Already finished The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt multiple times? We’ve got something coming up…
New Game+, the final DLC, is on the way and, of course, it’s completely FREE!
Stay tuned for more info regarding the release. It won’t happen this week though - we need a little bit more time to finish it.
born2expire wrote on Jul 28, 2015, 03:38:Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Jul 28, 2015, 01:49:Techie714 © wrote on Jul 27, 2015, 19:04:143 hours on my first playthrough and that was completing all the side quests, witcher contracts, and treasure hunts. That didn't include exploring everything though, probably another 30+ hours just for that.
I agree with many of you, it's an outstanding game but man if you want to finish it all I hope you have like 500+ hours...LOL
i did it all in 142hours to be excat, so many of ? are a waste of time, and lots of them you cant get to until you do the quest attached to it.
Krovven wrote on Jul 29, 2015, 00:57:
So much content I'm in no hurry to rush through the game. I'll probably be playing it off and on all year. No problem with that. Ironically, after trying the new movement system I quickly switched back to the default.
Linthat22 wrote on Jul 28, 2015, 01:50:Tipsy McStagger wrote on Jul 27, 2015, 20:32:CJ_Parker wrote on Jul 27, 2015, 20:07:
But whoever the fuck is playing these games for the gameplay is doing it wrong anyway. You play these games for Geralt, Triss, Dandelion, Zoltan and all other memorable characters like Letho, the Sorceresses or Iorveth and Roche, the (fuckable) chicks, the quests, the story, the choices, the consequences, the exploration and all that good shit.
You just have to learn to ignore the bad shit like the combat, the boss fights, that asshole of a horse, the floaty movement, poor controls etc.
This is why I think these games are great, years from now when people ask me which RPG games I liked the best. I'll say MASS EFFECT, WITCHER SERIES.
Why? Well not because they had amazing combat systems or bug-less well polished perfectly balanced games.
It'll be because they told wicked stories.
While I agree, the combat shouldn't make the game a chore and pull you out of the game. For me Witcher 1's combat was designed for PC and from there they consolized it. I hated having buy an Xbox controller to play Witcher 2 in order for the game to be playable.
Couldn't have said it better myself. It's one of my arguments about too much content. Another argument is the fact that you can only track ONE quest at the time, and that was just horrible in more ways than one. Horrible because as you selected a quest, you couldn't see where it was unless you painstakingly opened the map after selecting it; and horrible because you probably passed 20 other active quests as you headed toward the one you were tracking. It was a huge pain that kept nagging at me the entire time.
Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Jul 28, 2015, 01:49:Techie714 © wrote on Jul 27, 2015, 19:04:143 hours on my first playthrough and that was completing all the side quests, witcher contracts, and treasure hunts. That didn't include exploring everything though, probably another 30+ hours just for that.
I agree with many of you, it's an outstanding game but man if you want to finish it all I hope you have like 500+ hours...LOL
Tipsy McStagger wrote on Jul 27, 2015, 20:32:CJ_Parker wrote on Jul 27, 2015, 20:07:
But whoever the fuck is playing these games for the gameplay is doing it wrong anyway. You play these games for Geralt, Triss, Dandelion, Zoltan and all other memorable characters like Letho, the Sorceresses or Iorveth and Roche, the (fuckable) chicks, the quests, the story, the choices, the consequences, the exploration and all that good shit.
You just have to learn to ignore the bad shit like the combat, the boss fights, that asshole of a horse, the floaty movement, poor controls etc.
This is why I think these games are great, years from now when people ask me which RPG games I liked the best. I'll say MASS EFFECT, WITCHER SERIES.
Why? Well not because they had amazing combat systems or bug-less well polished perfectly balanced games.
It'll be because they told wicked stories.
Techie714 © wrote on Jul 27, 2015, 19:04:143 hours on my first playthrough and that was completing all the side quests, witcher contracts, and treasure hunts. That didn't include exploring everything though, probably another 30+ hours just for that.
I agree with many of you, it's an outstanding game but man if you want to finish it all I hope you have like 500+ hours...LOL
ItBurn wrote on Jul 27, 2015, 22:24:Cutter wrote on Jul 27, 2015, 19:13:ItBurn wrote on Jul 27, 2015, 18:18:
I realize I go way against the grain, but I think a lot of people aren't rational when it comes to The Witcher and CD Projekt. It's still a very good game, but I could write a document about all the problems it has. And I might :p
Not so. Many of us didn't like the first 2 games and loved the third. It is, in my opinion, one of the best games ever made bar none. And no, you couldn't write a document about all the problems it has because it doesn't. And you won't.
