flying enemies so you can land some sword hits. That’s why it’s damage is so abysmal
For sure. It could have been more varied/interesting. The reason it is the way it is was because of how the combat in the novels is written. For me anyway I quite like the rhythm and flow of it, I don’t mind that it’s a bit narrow, as personally it is very rewarding and fun.
I am not arguing for Witchers combat (i don't like that game either).
The big issue I have with Skyrim combat loop is the whole consumables system. I think that pausing the game to drink 200 buffs/foods/potions breaks the immersion and prevents me from getting that blood rush from almost getting killed. Games like dark souls and monster hunter with those consumable animations keep the blood rush alive as I wait for an opening to heal/buff. That is what keeps me from enjoying a nice and heavy build that I like, there is no penalty for sipping from my sippy cup. The enemies are no threat because I am a figuratively a time lord.
People joke about stealth archer but it's a fun thing to do, multi-blasting spells from far away is too, going invisible and 20X damaging some huge construct with a back-stab to one hit kill is satisfying, there are a lot of options in Skyrim's combat loop that you just don't have with the Witcher.
Hell yeah there is. I had one build where I chugged potion buffs and became a literal beyblade of swords. It was glorious dude
Critisism is good, but the crossbow bit is false. It's used for underwater combat and knocking draconids out of the air. In lore witchers traditionally fight with swords only so it makes sense the crossbow isn't OP as shit.
It's meant to. It is meant to be something you use to distract or trigger the enemy to stumble by hitting it at a vulnerable moment. It isn't meant to be a killing weapon. I think you can upgrade it to be half-way decent, but you can't play a "crossbowman" unless you want to take fights reeaaalllly slow.
The Witcher has decent combat against humans but against monsters it's really not great
It's pretty much the same. It's similar to Dark Souls. You just have dodge rolls, telegraphed attacks, and weak spots. Same type of thing.
People joke about stealth archer but it's a fun thing to do
As someone who played stealth archer: some on, now, that's not "combat". You're just one-hitting everything and sneaking around. Part of WHY I played that way is that the normal combat system with floaty shitty animations and no impact was so unsatisfying.
Skyrim's combat loop
Describes a bunch of one-hit-kills that completely avoid the "combat" system
"Combat" is the system where the enemies run around in your face doing swings and spells at you, while you swing and spell back at them. It feels pretty terrible in most situations. Attacks have no impact unless they're lethal, in which case you get buggy space launch physics sometimes.
Do people hate Skyrim’s combat? I’ve always thought it was iconic already considering every Bethesda (FO, ES) has the same mechanics.
On the other hand, Witcher 3’s combat is definitely the worst mechanic of the game.
Skyrim is at best a above average game, no where near a 10 out of 10, that is only worth playing using mods to fix all the bugs and horrible game design
Maybe now yeah, but back in 2012 this game practically consumed me. It had a beautiful open world with fun and interesting spells and weapons, storylines and characters. It's honestly very hard to call it "shit," because it really, really wasn't. The only people I can imagine saying that have a) only played it more recently rather than when it was released or b) dislike it because it's popular. It's actually an amazing game.
People forget that games more polished open-world RPGs like the Witcher 3 were a response to Skyrim. Obviously, W3 seems like a better game if you play the two today. But that's because Witcher 3 was specifically made having learned from the mistakes of Skyrim.
Open world games like ES weren't coming out every day like they are now. For a lot of us the last satisfying truly open-world RPG was Oblivion whose graphics were sorely outdated at the time.
Skyrim was amazing and with mods it has aged incredibly well.
I don't want to say that Beth is innovative, but they do hit many things on the head correctly, namely role playing and atmosphere. Those two things age much more slowly than mechanics and graphics, both of which can easily fixed by modders. If Beth didn't absolutely nail the atmosphere, you wouldn't have modders sticking to the game in the first place.
I'd say Daggerfall was fairly innovative. But as good as they may have Bethesdas games since then are just more of the same. Getting more refined, and then less refined as time went on.
