In this review all the elements I talk about or critisize are relevent elements with significant impact on the gameplay experience. Any trivial imperfections have been ignored as I dont believe that such a level of perfection can ever be achieved. No form of nitpicking has been done intentionally.
The witcher 3's combat has all the right elements tuned up the wrong way. Even though there is a block and counter the player is highly dependent upon the dodge mechanic which is the single most important mechanic in combat. Most of the time I feels like a rabbit hopping away the enemies. A badass master witcher should run into combat not away from it. The combat is tuned up in such a manner that it is nearly impossible to get yourself into the middle of the enemies and finish them up in a badass way. Also the dodging is also not that satiisfying. A recurring issue with the gameplay is that things which are difficult do not have high rewards. The counter attack mechanic is significantly riskier than dodge but doesn't have the proportionate reward it should have. Dodging is significantly easier and provides the same level of offensive advantage and power as a counter attack. So no one bothers mastering a counter attack. The same situation persists with the blocking. You would never find yourself cornered in such a way which prevents you from executing a dodge, which is easier and more profitable and less riskier than blocking. All you need to master the combat in this game is dodge. And it doesn't take much time to do it too. Dodging doesn't take up much stamina too. You could keep on spamming it without any repurcussions. Stamina conservation and management is a great way to add depth to combat and makes it much more fun. The witcher 3 has this but is tuned up badly to not have any effect at all. The combat has everything you could ask for: A fast attack, strong attack, dodge, longer dodge, stamina bar, another adrenaline bar which acts as a combo meter and as an additional stamina bar later, toxicity meter which you need to manage, also the stamina bar doubles up as a mana bar for using spells. But bad tuning ruins it all. These issues are present and remain the same in higher difficulties too. The adrenaline bar which works like a combo meter, which in most other games adds a layer of depth and difficulty, can be easily ignored in witcher 3. The effect of the adrenaline bar is unnoticable and you wouldn't know if its full or not without directly looking at it. The adrenaline should increase attack power but this is barely noticable. Games like devil may cry thrive using the combo meter, but in witcher 3, this is just another element of its wasted potential. Even some kind of visual indicator which was much more noticable would have added some fun to it.
Stamina conservation needs to be more important if the combat aims to be more fun. The way to make something in a game fun is by forcing the brain to calculate or think to solve some issue. This is not present in the witcher 3's stamina conservation mechanic. The whirlwind and rend mechanics should've been introduced much earlier in the game. It would have added more depth and style to the combat. If someone told me about a combat system with light and strong attacks, dodge, longer dodge, stamina bar, combo meter, toxicity bar etc, it would seem to me as the picture perfect combat system for a fastasy rpg game. The witcher 3, despite having all these, falls short of properly implementing these elements. If a combat does not have depth, it should have atleast been difficult. Anyone can master the dodge mechanic fairly quickly even on blood and broken bones difficulty.
The swords, which for any fantasy lover is the most interesting element, looks and feels like long needles. The slashing is not satisfying at all as it feels as it the enemy is being scratched by the tip of the sword. Because of the distance of the camera from geralt it is also not possible to admire the sword while playing. Also most of them dont feel wide enough to feel like powerfull swords. Of course i dont need them to look like buster swords but a little more width would make it easier to look at them. The runes are switch off in about 2 seconds after the drawing the sword, so there goes that too. The combat mechanics are varied but useless. All you need to master is dodging and the block and counter mechanic, even though is difficult to pull off does not have the proportionate reward something difficult should have. Also the dodging does not require much timing.
So in effect, the combat of the witcher 3 which should make you feel like a badass master witcher, makes you feel like a coward who is always trying to get the hell out of the way. However there is the whirlwind mechanic, which should have been introduced much earlier in the game, which is satisfying and rewarding and makes you feel like a badass witcher who is gracefully dancing around his enemies and slicing them, gracefully. Also whirlwind is also quite cool to look at. However, it should take at least 20 hrs to unlock it if you are playing the game like a proper open world rpg.
The sword enchantments achived by placing runes on swords are very much unreliable due to them being probability based. They work only once or twice in, say 5 fights and in a majority of the fights you do not get to experience them.