Now I have to
On another note, about the "too much content" argument, I don't think it's a case of too much content. The problem is how the content is presented. In Skyrim for example, there's a ton of content and it's never "too much". The problem with Witcher 3 is that the content is pushed into your face as soon as possible and you clearly know where it is at all times. You quest list becomes massive really fast because of the flashing job boards that you feel obligated to click on. Having these hundreds of quests makes you stressed about completing them, especially since if you wait too long, some quests will no longer give you worthwhile rewards. It's just stressful and unpleasant. You eventually get tired of the game before completing it because you've pretty much done everything.
I guess this is going to be a paragraph in my document :p
On another note, about the "too much content" argument, I don't think it's a case of too much content. The problem is how the content is presented. In Skyrim for example, there's a ton of content and it's never "too much". The problem with Witcher 3 is that the content is pushed into your face as soon as possible and you clearly know where it is at all times. You quest list becomes massive really fast because of the flashing job boards that you feel obligated to click on. Having these hundreds of quests makes you stressed about completing them, especially since if you wait too long, some quests will no longer give you worthwhile rewards. It's just stressful and unpleasant. You eventually get tired of the game before completing it because you've pretty much done everything.
ItBurn wrote on Jul 27, 2015, 22:24:
On another note, about the "too much content" argument, I don't think it's a case of too much content. The problem is how the content is presented. In Skyrim for example, there's a ton of content and it's never "too much". The problem with Witcher 3 is that the content is pushed into your face as soon as possible and you clearly know where it is at all times. You quest list becomes massive really fast because of the flashing job boards that you feel obligated to click on. Having these hundreds of quests makes you stressed about completing them, especially since if you wait too long, some quests will no longer give you worthwhile rewards. It's just stressful and unpleasant. You eventually get tired of the game before completing it because you've pretty much done everything.
I guess this is going to be a paragraph in my document :p
Cutter wrote on Jul 27, 2015, 19:13:ItBurn wrote on Jul 27, 2015, 18:18:
I realize I go way against the grain, but I think a lot of people aren't rational when it comes to The Witcher and CD Projekt. It's still a very good game, but I could write a document about all the problems it has. And I might :p
Not so. Many of us didn't like the first 2 games and loved the third. It is, in my opinion, one of the best games ever made bar none. And no, you couldn't write a document about all the problems it has because it doesn't. And you won't.
Vall Forran wrote on Jul 27, 2015, 19:30:
I don't get the complaints. You guys want it to be like batman/assassin's creed where you can simply press a counter button to win?
There were a few frustrating parts, until I learned how to utilize the whole beast journal telling me exactly how to beat said creature.
What game has this advanced combat mechanic that you speak of? Just curious...
Tipsy McStagger wrote on Jul 27, 2015, 19:22:
The combat system is simplistic and stupid.
Does it actually ruin the game? the answer is no.
Is the game still really good? yes.
Would the game benefit from a better skill based attack system? Yes.
Also, I don't dodge.. I roll. It works amazingly well on everything except for Fiends (which are in my opinion, the hardest creature in the game)
CJ_Parker wrote on Jul 27, 2015, 20:07:
But whoever the fuck is playing these games for the gameplay is doing it wrong anyway. You play these games for Geralt, Triss, Dandelion, Zoltan and all other memorable characters like Letho, the Sorceresses or Iorveth and Roche, the (fuckable) chicks, the quests, the story, the choices, the consequences, the exploration and all that good shit.
You just have to learn to ignore the bad shit like the combat, the boss fights, that asshole of a horse, the floaty movement, poor controls etc.
ItBurn wrote on Jul 27, 2015, 18:12:
I absolutely hate the combat in Witcher 3. I turned difficulty at the easiest setting last night. It's the first time I ever do this in a game. I can't stand it anymore, I just want to finish the game.
Because I lowered the difficulty, loot doesn't mean anything anymore, so not too interested in new game+...
Also, even with the new movement settings, moving around really sucks. I keep falling off cliffs and having a really hard time going where I want to go and not clipping on geometry. Don't get me started about Roach...
I'm not done with the game yet, but I don't see how the game could be more than an 8/10! I mean some parts are amazing, but there's so many bad decisions and broken things...