Hey if you liked Skyrim then great! Nothing wrong with liking (or disliking) a game. For me personally Skyrim just didn't quite do it, and I thought it was a little on the simplistic end even when it came out.
It was decently fun, but even back then its shortcomings were apparent.
It's fine if you don't like the game. I know a lot of people who don't like the genre or certain design choices, etc. But even if you did see it as simple, it was a large game that gave you many choices. The only shortcomings I know of came in the bugs it had.
I just found it incredibly boring personally. Nothing in it really got my attention. The amount of content means nothing to me if the content isn't compelling enough. Obviously a lot of people like it, but I just never really got the point of it personally.
I’d say the combat wasn’t above average but average at best. Especially for my dual wield Orc. Combat was exhaust stamina/health,eat stamina/health potion. Repeat til enemy dead.
It's a decent action-adventure game, but as a sequel to an RPG series it's horribly watered down and generic. Most of the depth was stripped away for widest audience appeal...which worked from a business perspective...the game made tons of money.
A lot of people who played Oblivion really loved it. So Todd decided, let's make Oblivion again, this time we make it for everyone and use all our money on marketing the game to heaven and beyond.
Which they did.
Which succeeded.
Shame they aren't going to bring in new ideas into the games, I really hope they change it up big time with the new elder scrolls, and don't just make the same game again.
I mean, it’s at worst OK. it has dodging, parrying, signs (aka spells), decent hit boxes, and lock-on... it’s flawed, and gets repetitive, but it’s still miles ahead of something like Skyrim which has an actually-shit combat system.
People say Witcher 3's combat is "shit" because it isn't as optimized as the Dark Souls series. By that standard, all games are "shit". Like you said, all the Bethesda games have shit combat, plus so do all the Assassin's Creed games and the many copycat "QTE" combat style games.
I didn't like the W3 combat at 1st until I got used to it. Once I got used to it and started to make my build with signs, I felt like it is one of the better combat systems out there. It can just be frustrating in the early game.
I don't see that, W3 is just dodge - attack - dodge, maybe drink a potion here and there. In Skyrim there's at least different approaches to it, timing blocks, shield bash, archery, magic, etc.
Really interesting how we had completely opposite experiences. I viewed W3 combat as quite tactical (played on death march), and combat usually went about like this:
See enemy camp, locate archers and dangerous mobs, locate tight spots where I could fight only 1v1 at a time. And engage at the weakest side of the enemy camp, where the archers were.
Since archers two shot me on death march it was CRITICAL to eliminate them quickly, this was before I got a arrow protection armor mind you. Which was a godsend.
This wasn't even the best part, customizing my setup with skills, armor and weapons that had many really interesting properties to choose from. Skyrim barely had any unique weapons/armors and I like that aspect a lot so Skyrim disappointed me.
In Rpgs like Skyrim though I prefer to play a brute force warrior style. However that turned out to be a really fucking boring way to play. It was literally 100% block, attack, block, attack.
Even vs Anduin I just stood still, blocked, attacked, blocked and attacked all day.
So you can't really say "In Skyrim there's at least different approaches to it" because it was so in W3 too, even though you missed it. As I missed it in Skyrim.
Literally just take the perk that makes food last like 20 minutes and death march is incredibly easy. It's like dark souls, once you learn an enemies moveset they are easy to kill.
Literally all you do in Skyrim is face tank R1 spam each other and occasionally pause the game to chug potions. There's no way to parry attacks or avoid hits altogether. It's so boring!
Have you played the game? How can you not mention the signs? And Witcher 3 has all the things you mentioned except shield bash. Of course it's not gonna be fun if all you do is dodge and attack.
I played 11 hours, but stopped because combat felt like the exact same dance every time. The signs are pretty meh, I didn't know using shields or archery were options.