The progression in this is the most lame uninteresting progression system I have ever seen in a "highly acclaimed rpg". A good skill tree should make you feel torn between two good upgrades. Instead in the witcher 3, I am torn between two seeimingly useless and uninteresting upgrades, most of which are percentage upgrades, which are very hard to notice during gameplay. Also, the primary mode of offence in this game is the melee combat. Magic and alchemy works as secondary traits, which are useless without the swordplay. The problem is that magic and alchemy are on par with the fighting skill tree in terms of importance. This makes it impossible to invest in alchemy or magic without neglecting swordplay, which you cannot neglect. What they should have done is seperate the melee combat skill tree from that of magic and alchemy. The choice should have been between alchemy and magic, because you can survive by using magic or alchemy in place of the other. Therefore the choice should be between combat and magic or combat and alchemy not combat or magic or alchemy. That way you can roleplay perfectly either as a wicher who uses magic or a witcher who uses alchemy. Another issue of the progession/skill tree is that most of the upgrades you unlock cannot be "experienced" in the gameplay. It does not feel like its making a difference, even though it probably is. Some of the skills are quite cool but they are very low in number and takes time to unlock.
The next issue is with the weapon collection. Even though the witcher 3 has a large but balanced collection of swords, it cannot be enjoyed without sacrificing power. In the introductory sequence, if you dare explore a little bit, you will run into the instructions to make the viper sword set,which cannot be matched in power by most of the swords you would find at least till level 15. So you cannot use all the better looking swords which you find until then. The same issue with the armour sets, although you will rarely see any armour that match the default witcher armour in style. Even if you like one, chances are it will be quite weaker than the witcher armour. So there goes the weapons collection of the game.
The one thing in this game which stands head and shoulders above that of any other game is the sheer collection and mechanical diversity of its monsters. The game has a wide collection of monsters of nearly every type imaginable with their own weaknesses, strength and similarities. Even though every monster has a section in the beastiery, there are specific weaknesses and behaviour which you learn directly from experience. For example, the rotfiend would explode when its almost dead so you should clear off from its vicinity. This goes for every monster. So when facing any monster you have just the barebones knowledge about its weakness, like vulnerable sign types and all which would wont spoil your experience but will give you enough knowledge to survive. Although the witcher has many issues with its gameplay, it definitely sets the benchmark for enemy variety, which may not sound like much, but is of highest importance in a game about a professional monster hunter. For years rpg games have been searching for a much realistic way to implement player experience. In the witcher 3, experience isn't implemented only a number which improves your effectiveness. Real experience is required to become a master monster hunter. You need hands on experience fighting monsters to effectively defeat them. You need to observe and understand their behavior(mechanically speaking). The beastiary just provides the basic info for bare survival. You need to master different methods of facing enemies by adjusting to their powers, movement patters etc. For example, even though foglets are invisible, by watching the movement of the fog, you could somewhat predict where the foglets are and can avoid invisible attacks from the rear end. Its tonnes of fun and the learning curve and time required to master it is long enough. A decent amount of time is required to be a proper nekker hunter as nekkers, not much powerfull when alone, attack in numbers and sometimes could be overwhelming. You need time to master staying behind the wing of cockatrices,griffings and basilisks. This part of the game is quite fun. After all, the most important thing when role playing as a monster hunter is the monsters.
Bombs and other cool stuff:
The witcher 3 is a game with massive hidden potential. All of the bombs in this game look damn right awesome. Some of the bombs can also be chained up with other bombs or spells to create satisfying combination explotions. But the problem is that the gameplay rarely demands it. There are several slow motion moves in this game, the best one which is one of ciri's powers, and the other ones being geralt's finishers and a certain alchemy power up which will enable a slo mo when the enemy counters. All of this is quite cool to look at. The slo mo effect in ciri's move is the best looking ive seen in any game and this particular move, which enables ciri to attack multiple opponents in the same time by her time manipulation, is the single most best awesome stuff i've seen in any game.
