By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - The Witcher 3 - Out Now! Impressions?

Tagged games:

 

Opinion?

Excellent! 254 42.62%
 
Great! 71 11.91%
 
Good 32 5.37%
 
It's OK 32 5.37%
 
Eh... 13 2.18%
 
No thanks 20 3.36%
 
Get this thing out of here! 7 1.17%
 
See results 164 27.52%
 
Total:593
Angelv577 on 05 June 2015
GamechaserBE said:
I want to add something that a lot people doesn't seem to know around the internet. If you do low level quests you will not get Xp for it. Does not mean you have the XP bug.

I am far in the game but getting little tired of it. That's also because I want to collect Gwen cards but can't at the moment because one card I can get in a story quest at the moment but want to do the side quests first.

Are you sure?, I was level 8 yesterday and completed a level 6 quest and did get XP from it.



Around the Network
SvennoJ on 05 June 2015
dane007 said:
GamechaserBE said:
I want to add something that a lot people doesn't seem to know around the internet. If you do low level quests you will not get Xp for it. Does not mean you have the XP bug.

I am far in the game but getting little tired of it. That's also because I want to collect Gwen cards but can't at the moment because one card I can get in a story quest at the moment but want to do the side quests first.


You should still get exp . I got exp for doing some of my lower level quests.  Looks like you got the bug. If you are playing the pc version , the 1.05 patch  , should address the issue. Dont know if the next patch for console will address it though .

I'm playing on ps4 and I did not get xp when I was cleaning up the quests that had the suggested level displayed in grey. (1.04 patch)
I also wonder if the awarded xp scales? I got 143 xp for completing a side quest above my level, oddly specific amount.



GamechaserBE on 05 June 2015
Angelv577 said:
GamechaserBE said:
I want to add something that a lot people doesn't seem to know around the internet. If you do low level quests you will not get Xp for it. Does not mean you have the XP bug.

I am far in the game but getting little tired of it. That's also because I want to collect Gwen cards but can't at the moment because one card I can get in a story quest at the moment but want to do the side quests first.

Are you sure?, I was level 8 yesterday and completed a level 6 quest and did get XP from it.

Well that is what the dev says... but only when the quests are dark/grey and you have atleast a difference of 6 levels.   I got the update now and still no Xp for low level quests...



SvennoJ on 05 June 2015
Danman27 said:
dane007 said:


Witcher 3 gameplay has ben overhauled completely from witcher 2. its alot of fluid and in depth.  there are so many optiosn to use in battle and its very satisfying when you win as you have to do whats you havebeen given to win. The story is beautiful and very engaging. keps you pulled in . Its faster paced to that of witcher 2 . What rpg do you prefer playing if witcher 2 was boring for you?

Favorite RPG is Souls series, including Bloodborne. I also enjoy final fantasy, Mass effect, Skyrim, and Fallout. I just found the witcher incredibly unengaging, it really annoyed that I had to use two different swords because they were both the exact same thing, I just had to keep track of which button I had to press to kill a certain enemy, and I thought the magic in the game was incredibly boring. 

I see what you mean, witcher 3 is not grabbing as much as the souls series or even Skyrim did. After an hour, 2 at most I'm usually done, but I do still come back for more. I could play Dark souls and Skyrim for 10 hours straight without ever losing attention. The problem with witcher 3 is that the good stuff is diluted by a lot of busy work and repetitive filler quests. Last night, 2 hour play time, nothing interesting happened, well I got to lvl 16. The good stuff is worth staying for though, but I wish there was a more obvious distinction between the simple fetch quests (in this case go here, spot the red mark and report or go there and kill x) and the ones that lead to an interesting story. Skyrim handled that better.

Btw the swords are automated in witcher 3, he takes out the right one when you get near enemies. Kinda pointless to have two, just something to upgrade.



Angelv577 on 05 June 2015
GamechaserBE said:
Angelv577 said:

Are you sure?, I was level 8 yesterday and completed a level 6 quest and did get XP from it.

Well that is what the dev says... but only when the quests are dark/grey and you have atleast a difference of 6 levels.   I got the update now and still no Xp for low level quests...

That might explain it.



Around the Network
SvennoJ on 05 June 2015
dane007 said:

Souls games  may be different but if you have  good equiomen and you are high level then its easy. Souls games back on last gen consoles, were only remote challenging due to FPS slow down coupled with enemies having a much longer reach. For a precision combat, the framerate needs to be flawless imo. Bloodbourne is the same but that game is much easier then the souls games.  Still the only challenge there , is mainly due to the frame pacing issues.  I actually do the quite opposite. i play all the sidequests first and do all the question mark in that area, before  tackling the main quest. That way , it provides a good amount of challenge, as you be lower level when tackling the side quests.