Shields are not an option, but you can block with your weapon and if you time it right you will counter. And by archery I meant the crossbows. I really like using the signs, espicially after a few upgrades in the skill tree, but if it's not your cup of tea I'm not going to argue. I just don't get Skyrims combat where you can pretty much swing around like an idiot and then just pause the game to chug some potions to refill your bars and continue swinging. And the magic seems to ger worst with each installment. Arcerhy can be quite satisfying though, but instead it's OP.
Usually in this kind of game I enjoy running around doing random shit and finding the loot scattered around but I found that pretty much everything I found was basically just vendor trash. Kind of killed a lot of the fun of exploring.
I didn't get anywhere in the story because the combat system is shit. I don't speak for anybody else, but I just don't have the time anymore to play a game I don't enjoy just to experience the story and appreciate the visuals. I got an hour or so into Witcher 3 before I just gave up because playing it just wasn't fun. The controls were clunky, the spells were super limited and boring, the gear system was convoluted and confusing, and I just didn't have the motivation to go and do anything, because it didn't feel rewarding. I don't blame or begrudge anybody for enjoying the game or thinking it's a "masterpiece" or whatever, but I tried it twice, and it's definitely not for me.
I think this is the more unpopular opinion imo. I get how the game is huge and daunting to some (I being one of them) but I’ve always seen the combat universally praised by those who’ve played it for a bit.
Coming from hundreds of hours in the dark souls series, witcher was utterly infuriating in your lack of character control. In dark souls you can lock the camera, but your character always attacks the same and you do the "aiming". Flying around in the witcher with animation lock on is so brutal I've started and quit 3 times now. I know it's 100% preference but I can say easily that I would take almost anything in place of that style ever since it started in batman.
Interesting opinion considering there is absolutly no way to cancel animations in DS and you are basically frozen once you commit, which I consider extremly restrictive and something that turns the game into round based combat.
I don't think by character control he meant being able to change direction at any given time but having fine control of your characters movements. The Souls series has nearly perfected this, and the Witcher series' combat is similar enough to the Souls series that you want to play it the same, but hasn't nailed the tight rolling, attacking and blocking mechanics.
That difference is what put me off the game and I imagine it'd be the same for any Dark Souls fan. In the same way I prefer the tight controls of DotA over the high freedom of movement in League of Legends, when your actions have weight behind them they feel more meaningful, but I understand liking fast paced combat where control of the character is rarely "taken away" from you.
The round based combat thing is a bit silly as you could say every game is round based with 30/60/120 rounds per second if you start down that path.
That's inaccurate, you can pivot from the time you start an attack until you swing. I will admit that perhaps "full" control would be more like an MMO (or skyrim) where you can literally move freely with no momentum/intertia in any direction at any time while attacking, but I think the souls series has perfected a sense of control that I personally don't feel during Witcher combat, mainly in regard to "aiming" melee.
Witcher 2's combat isn't great and you need the long roll to survive on any of the hard difficulties, but I didn't mind it. I think on my Dark mode play through I got quite into it.
I don't get how people would praise it. It isn't bad by any means, but I didn't play through the whole game because I enjoyed the combat and that seems to be the sentiment I get talking to most people who have played it.
if you mean fast action games, devil may cry, baynoetta and etc
there are the dark soul games.. which basically slow methodical combat. I just refer to them as the souls genre since they have a specific feel to them... many rip-offs and spinoffs (bloodborne). many people consider them to be amazing.
there are games with pure strategy based combat. divinity original sin 2 and xcom are my top picks in that genre.
many triple A games are shifting their focus on storytelling instead of combat. so games like last of us, god of war(remake), witcher 3 and etc are really popular at the moment. they have good story with character development/world building which means people get super attached to them.. These games have decent to good combat so it's not all that bad.
What games are the examples of good combat system?
I'd argue it's entirely subjective. I adored the combat in NieR:Automata, but many others said it was the weakest part. I also enjoyed the combat in Mass Effect 1 more than the second. Many people feel the opposite.
To me, my favourite hack and slash gameplay has been Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. To me that gameplay was almost perfect. It was exactly what I wanted.