The witcher 3 also has a problem of not delivering some of its promises in its gameplay. There should be an element of preparation that should go into facing a difficult enemy but by at least 10 hrs into the game you should get the oils for most of the enemies you find and get most of the important potions. By preparation, it just means applying the right oil to your sword and it isn't a big deal4. You can also do this mid battle, so you don't actually need to prepare at all.Also, you can refill all the alchemical substances by meditating, eliminating the need to go out and search for ingredients to make a particular potion after you've used it, which if it was like that would've added to the open world exploration experience and would've emphasized the preparation element of the gameplay. One other thing the game should have is the ability to lay a trap for a specific enemy and wait for it to fall for the trap.There even is a book in the game which tells that its one of the two ways of hunting monsters.This happens only once in the game at the start when facing the griffin.
The next element is the unnecessarily vastness,emptiness and lack of diversity of the open world. There is no such thing as "lay of the land" when talking about the open world. Most of the places look almost the same and there is a very huge lack of direction when moving around. It is heavily dependent on the minimap which takes away the immersion and prevents the player from properly enjoying the scenery. You cannot look at the scenery if you are constantly looking at the mini map to move around. You will not get a general idea of where you are, and rarely would you encounter something interesting when exploring, which takes away the element of exploration from its open world.
The landscape becomes much different when skellege opens up, but velen is still the main area in the game.
Its really hard to navigate because of the sameness.
The illusion of choices:
The witcher 3 has been praised a lot for the way player choice is reflected in the world. Its quite awesome when the effects of an action are reflected in the game world, which will make the world seem alive and functional. However, this has a catch to it. Let me ask an important question: Why would anyone find the concept of choice attractive ? I believe that it is because we would like a certain level of control over the elements that govern our life. I also believe that this is the same for every sphere in life, including video games. Does the choices in the witcher 3 offer a level of control? I say no. The choices in the witcher 3 are more of a dice roll than actual choice. The player cannot hope to have a control over the stuff thats happening, which takes away the true joy of having a choice. In life, say you are given the choice of choosing a career. You like choice as this will enable you to choose the future you like, not because you want to see a butterfly effect and land in a career you don't like. I admit, choices which reflect on the world does make the world more alive, but in the process completely takes away the true purpose of the concept of choice. A choice is a power to make a desired effect. Why the roll of the dice is not considered choice is because you don't have a clue to what will happen when you roll a dice. This is the issue with witcher 3. A lot of choices which we take end up being counter productive and are unpredictable. The choice between a good and evil choice is blurred but the effect of it is not. There is no good and evil choice but there is certainly is a good and evil ending, which is a dynamic which doesn't work together very well. Some of the seemingly good choices end up creating bad endings. This does create a link up between the elements in the witcher 3 but at the cost of the power of choice, like in the crones quests where freeing the children would lead to a bad ending for the baron. This does make it seem as if the world is alive. But it is done at the cost of choice. If I don't have a clue about the effect of a choice or if the choice is good or bad, why should i contemplate about making the choice? I might as well choose any random choice as i don't know which is the good one and what i think is bad would end up being good. This takes away the role playing element from dialogue and choice as you would barely know if you are playing the good guy or bad guy. Another example would be the one in which the son of the second wife of the king of skellige ends up being an able king who unites and strengthens skellige. The second wife is a b*tch and we are lead to believe that letting her win is a bad choice, which is not the case. Of course, a twist then and now would spice things up but when everything is expected to have a twist, its not great. Also the moral differences between some of the dialogue choices are pretty vague so sometimes when you choose a dialogue option thinking it to be good, it would turn out to be a bad one. This is not because of the personal concept of good and bad but because the game fails to communicate properly which is a good dialogue option and which is a bad one. This is not because the game doesn't differentiate between good and bad choices or differences in choices. It certainly does so. But it utterly fails in communicating it. This is not how it is for every single dialogue option, but there are certainly a lot of them that matters. However, this problem is somewhat nonexistent in choices related to ciri which are all well done.
