Is The Witcher 3 overrated?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Some of the quests in the game were really good thanks to some excellent storylines but I think this was offset by as many(if not more) quests that were really boring but the dialogue itself being well written and with a convincing delivery so you didn't notice it as much. The Witcher 3 is one of the few genuinely 'mature' titles as it deals with aspects of life other games don't really touch so the well written themes and quests enrich the setting giving it depth and complexity. Despite this though much of the dialogue goes on too long and is unengaging. And with a cutscene around every corner there is no way around it. The Witcher is like an excessively voluminous book with too many boring pages.

So the writing of the game is good(if often long-winded) which is unique in games and adds to the ambiance and world building. Away from the story though the game is open world but doesn't really feel as such. You don't really feel like you're exploring or could aimlessly wander the map and always find something new like in Skyrim. The map in Witcher lacks a coherent interactive geography b/c everything is subservient to the story so there aren't really any unscripted 'player moments' like in a Bugthesda game. The game has little to offer in terms of adventure or discovery you have to listen to the well-written NPC prattling on for 15 minutes to get any engagement out the game.

The graphics are very pretty but feel very brittle like they are made of paper. There is very little interaction between Gerard and the environment other than his clumsy movement. Geralt also feels made of paper lacking weight with ultra light controls that make Ger move like a feather through the paper game world with his two swords that feel like two little toothpicks. There is no 'oomph' to the combat either espescially after Ger goes into combat stance and it's like he's moving on ice with your controller enveloped in a thick syrup. It's unresponsive shit combat and you could argue that's not the point of an RPG but there is no real exploration either so again you go back to the NPC prattling on for over 15 minutes. Geralt is a cool character though he's sympathetic and a player who likes p00n.

TW3 in many ways feels more like an interactive story book. Like the one you turn the page and then the page flops open with a little cardboard castle and trees. It's pretty to look at and can be well-written you just wish it could be interactive.

Yes. Characters that go on and on and on about shit nobody cares about. Poor controls and unresponsive animations.

stroopwafel:

TW3 in many ways feels more like an interactive story book. Like the one you turn the page and then the page flops open with a little cardboard castle and trees. It's pretty to look at and can be well-written you just wish it could be interactive.

I'm prettysure thats what they were going for, or certainly what the loudest voices of praise desired from it.

The Witcher games are presumably a well done audio-visual adaptation of a series of novels. By that merit, they're mostly well presented, decently written, and technically sound. Whether you enjoy that is going to come down to your personal taste as far as the characters and world goes.

In a general gameplay sense, its fine. Nothing really jumps out as innovative or outstanding. It doesn't bend the open world standard design particularly much. It even uses systems it should be above, like Eagle Vision/Witcher Sense for details they clearly have enough design chops to not need.

Structured as an RPG, it has some flaws. Geralt's not dynamic enough to get much personal flavor on the character. The progression mechanics don't mesh with the narrative. It has the commonplace pitfall of using an urgent call to action while deluging the player in side content.

"Overrated" is a complex concept though. Witcher 3 isn't strongly and consistently listed in the extreme upper echelons of games, and most of the praise is still as the recentest, shiniest, big RPG game. And it probably is a standard bearer as such. To apply Overrated usually requires a lot higher opinions over a long period of time after the honeymoon phase has died down.

Let's be frank, "overrated" is an inherently personal viewpoint. It basically means that your experience with a thing wasn't as good as everyone else's experience with it, so whether or not you think it's overrated comes down to what you personally think.

Incredibly overrated.

Terrible combat
Terrible controls that geralt control like a tank
most of time riding in horse and travelling form point A to point B
Incredibly long and boring dialouges that mostly feel like talking simulator
Geralt sound too much like robotic

and i could go on and on. its one of the most overrated game of this gen. im amazed its most praise game on steam and many reviewers rate it 10/10 .

Ezekiel:
Yes. Characters that go on and on and on about shit nobody cares about.

Wut?

Like I know you have a pension for shitting on everything, but seriously, wut?

