I guess I’m one of the few people who thought Witcher 3 was a bit bland. I was already getting very bored at Novigrad and at Kaer Morhen I totally lost interest and have been unable to pick the game up since.
What do people like about it so much? I’ve read all the books, and generally speaking thought they were good, so I’m not exactly lacking in lore either.
I liked the alchemy in Witcher 2 more but the game mechanics with 3 and the RPG elements were amazing for me. And on par with Skyrim imo. In some aspects I liked Witcher more like how it affected the world building based on your actions.
I played the full game and the dlcs. Only the 2nd dlc and the baron stories are good. Id suggest people just play the blood and wine dlc, its really great. The game isn’t very fun, but I do love the atmosphere and city design. I was totally sick of looking at wet horse ass. Gwents more fun than monster hunting though sadly
I really liked monster hunting as a potions guy. I felt like a real Witcher. I’d have to track them down, read up on them, then drink potions and apply oils that would be strong against them, then finally take them out. That preparation and build up made me as immersed as a Witcher as I felt as Batman in the Arkham games.
The story telling is what really did it for me. I consider witcher 3 to be the greatest game I’ve ever played. The quality of that game is still extremely high even to today’s standards.
For me it was too long. I finished it with all the DLC for the first time a few days ago. I generally enjoyed it but was also quite happy to be done with it when I finally finished it at around the 110 hour mark. I actually took a break after Hearts of Stone and played a couple of shorter games before I came back to finish off Blood and Wine.
I haven’t yet played a single player game that I thought needed to be more than 60 hours no matter how engaging or well made it was.
Keep in mind that the main comparison point for it was Skyrim, which was pretty much the previous RPG people got sucked into.
The story was pretty good and it had a good number of meaningful side quests. Gwent was also a lot of fun, and the Blood and Wine DLC was another step above to keep the hype alive for longer. The combat can get fairly involved without feeling overly complex. Rather than the blank slate of many games of the era, you play as Geralt, who actually has relationships in the world to draw you in.
Basically, rather than the unfocused sandbox of random stuff in Skyrim, it was a more involved story-rich experience that a lot of people appreciated.
That said, the hype was ridiculous. It’s a very good RPG, not the second coming of Christ. It didn’t really do anything new, it was just a solid experience.
It’s a very good RPG, not the second coming of Christ.
That just shows what people want. Just a solid game, playable from start to finish. Due to time constraints i never finished Witcher 3 and barely made it past the prologue of BG3. But both those games are highly celebrated.
They don’t reinvent the wheel. They are just very solid games and come without predatory pricing.
I remember going into the first sandbox, and then going forward with no xp very fast. Then it was just me being weak as hell and rolling around to dodge and using a cast to make a shield around me to avoid dying. Then I stopped. Load time were horrible. But I want to try the remaster on ps5.
Storytelling/quests that surpassed anything its modern contemporaries had to offer. Add in a beautiful open world with alright combat and it’s a hit in my books. Time also wasn’t an issue back in those days as I were still in high school when it launched.
Skellige Island and the two expansions were actually great. Blood & Wine had an amazing flow. Otherwise I agree. It was a rehash of The Witcher 1, but not as charming.
Unpopular opinion: Many hyped up games fail immensely at some parts. But due to the social group effect criticism gets drowned out. Currently playing Elden Ring and while it makes a massively great impression all around it shows really bad game design cracks after more intense looking, especially in the boss and arena encounter design as if they were inexperienced. Cluttered, glitchy arenas impeding gameplay, just annoyingly specific roll tells, bad hitbox choices and the requirement to memorize full boss combo routes like a multiplayer fighter add to that 1-2 kill combos and it is terrible at times to me not we the effort. I am at Leyndell with almost all available side content/areas done. Waiting for the obligatory git gud chads storming in.
Well, yeah… that is so vague that it cannot help but be true. Almost all games fail in some way (especially more complex ones), they can all be improved by making some changes somewhere especially when everyone has different preferences for how things should work and what annoys them.
And by definition almost any hyped up game is going to fall short of expectations. Hype is born by imagination and has no limits, but games are delivered in reality where compromises need to be made, especially when time pressure is involved. And by nature the more hype a game is the more likely it is going to be over-hyped and fall far shorter of the expectations.
I am wary of any hyped up game. Hell, I would be wary of any AAA game on release day these days. Wait for real reviews to come in and not what the prerelease hype says about it. And even after remember that what games one person enjoys a lot another might absolutely hate.
I would not say it is as broadly self defined and I tried to give specific reasons. Elden Ring itself at its very core is about the core difficulty and yet I had way too many deaths caused by jank (the difference on how much better my experience with the same bosses in a cleaner arena speaks volumes, or the terrible twin fights) , not just some side nitpicking on minor mechanics. And so many reviews giving it excellence and yet there is apparently quite a bunch of people rating it below many of their other titles as at the last part of the game the problems pile up to an even worse degree.
I do enjoy it for most of the other aspects and I understand and agree what it is why people rave about it so much , but I would have loved to see scaled down boss damage, especially combos and twin fights to bridge the fun-defying issues, although a different design philosophy would be the better solution.
Movement and combat in every Witcher game is so unpleasant for me that I find them unplayable. I’ve literally gone through YouTube “Choose Your Own Adventure” style videos of the games because the stories are great but I hate how Geralt moves.
Fucking flaming gasoline trails, vehicles actually running out of gas after having their tanks punctured, it seems like the ejection was really toned down in GTAO but you could really get out of the windshield in single player.