Underutilized fantasy elements:
Several fantasy elements in the game especially the elven ruins and other stuff related to it are not explored in the game. They are there and there are missions which are to be played in elven ruins but there is minimal lore and story elements connected to it, which are actually communicated to the player. The witcher is a fantasy genre, but in the game you rarely experience the all the fantasy elements except the monsters. Also, there are also no large quests which actually make use of and explore the lore of witcher 3. There could have been a proper side story about the struggle of the elves who where the original owners of the land, a large side quests about the ongoing war (there is one much later in the story about killing radovid, but its much later in the game), a side quest to teach the eternal fire a lesson etc. But whenever these topics come up, the game forces you to be a silent observer even if you want so much to interfere.
Also, the interplay of these elements into the main story is also quite low. They could have had something like the redanian forces blocking you at some part from gaining access to critical info about ciri for intance, which would have added more to the main story and would also give the players a taste of the difficulties normal people where experiencing due to the war. But these elements are rarely represented in the main quest or side quests of the witcher 3, which are more personal stories of people, most of it detatched from these elements of lore.
The lack of connection of the main story elements to that of the story of Geralt and ciri:
Even though all the story lines and charcters of the main story are fully flushed out and of top quality, the story which concerns geralt and ciri and the wild hunt start only at the last quarter of the game's main story. Till then the main story consists of stories which should have been side quests, with loose connection to ciri, which in most situations are executed by a character who witholds information about ciri, who might be asking geralt to do something in exchange for the information or sometimes could be missing. So, in essence, geralt is doing there story for them instead of playing his on story elements. This can be considered a creative choice, but for players who are concerned about what happens to geralt, yennefer and ciri, this could be counter productive. There are a lot of people complaining about getting bored after playing for a few hours, (more than 10 hrs at the least), got bored and stopped playing. This could be due to the fact that a lot of the quests in the first half are forced onto geralt and doesn't concern the central narrative of the game which should've been about chasing down Ciri before the wild hunt does so. So in essence, the story which should have felt like a race against time or a mad chase, is delayed and slowed down and for some people, frustrating, even if you concentrate exclusively on the main quest. Also, a lot of people are introduced to this universe through this game and haven't played the previous games or read the novels (which I hear where only recently translated to english), so lack knowledge about the context. The game also doesn't provide much context until very late in the game. So for new players, the emotional connection that geralt has to ciri is unknown so they don't feel that connection and do not feel the need to rescue her as strongly as the game expects you too. They should've given us more time with young ciri to develop the bond or atlest provide us with some flashbacks or something. This is important because otherwise the player cannot grasp the full impact of the story, which would result in several players getting bored. So in essence, the main story is not executed that greatly as it is on paper, because of the forced breaks in the story (the bloody baron for eg.) and the delayed pace which only picks up very late and lack of emotional context. However, out of the lot, this is still one of the very best stories in open world games, but not the best. This doesn't mean that
CDPR cannot make a good story. In fact I feel that the stories of the main two DLC's are really great and unique and of the two I believe the story( and its execution) of the Hearts of Stone DLC to be better than and the main story of the game. Its truly original when compared with the stories of other games and also with the main story. Its also got one of the best presented, intriguing, crafty and terrifying entities in gaming history in Gaunter O'Dimm aka Master Mirror who probably could be the God ( or Devil?) of the witcher 3 universe.
Also the central character in this dlc, olgierd von everecc is also one of the best written characters i've ever encountered in a video game.
The notice board dilemma:
Every location of interest on the map of witcher 3 can be located by getting notices from the notice board in the villages. Even though this does bring a level of structure and order to the open world and make it seem alive and functional, it takes away the need to explore, since you cannot expect to run into something that cannot be found from a notice board. And most of the question marks are automatically placed on the map so you would know exactly where to go. The notice board should really just stop with side quest notices and monster contracts. Instead, it lists everything there is to discover nearby including the location of the places of power. When you know exactly where something is, it also tells you where not to look. In the witcher 3, since you know places without a question mark in the world map dont have anything, you dont need to go there. So, I will know that exploring a particular area is useless even before I explored it. This completely takes out the exploration element in the witcher 3's open world, in fact, its a bloody zero. There are quests which are an exception but these are extremely rare. In fact I've found only 3 or 4 in my 2 playthroughs of the game. They could've solved this by exposing a question mark only if you where near to it, which would require you to go out exploring in order to find the location of those bandit camps, abandoned places etc. This would've greatly improved the open world exploration gameplay. Games like Skyrim use this mechanic.