OT: Can anybody give me an example of something that isn't overrated? This term has become pretty much meaningless in the geek community.

I find the controls pretty smooth for an RPG, at least compared to the first two games. I think people just really need to enjoy being "The Witcher" and immersed in the world to avoid it feeling like a slog, because there is a lot there between the massive menu system and different gameplay elements like managing loot, gathering ingredients, crafting, etc. I'm more interested in Kingdom Come: Deliverance right now because it feels more easily digestible despite being rooted in "realism". Perhaps that's the difference is that most of the gameplay systems feel logical and more purposeful/practical.

But I know I'll still enjoy TW3 when I get around to it, because next to the first two games it feels like CDPR finally found its footing, even though they give possibly too much ground to cover.

It's good but it's not the second coming of Jesus Christ that people praise it as

In my opinion, not really. But in a lot of people's, of course.

My main take away from The Witcher 3 is apparent when compared to the likes of AAA titles like Assassin's Creed Origins. CD Projekt Red employs around five to six hundred staff and is, by and large, an independent developer.
Ubisoft Montreal employs over three thousand people and has the publishing power of their parent company to back investment for their development.

Given that TW3 was the third game an indie studio developed, I'm willing to cut some of the jankier aspects of the game some slack. It also helps that I really enjoy the universe of the Witcher and had been dying to just go out and do some basic Witcher contracting since played the first game. The end result was a game that played well enough, looked great and told a consistent story with some excellent character building. On top of the wonderful pro consumer decisions they made with DLC and Expansions. Overrated? Not to me.

No it's not. For fans of the Witcher series or dark fantasy RPGs in general is pretty much unmatched in what is trying to accomplish. It set the bar where there's no game in sight that even gets close.

The people who didn't like it are going to say yes, the people who did are going to say no. What are you expecting from this?

Casual Shinji:

OT: Can anybody give me an example of something that isn't overrated? This term has become pretty much meaningless in the geek community.

Tetris.

Extensively popular but never embodied by a fandom singing its praises. A simple design not held back by technical limitations of its time that will make it awkwardly dated later on.

You can take Witcher 3, or Ocarina of Time, or Bloodborne or FF7, or Half Life 2, or Undertale, or Portal. And pretty easily pick out obvious spots for improvement.

Essentially, we know on a fundamental level that these are not *perfect* games, yet we see 10/10 ratings for them. Even the devs could probably go on for a good bit about having to cut some piece of the vision out here and there because budget/tech/talent/whatever couldn't manage it.

No fucking way for me. Even after all the hype it still absolutely blew me away.

B-Cell:
Incredibly overrated.

Terrible combat
Terrible controls that geralt control like a tank

Yeah, no. By what standards are these two even remotely true? What is the point of comparison? I would really like to hear you elaborate on this.

bartholen:
I would really like to hear you elaborate on this.

He can't. He watches that retard from "Worth a Buy" and he simply adopts his opinions as his own. I doubt that he even played TW3 considering his general hatred for third person games, especially third person games that aren't even shooters.

As for me, I think it's the best game ever made.

Of course it is, any game sitting in the 90s with an average score is overrated. Shape of Water just won for Best Picture and averaged an 8.4/10 for example. Not only does Witcher 3 have to do more with regards to story and characters than a movie because of length, it also has gameplay as well. Are you going to tell me that a game that has to have as much as probably at least 5 or so movies of writing plus being a game while having all the gameplay elements being really good is better than the best movie in a year? So even without me going into actually criticizing Witcher 3, there's no way it's 91-93/100 amazing that it has been rated, and thus overrated.