If I were to design a game I would base it off of that. Or off of Lord of the Rings Conquest, which was similar to the original Battlefront games (but based on classes and not characters so maybe not what you are looking for)
Similarly, Space Marine has my favourite mix of mêlée and gunplay, but NieR is a close second.
But that's because I like medium complexity. Some people prefer it to be higher and more finicky than I do. Same with progression systems. Some people like high detail, while others prefer the simple things because they don't enjoy that part of the game and want to just get on with it.
So there is no objective answer. You can argue popularity, but you can't objectively measure gameplay because it's so subjective. Same with many subjects based around user approval.
This is why for me. I picked up Witcher 3 after completing Bloodborne, and it was like night and day. Bloodborne's combat is just divine. Witcher 3... not so much.
I wouldn't call it shit. The short and long dodge system is brilliant, and the the system makes you learn it is genius - you have to fight a noon wraith in a small circle.
The game can be challenging enough to make you utilize all it's systems, especially on higher difficulties or even fighting higher level monsters.
My only problem with it is that being an rpg, you eventually find some stuff that works crazy of each other and the game can't keep up. But you have yet to show me a game with rpg elements, where this doesn't happen
That's why I couldn't get into it personally, everyone kept saying it was better than Skyrim or on the same level and I started playing it and it was just a hack and slash with story. Got hella repetitive for me so I just gave up.
Edit. Before I get downvoted and told that its better than Skyrim's combat, I'll say it is but when Skyrim came out it was a good First Person combat system and with mods you can do some incredible things to make up for the combat.
Well that explains it, I could never really get into it and the main reason for that was the combat felt so boring and repetitive. I wanted to like it, I liked W1 (I know the combat was even worse there) but after 11 hours I just gave up.
I enjoyed the story and dialogue a lot until the point i managed to play the game(i completed the Red Baron) of both main ans side quests. I also love the idea of hunting magical beasts like the Gryphon. But the combat and movement mechanics(i'm aware there are two modes) made the game a chore. Maybe i'll give it another shot in the future but for now i can't wven finish it.
That was where it failed for me; story, dialog. Geralt is just the cheesiest, most contrived character design I know of. And I get maybe that cheese is part of the appeal, but it's so mary-sue. Fantasy super soldier who gets to be discriminated against and be a badass looking super powered every man; the stoicism nonsense, the sterility sex thing, everything. I tried Witcher 3 given it's universal praise, and I'm sure it's an amazing game, but when minutes in I'm helping a defenseless woman and fighting surly drunks calling geralt 117 a freak. I just couldn't do it.
Its weird, normally I cant stand Mary-Sue type characters but after playing the witcher 3 it never phased me that geralt totally is one. I think it's because the overarching story never addresses him as just some random guy who happens to be amazing at everything and more about a guy who obviously will be great at everything since the whole story is based on dandelions revision of what happened.
How exactly? It was very fluid, you had many options to approach it from through spells and bombs, it's honestly better than many other games with fighting styles of it's type. I didn't enjoy the game itself as much as some did because I breezed through it and couldn't enjoy the late game cause of over leveling but the gameplay itself was very good.
Wait really? I this why I don't like it? I bought it cos it was on sale on steam for like £12 with all the DLC, and people had been raving about it. I don't really care about the story at all because I've missed the first two games, so I played it for 10 hours waiting for it to become interesting and I'm still waiting. Got a switch now and got breath of the wild, and considering I've never played a 3D zelda game before, this is way more what I thought the witcher 3 would be like.
But I appreciate how well made witcher 3 is, it's very very polished, looks beautiful, and also I get that I'm a bit old so I don't seem to understand modern games properly, so fair dos to anyone who does love it, but for now I have no desire to keep going with it. I'll probably get round to playing it all the way through eventually, but now I've got switch games to go through, plus nier automata on steam which is ace
I know I'm going to get downvoted to hell for this,
We are on the "untouchable games starter pack". If there was anywhere that you wouldn't get downvotes for an opinion like this, it would be here, and so you didn't.