Ineffectiveness of certain elements: (The lame percentage improvements)
The witcher 3 certainly has cool stuff in it's gameplay that is totally cool, things like a particular decoction which automatically puts up a magical shield if a very powerful blow hits you and things like the resove ability, but some of these elements which seem cool on paper is practically ineffective in gameplay, things like the ekimmara decoction which should enable you to steal vitality from your opponents. Specifically, the effects of this particular decoction is so weak that it barely makes a difference and if you have a certain ability that enables you to increase the time of effect of food, this decoction needn't ever be used. This is due to a result of bad tuning, probably due to ineffective playtesting. The same is the case with most of the perks in the skill tree. For example, the maximum effect you can add to your fast attack and strong attack are 25% increase each which will need you to level up 8-10 levels so that you can max these two, which is at least 10 hrs of gameplay which is a bit too much for a 25% increase in power of fast attack and strong attack, which is barely noticeable during gameplay. Let me show an example which would emphasize how low this is: 25% increase can be achieved by the first upgrade itself in skyrim. Each ability you unlock or level up improves adrenaline point generation by 1% each. A 1% improvement does not feel powerful at all. Also, effect of adrenaline points on attack power also is barely noticeable during gameplay. when leveling up, the player should feel more powerful, but in this game it's just on paper, most of it is barely noticable in its gameplay. There are "places of power" in witcher 3 spread out in the open world can give additional ability points; which is certainly a good thing which also encourages open world exploration. There are a total of 24 of them, which translates to 24 additional points, which may seem like a lot, but is barely enough to make up for the slow pace of normal progression. A number of potions and decoctions are cancelled out by the quen sign, which performs the same function as these decoctions. Also some decoctions are just plain stupid. The werewolf decoction which eliminates stamina usage outside the fight is just damn useless, since we have a horse which is adept at traversal. A lot of the potions and decoctions are useless in a boss fight as they require you to slay a number of enemies during the fight for it to take effect. A lot of the cooler decoctions and potions do not have a noticeable impact on the game due to the improvements they provide being just too small to make a difference. A particular decoction works only if the vitality is at 100 percent, which can work against weaker enemies, but in more challenging fights you are seldom at full vitality so the decoction is useless when you need it the most. Another decoction accelerates adrenaline point generation until the first enemy strike, which again is useless against powerful enemies.
The ratio of number of percentage upgrades to new powers:
Most of the perks in the witcher 3 skill tree are percentage upgrades, which are a lot when compared to upgrades which give specific powers (The only ones adding a bit of depth to the gameplay). Having new powers as upgrades is a necessity as it would add more layer to the combat and would rule out the combat becoming repetitive as you play for hours. Also these percentage upgrades are some of the most lame in the AAA rpg genre. Really, who would know if their attack power has increased by 5%? A proof to this can be obtained by giving a look at the witcher 3 cdpr forums. Its very divisive. A lot of people claim that a particular upgrade is very useful and is a must while a lot of other people said to avoid the same exact upgrade as they felt it was useless. Why is this so? My reasoning is that people don't actually "experience" these upgrades directly during gameplay but assume that it is giving them an edge. Again I am not saying that these upgrades are not working, just that their effect or advantage is too meagre to notice from the gameplay, hence it does not make the player feel more powerful.
The lack of proportion of the progression system to the length of the game:
As I sum up, the actual problem of the witcher 3's progression system is this: The progression system in this 80+ hour game was designed as if it were a 20 hour game and then stretched to fill 80 hours. There are a lot of good things in the progression system, but almost all of them are accessible only till the very end. The mechanics which actually add a layer of depth to the game ( the melee skills like whirlwind and rend, the alternate forms of the signs etc) can be unlocked after least 40 hrs of gameplay, which is just too long, and these are all great upgrades and add depth to the combat, but what use are they if they are not available for more than half of the game?