 

I guess if they made all the monster super strong, no one would finish the game as the game  itself is huge and didn't want to put people off.   The system in The witcher is no different to any JRPGs. Eventually you get OP as you reach max level. Dont forget  , it is their first attempt at making an open world. For a first attempt, they did a phenomenal job. At the end  of the day, its the story that captures your interest more then anything else in the game. Well for me , thats what keeps me coming back . The rest is just an icing on the cake really. 

Sure Souls games get easy with better equipment, they don't by simply having a higher level.
Witcher 3 is putting me off a lot more by the frame rate issues and camera than souls games did. Yet there I specialized early in pyromancy and sorcery to play a slow tactical ranged combat style. Which is one of the reasons I haven't started Bloodbourne yet, seems my favorite play style has been axed. (And I got distracted while waiting for the load time patch, now its in my backlog)

Indeed the story keeps me coming back from more. For me the rest is not just icing, it's more like a lot of stale cake that you need to get through to reach the jummy inner parts. I'm at the point to simply leave all the side quests behind, yet I'm afraid I'll miss something good. It's a weird game, awesome yet at the same time often not all that much fun to play. It is always beautiful to look at, there's that.



Danman27 on 06 June 2015
SvennoJ said:
Danman27 said:
dane007 said:


Witcher 3 gameplay has ben overhauled completely from witcher 2. its alot of fluid and in depth.  there are so many optiosn to use in battle and its very satisfying when you win as you have to do whats you havebeen given to win. The story is beautiful and very engaging. keps you pulled in . Its faster paced to that of witcher 2 . What rpg do you prefer playing if witcher 2 was boring for you?

Favorite RPG is Souls series, including Bloodborne. I also enjoy final fantasy, Mass effect, Skyrim, and Fallout. I just found the witcher incredibly unengaging, it really annoyed that I had to use two different swords because they were both the exact same thing, I just had to keep track of which button I had to press to kill a certain enemy, and I thought the magic in the game was incredibly boring. 

I see what you mean, witcher 3 is not grabbing as much as the souls series or even Skyrim did. After an hour, 2 at most I'm usually done, but I do still come back for more. I could play Dark souls and Skyrim for 10 hours straight without ever losing attention. The problem with witcher 3 is that the good stuff is diluted by a lot of busy work and repetitive filler quests. Last night, 2 hour play time, nothing interesting happened, well I got to lvl 16. The good stuff is worth staying for though, but I wish there was a more obvious distinction between the simple fetch quests (in this case go here, spot the red mark and report or go there and kill x) and the ones that lead to an interesting story. Skyrim handled that better.

Btw the swords are automated in witcher 3, he takes out the right one when you get near enemies. Kinda pointless to have two, just something to upgrade.

Well, the sword thing is good to hear, but I think the souls series has ruined me for sword fighting. generally speaking. I just love the way that game controls, and no other game does it as well in my opinion.



HoloDust on 06 June 2015
Danman27 said:
SvennoJ said:

I see what you mean, witcher 3 is not grabbing as much as the souls series or even Skyrim did. After an hour, 2 at most I'm usually done, but I do still come back for more. I could play Dark souls and Skyrim for 10 hours straight without ever losing attention. The problem with witcher 3 is that the good stuff is diluted by a lot of busy work and repetitive filler quests. Last night, 2 hour play time, nothing interesting happened, well I got to lvl 16. The good stuff is worth staying for though, but I wish there was a more obvious distinction between the simple fetch quests (in this case go here, spot the red mark and report or go there and kill x) and the ones that lead to an interesting story. Skyrim handled that better.

Btw the swords are automated in witcher 3, he takes out the right one when you get near enemies. Kinda pointless to have two, just something to upgrade.

Well, the sword thing is good to hear, but I think the souls series has ruined me for sword fighting. generally speaking. I just love the way that game controls, and no other game does it as well in my opinion.

I'm hearing this a lot, but as someone who played DS I still find combat in Severance: Blade of Darkness better (and that's 2001 PC game). Which didn't stop me from enjoying DS.

As for W3, as much as some people complain, I have zero issues with combat (though I have with some other stuff), but then again I'm quite forgiving when it comes to RPGs, specially of  open-world variety, since there's much more important things for these games - ie. combat in TES games is complete crap, still Morrowind is one of the best open-world RPGs ever made.



dane007 on 06 June 2015
Danman27 said:
dane007 said:


Witcher 3 gameplay has ben overhauled completely from witcher 2. its alot of fluid and in depth.  there are so many optiosn to use in battle and its very satisfying when you win as you have to do whats you havebeen given to win. The story is beautiful and very engaging. keps you pulled in . Its faster paced to that of witcher 2 . What rpg do you prefer playing if witcher 2 was boring for you?