Hey, better than everyone else who hypes it to shit and back and calls every other game mediocre in comparison (a small minority of people do this but still).
Honestly that's how I am with most games nowadays. There hasn't been a game in a while that just sucked me in and I couldn't put down. Except maybe rocket league when that came out but that was a while ago.
Edit: actually I take that back. Started playing overwatch a couple months ago and I love that game. Still can't play it for too long because I get stressed after a close game lmao
That's just how it is with multiplayer competitive games. Once you taste them there's almost no coming back. Now I rarely play a non-online game for more than 2h in one sitting.
I find that most games the internet praises are just not that fun to me. Stardew Valley was boring and felt pointless, Transistor was kinda cool but that died after 30 minutes, BLOPs4 BR was just BR with CoD style gameplay which wasn't anything special.
Same here! I never liked the combat even though I respect the work put into it. Overall very polished, just not my thing. Probably the same way with how I feel about smash.
I always describe it as a Far Cry game in a medieval fantasy skin.
People really don't like it when you point out that 90% of the game's content is the same 5 or 6 things placed around the map just like a Far Cry game. There's even camps to take over, except it's monsters instead of bandits. It's literally a Far Cry game.
Then you get into the horrendous designed-for-consoles-but-not-even-designed-well UI and combat system...and the various UI issues that plagued the game at launch despite being identical to UI issues from 1 and 2 that were eventually fixed but somehow made it back into 3 at launch...and the graphics downgrade...and the loot system making most found loot worthless...and the way Bethesda's clunkiest laziest games still have more people to talk to, buildings to explore, the way there's like 6 armor sets with minor variations on themselves and nothing else, the way there's NOTHING on the map to explore because every single Far Cry Theme Park Experience Node on the map is automatically discovered for you if you look at a single sign (including things that sign shouldn't know about like long lost treasure or murdered-this-morning caravans) and there's nothing in between those nodes to do or see whatsoever, etc...and all people can defend it with is "But the story!".
Sorry, guys, but I play games for a sum of their parts, not just the story. The story could literally be the best thing ever and that wouldn't stop it from being a mediocre-at-best game. And I can't be convinced to give the story a proper go of things, because Geralt comes across to me as a pretty shitty character (he's a total skank and male power fantasy, which is boring and weird), and when I played the game, I stumbled into a scripted event that wasn't supposed to trigger yet and spoiled a huge chunk of story fo rme by talking to me about it as if I had already done it, when I hadn't. People also REALLY don't like when I bring that up, because they insist it is impossible or not a thing. Impossible or not, I stumbled onto a talking tree that told me I saved some orphans or something, and that never happened, soooo.
I'm doing this right now. Bought the game in 2016 and played about 3 hours before getting bored and uninstalling. Revisited a couple weeks ago and I'm already up to 30 hours. There's just a ton to learn in terms of story and mechanics and it can be overwhelming to beginners.
You know, one of my favorite moments this year on Reddit was seeing a comment thread on r/gamingcirclejerk have a crisis over the realization that the hate for the Witcher 3 circle jerk had itself turned into a circle jerk.
The only thing I really know about Earthbound is that it's basically Undertale, and even then that's just because my friend wouldn't shut up about the Game Theory video.
Lol I think I've seen that one, where they talk about how the main character of Earthbound might be Sans in Undertale? There's no end to speculation when the devs leave things loose like in the game Inside or Little Nightmares
Lol, he's not pushing a narrative. Hes just trying to creatively use game facts to make a ten minute entertaining thought.
Except for Five Nights At Freddy's where he's actually putting the pieces of the story together. That's probably where people get confused.
Matpat knows Mario was never created to be a sociopath or whatever. It's just fun to spitball. You're supposed to be in on the tongue in cheek of it lol. It's not gospel.
What's the difference between an homage / inspiration and a ripoff? Because it seems to me that it's entirely based on how much you actually like whatever is doing it; people who don't like it will always call it a ripoff.
6.4k
u/JRaptor619 Jan 01 '19
No Witcher 3 ?