The design of the witcher 3's open world:
A clear majority of the open world elements of the witcher 3 consists of bandit camps,monster nests and abandoned sites all of which are essentially the same thing. Let me explain, the bandit camps are very small areas which have a number of bandits in it who turn aggressive when you enter those areas. They are out in the open and most of them(the camps) look exactly the same. Kill all the bandits and you have completed the bandit camp. There is a chest waiting for you in the camp with goodies once you complete the camp. The monster nests are essentially the bandit camp version for monsters. Abandoned sites are bandit camps or monster nests which show a cutscene( which is just some villagers walking in) after completion and reward you with one more trader who can give you special goods. The rewards are good but they don't make up for the staleness and repetitiveness these open world elements. Why precisely this is bad is because it will take the element of surprise and intrigue of discovering a new location in the open world as your brain tells you that its probably just another bandit camp (which it most certainly will be due to the number of them). In later games like assassins creed origins and odessey and in games like metal gear solid 5, even though there are a lot of these "bandit camps", all of them are laid out differently and a slight variation in approach is necessary to conquer them effectively, which also takes more effort and time than their counterparts in the witcher 3. In witcher 3, this is not the case so it seems heavily repetitive. Also the lay of the land is too plain. There are a really low number of caves, elven ruins (dungeons of sorts) in this game which would've given a lot of depth and intrigue to the open world. The joy of exploring a dark, scary cave system or an ancient dungeon is nearly absent in its open world, save for some quests in the main story, (which are great but its just 2 or 3). An absolute majority of what this open world has to offer is repetitive and directly on the surface, literally and figuratively speaking, which takes out exploration and the element of intrigue, which is a big blow to this game's open world. The witcher 3 also seriously lacks something that a good open world should have had. This can be explained using an example from skyrim. As the game introduces the player to its open world in the beginning of the game, the game shows you bleak falls barrow, the first dungeon you encounter, in the distance, large and taunting, enticing you into exploring it. Nothing of that sort is present in the witcher 3. No location is presented in such a way, no location in seen far off taunting you to come closer. Exploration stops at notice boards, which can be found easily by just opening the world map, going to locations with lots of houses, which are villages, and simply going to the local notice board, which reveals the location of every place of interest nearby as soon as you interact with it.
The lack of diversity and narrative in the villages:
The villages in the witcher 3 are all almost the same, with the same issues, same look ,same kind of people. None of the villages have any kind of narrative of its own, no major local issues that differentiates it from other places. No issues that plague a certain village as a whole. For a game praised for its narrative quality, this is a noticeable drawback. Also the city of Oxenfurt also lacks any narrative of its own. Its just there, offering just a change of view from the villages. But the city of Novigrad stands at a direct contrast to all this. The city is quite well done, with incidents and narratives specific to the problems the city faces. It has a feel of its own and a lot of elements like the thieves guild, underground sewers, the occasional eternal fire priest, violence and racism and a lot of other interesting stuff. It also has one or two secrets of its own too. Although this section is the quite smaller than other sections in this review, it doesn't mean that it is in any way less important than other elements. Novigrad still is one of the best examples of how to implement a large city in a fantasy backdrop without excluding frontier open world gameplay. Its a very much welcomed change of pace from the open world of velen.
The Signs: The base forms of aard, aaxi and igni are kind of the same thing in effect. All of them distract the enemies for a short period by knocking them or balance or burning them or hypnotising them. In all three cases, you are given an opening to attack. Aard and Igni are basically the same thing mechanically with aard having a possibility of completely knocking enemies down and igni having the possibility of applying buring status to them. However, since their occurrences are probability based, they cannot be relied upon effectively. However this is taken care of completely when we are given alternate versions of these abilities which are all great and diverse. The alternate aard helps you when you are outnumbered and surrounded at the same time, at cost of power. The alternate igni is extremely satisfying and fun and looks damn cool. The alternate quen is a favourite of many people. It sacrifices speed and movement while giving you the ability to heal. The alternate aaxi seems cool but i never could get it to work properly. Let's just say that yrden is certainly not my favourite and for me its slowdown effect was almost non existent ( i didn't upgrade it completely).