Favorite RPG is Souls series, including Bloodborne. I also enjoy final fantasy, Mass effect, Skyrim, and Fallout. I just found the witcher incredibly unengaging, it really annoyed that I had to use two different swords because they were both the exact same thing, I just had to keep track of which button I had to press to kill a certain enemy, and I thought the magic in the game was incredibly boring. 


fair enough. i was never too fond of the souls game as it was fair challenge , due to the limitation of the console. can't play a precision combat if the framerate is terrrible and then you couple it with super long reach which makes unplayable to me.  For me rpg have to have story and thats another reason why i don t like souls or bloodbourne and prefer witcher series and mass effect.  The story have to  be well written adn the quest have to  be meaningful and not fetch or kil quests liek in fallout  or skrim. in saying that , i enjoyed fallout 3. FOr me bloodbourne was a step of  souls game but it still lack story  and the frame pacing was painful. Ah fair enough. You dont have to worry about that in the witcher 3 as it does it for automatically.  As soon as you detect the enemy, the game will pull out the right one.  Hows the magic any more boring then the magic in skyrim ? lol. or even in mass effect series lol . You do have to remember , its a different universe  right lol. Those days you dont have exciting magic to use. 



dane007 on 06 June 2015
SvennoJ said:
dane007 said:
 

Souls games  may be different but if you have  good equiomen and you are high level then its easy. Souls games back on last gen consoles, were only remote challenging due to FPS slow down coupled with enemies having a much longer reach. For a precision combat, the framerate needs to be flawless imo. Bloodbourne is the same but that game is much easier then the souls games.  Still the only challenge there , is mainly due to the frame pacing issues.  I actually do the quite opposite. i play all the sidequests first and do all the question mark in that area, before  tackling the main quest. That way , it provides a good amount of challenge, as you be lower level when tackling the side quests.

 

I guess if they made all the monster super strong, no one would finish the game as the game  itself is huge and didn't want to put people off.   The system in The witcher is no different to any JRPGs. Eventually you get OP as you reach max level. Dont forget  , it is their first attempt at making an open world. For a first attempt, they did a phenomenal job. At the end  of the day, its the story that captures your interest more then anything else in the game. Well for me , thats what keeps me coming back . The rest is just an icing on the cake really. 

Sure Souls games get easy with better equipment, they don't by simply having a higher level.
Witcher 3 is putting me off a lot more by the frame rate issues and camera than souls games did. Yet there I specialized early in pyromancy and sorcery to play a slow tactical ranged combat style. Which is one of the reasons I haven't started Bloodbourne yet, seems my favorite play style has been axed. (And I got distracted while waiting for the load time patch, now its in my backlog)

Indeed the story keeps me coming back from more. For me the rest is not just icing, it's more like a lot of stale cake that you need to get through to reach the jummy inner parts. I'm at the point to simply leave all the side quests behind, yet I'm afraid I'll miss something good. It's a weird game, awesome yet at the same time often not all that much fun to play. It is always beautiful to look at, there's that.

Yea i heard that the ps4 version ahs really bad frame rate problems. I can't say for sure as i am playing it on pc . My older brother , however has xbox  one and its looks stable to me , especially in combat.  But the witcher 3  doesnt have frame rate problems liek the souls game where it feel liek its on single frames lol. Does your ps4 version lag when you fight enemies?  I know you can do the same with Witcher 3 as i defeated a level 18 monster when i was level 6.  I think with the witcher 3, its both  where its based on high level and/or better equipment. Ah okay, fair enough. i mainly try to engage in combat , rather then do the tactical way. Apart from the  frame rate in souls , my main gripe with teh game was teh lack of story. for me , i need to hav e a reson to explore the worl di am and there needs to be  apurpose for it as well.   Going in to kill bosses and gettign equipment to unlock area , for me was pointless as theres no  reason to reach the end . Unless you want the gloryu to boast that you finished it  ;).  I agree totally. Its the story that you get from the main quests and teh story you get from sidequests , is what makes me keep on playing.  Its not like syrim  where it says  go collect 4 of something or go to this guys house and kill  him with this poison arrow.  The sidequets has lot fo backstory which makes i worthwhile to wexplore , plus its beautiful written as well.  Bloodbourne is fun but its easier then soul games  , hower the frame pacing issues is terrible. constant stuttering , especially during combat.