I did get ejected through an incoming car in cyberpunk recently and was like "wow been a while."
I haven’t played in a couple years. Are you still bombarded with texts and phone calls as soon as you load into the game? And is theininap barely visible because of all the mission/activity markers?
Because that’s how it was last time I got on there. And that was right after they added the demolition derby stuff.
Reading this comment makes me give kudos for letting GTA V (singleplayer) exist as its own thing. I haven’t played GTAO since probably 2015 and have no idea what it’s like because of how little Rockstar pushes it on Singleplayer players.
No, they’ve done a couple of really nice qol updates lately that got rid of most of those, or at least reduced the calls to texts. I mean there’s still some annoyances, but it is better than it was. At least, last time I was there. Only join in maybe once a month or so now.
I know that Diablo isn’t a Capcom game, but if industry leaders are looking at $90 games with battle passes and in game purchases for $20 horse armor is “too low”, then we are truly fucked.
Games in the 90’s were almost the equivalent of $100 today. They seemed better, though, and people seem to play them longer, but that’s all probably just rose-tinted glasses
Worth pointing out that Circana does not fully track Steam (only some, albeit large publishers). They don’t track GOG or Epic at all (they are of course a lot smaller than Steam).
While Circana reports that content spending was up 1% year-over-year to $4.8 billion, that’s with subscription spending rising 16% and 2% growth in mobile.
If it refers to the total games software market (digital sales, physical sales, micro-transactions, subscriptions and mobile), then I think I my point stands.
I wasn’t sure if “content spending” excludes say micro-transactions for software that is not available physically.
Of course, there’s a significant difference between the two, as a Switch 2 is the only way to play Switch 2 games, while you can play Steam games on a multitude of devices, including other portable ones.
‘One of the biggest’ You mean ‘one of the only’? Extraction shooters aren’t common that I’m aware of unless I’m out of the loop. The only big one before this I was aware of was Tarkov.
The Cycle yes, but an extraction shooter is defined as a game you loot items that you then extract with to use in future runs or sell. Hunt and Helldivers doesn’t have that mechanic at all.
You can make the argument that Helldivers is more of a mission based shooter, and many people will agree with you.
Hunt is absolutely an extraction shooter. You take gear into a raid, fight other players, collect money and even their guns, fight a boss and collect the bounty when you extract.
No, not at all. Extraction shooters require you to take in gear, which you can lose. Find loot or better gear and extract with it. If you die during the mission you lose pretty much everything, high stakes are required. DRG has no stakes, you just go and complete a mission for some progression.
Someone said not Hunt. I disagree. I would say it is.
There is Zero Sievert, which is single player, Gray Zone Warfare, Arena Breakout Infinite (it’s an Asian game with Kernel level AC, so I can’t play it on Linux), Escape from Duckov recently, The Cycle (which I think is dead), and I’m certain I’m missing some.
It’s not a huge genre, but there’s still quite a few.
I don’t think there’s anything about the genre that requires multiplayer. My favorite way to play Escape from Tarkov is the Single Player Tarkov mod, for example. It’s the same game, but without wipes or other players (I play it for no wipes).
What you on about, there’s always been crappy game releases. There’s a reason “can it run crisis” became a meme. That game is a lot older than 10 years old and it was a unoptimized mess when it was released.
To be fair, Crytek said it wasn’t unoptimized, but graphically over tuned on purpose, so that even years after release new hardware could finally play the game to its full potential and keep it a relevant graphical benchmark. That on launch only a fraction of gaming PCs would come even close to playing it on max settings with high fps was intended.
If that was a stupid idea in hind sight is another matter 👀.
I heard nothing in CryEngine 2 was multithreaded because they bet on processors getting better single core performance instead of getting more cores (which is what happened). Not sure about the gpu load though
I feel like there have always been buggy releases. But I do feel they have gotten more frequent and have become the actual norm, with people being impressed when AAA releases don’t have deal breaking bugs on release
And when I’ve tried it numerous times I’ll let them walk me through the process while I browse the internet for a couple minutes while I “wait for the light to turn green”
Nope, it’s still flashing yellow, like it has been, and has been after the last couple resets of everything between me and the wall
Yeah, the process will be different depending on CPU, so I'm assuming 15 min is the upper bound they're expecting on the minimum supported spec or whatever.
I haven’t played 4, but I played 1, 2, and a bit of the presequel or whatever it was called. They were essentially all the same game. Run, shoot, run, shoot, hear vaguely off-color joke, run, shoot. Is there any particular reason to bother with an overpriced remake of the same old game? Is there a reason for worrying about 4KUHD textures on a game where the aesthetic is cartoony? If you’re a 9 year old who’s never played, and it’s all on mom’s dime, I could see being tricked into buying it by the advertisers, but why is anyone else excited about it?
I played the hell out of the first Borderlands (including New Game+ across all expansions), but promptly bounced off 2 & Pre-Sequel because it literally just felt like more of the same and I was already sated.
BL3 and now BL4 are literally just more of the same, but with ever increasingly more egregious monetisation.
I think that was the one that started in an ice zone, if I remember correctly? I literally couldn’t get past it because I find that aesthetic quite boring…
The ice zone (Southern Shelf) is only the very beginning of the game, you reach more interesting areas after defeating the first major boss, Captain Flynt.
Started with 2, liked it, hated 3, now playing 4 since yesterday with a friend and gameplay wise it has a bunch of changes/improvements. So if someone enjoys the gameplay its good. I mean cod and battlefield and fifa are also nearly the same game every time ;)
ign.com
Ważne