A clear sign of the lack of proper game design in the witcher 3 is how they treated overpowering. Here they have seen overpowering itself as a menace and tried to eliminate it completely by adding the option to upscale the enemy level near to that of the player. The problem is that when this option is turned on the player can never become overpowered even if they wished so. In many other games it can be quite satisfying to become overpowered so why is it an issue here?. The reason, is that in the witcher 3, the player has almost zero control when the base stat is increased at each level up. This coupled with it being impossible to predict what level of improvement each level up introduces means that the player has no idea when or if they are overpowered. Here overpowered ness is unplanned, unexpected, unwelcome and uncomfortable. Also each level up doesn’t feel proportionate at all, just level up once and an enemy which was extremely difficult will become quite easy instead of coming down to moderately difficult. Overpowering can be satisfying when a player invests a lot of time and effort directly in the pursuit of being overpowered that too with the complete knowledge of when and how much they are going to be overpowered. It is bizarre how a game which is considered the greatest of all time cannot even handle something as simple as overpowering correctly.
Conclusion: In recent years, the witcher 3's hype has gone from it being a properly executed open world fantasy game with great narrative elements to being called the greatest game of all time. This is a bad thing as this game is certainly not the greatest of all time. In recent years, the culture of overhyping games has become much more prominent. A lot of people call it the greatest rpg of all time. In rpg elements it falls short of industry standards like skyrim, which was recently marginally dethroned by divinity original sin 2. The witcher 3 falls short because of its half assed rpg progression and skill tree, not a lot of narrative role playing as its nearly impossible to be a good guy or bad guy on purpose due to the unpredictability of consequences and vagueness in difference between dialogue. Some might argue that the witcher 3 greatly makes you feel like a witcher. This is true for the most part and I agree with it. But there is one another game which is the true benchmark of roleplaying as one particular person: Playing as batman in the arkham series. The witcher 3 does the job in a great way but not as great as roleplaying as the batman in the arkham series. So in what context is the witcher 3 an RPG masterpiece, the one game to rule them all? It certainly is not the best open world game out there nor is it a close second. The element of exploraion in non existent in the witcher 3. It cannot match the open world of skyrim, which was considered the best until witcher 3 released. So we rule out open world, and rpg mechanics and also the presentation of lore. The witcher 3 has enough lore but does not reveal it to the player properly. It is a popular opinion that the witcher 3's combat is not that great. The idea that the witcher 3 is an open world rpg masterpiece is a missconception built up by hype. However, it is still a narrative master piece, probably one of the best executed story in a non linear game till now. Its sets the standards on how a company should handle narrative in its games. The dlc's of this game are the most expansive and best ever DLCs ever released even when compared to directly to other games. The witcher 3 sets new standards by teaching us how can insignificant elements be improved by adding narrative to it. It raises the bar on the overall polishness of video games which was very depressing till its release. The notion of witcher 3 being an open world fantasy rpg masterpiece is false. There are other games better at fantasy and lore, combat, rpg mechanics and open world mechancs and in some of these categories the witcher 3 is not even close. And its not a matter of opinion. There is more to games than just graphics and story telling. There is a very big diffence between movies, books and video games. Books and movies treat you as silent listeners while video games have the power to put you right in the middle of the action as a person who can influence what is going on around him/her.
When I say that the witcher 3 is not performing in some aspect it is specifically because there is another game that does it much better. I do not suject this game to lofty expectations which where never reached before.The witcher 3's open world was significantly better than those of most other games when it released. But its open world had been matched in quality by several games afterwards. The witcher 3 was never an rpg masterpiece, even at release. The witcher 3 has massive potential which can be unlocked with a bit of modding and tuning.
I've been playing the GOTY edition of this game on blood and broken bones difficulty
Source: Original link
© Post "An honest witcher 3 review fom that very small minortiy who didn’t like it" for game Gaming News.
Top 10 Most Anticipated Video Games of 2020
2020 will have something to satisfy classic and modern gamers alike. To be eligible for the list, the game must be confirmed for 2020, or there should be good reason to expect its release in that year. Therefore, upcoming games with a mere announcement and no discernible release date will not be included.
Top 15 NEW Games of 2020 [FIRST HALF]
2020 has a ton to look forward to...in the video gaming world. Here are fifteen games we're looking forward to in the first half of 2020.