So, onto the criticisms of Witcher 3. The combat is average at best (worse than average for me), it's some mishmash of Souls and Arkham combat that just doesn't work. Plus, Geralt is a witcher, who are monster hunters, and the monster fights just plain suck ass. The movement alone needed to be patched because of how bad it was, even alternate movement makes it better but movement is still far below basically any other game. So, how is the gameplay considered good by anyone when Geralt can't even run around the game world properly? Not to mention how unbalanced and broken some of the game's skills like quen and axii are. The writing is definitely a high point for the game and possibly gaming as a whole, which is quite an accomplishment; however, the main story does devolve into literally 'save all worlds' while the main "side" quests like the Baron are far above what the overarching story is so I'd probably give the writing an 8/10 (which is a damn good score people). And I'll ask, how is the game an overall 91-93/100 when the best part of the game is not even at that point?

Witcher 3 just has so much stuff in it that doesn't support it's core experience. The game really doesn't even need its open world. The progression system makes no sense with regards to both basic logic and gameplay mechanics. Why can't a master witcher hold a level 2 sword at the beginning of the game? Why is there even a loot system in place when acquiring witcher gear contradicts having that whole loot system to begin with? The loot system not only contradicts other RPG elements (witcher gear) found in the game but also contradicts the character of Geralt himself. The combat system being designed for humanoid enemies vs monsters also demonstrates the lack of focusing on what the core game should be. Back to the open world, which negates the urgency of Geralt finding Ciri, the game didn't need tons of sidequests and activities (regardless of how good or bad they are). Geralt wouldn't be taking time to play Gwent or finding some woman's pan nor diving in water for treasures. Wither 3 could've been a much more focused experience IMO.

Casual Shinji:
OT: Can anybody give me an example of something that isn't overrated? This term has become pretty much meaningless in the geek community.

Not much if we're classifying overrated by critical reception. The only games that I say could merit really high scores are the games that just do one thing and do it really well (whether it's like a sports game, fighting game, linear action combat game, etc.). A lot of games not only have at least a feature film's worth of writing but also have several different gameplay elements to boot. So when a game actually has writing on par with the best movies/tv shows and books while having some of the best gameplay in its own medium is when I'd say a game getting a score in the 90s is not overrated. Getting an average score of 80+ should be special and not par for the course.

hanselthecaretaker:
I find the controls pretty smooth for an RPG, at least compared to the first two games... I'm more interested in Kingdom Come: Deliverance right now, most of the gameplay systems feel logical and more purposeful/practical.

"Good for an RPG" is not a valid excuse though. If the gameplay of any game, RPG or not, is mainly fighting enemies then the combat system should be legit good and on par with other great combat systems (whether action or turn based). RPGs have the easy way around that by not having combat be a major gameplay element while an action combat game obviously has to be about combat. Kingdom Come is an example of an RPG having very little combat because RPGs shouldn't really have an abundance of combat. The most engaging actual gameplay of Witcher 3 was the "choices" you have as a player when Geralt finds Ciri, I wish the game was far more of that suff instead of basically a poor man's hack and slash. Basically, if a game has an element in it and the developer doesn't care to make it top-notch, then it either shouldn't be in the game or be in there only very sparingly.

Johnny Novgorod:
The people who didn't like it are going to say yes, the people who did are going to say no. What are you expecting from this?

Does this help? I think the Witcher 3 is overrated mainly because people blindly ignore all of its faults. But I still think it is the game of that year. It could still be the best RPG. But that doesn't mean it's prefect in any shape or form.

trunkage:

Johnny Novgorod:
The people who didn't like it are going to say yes, the people who did are going to say no. What are you expecting from this?

Does this help? I think the Witcher 3 is overrated mainly because people blindly ignore all of its faults. But I still think it is the game of that year. It could still be the best RPG. But that doesn't mean it's prefect in any shape or form.

Has the label 'perfect' or 'without flaws' ever been placed on The Witcher 3 by fans though, or on any other well regarded game? At best you'll have people saying they loved a game so much they choose to ignore the flaws. Maybe this is miscommunication, but people tend to confuse fans saying 'I love this game to death' or 'This is the best game I ever played' with them claiming there is absolutely, positively nothing wrong with it.

Phoenixmgs:
Basically, if a game has an element in it and the developer doesn't care to make it top-notch, then it either shouldn't be in the game or be in there only very sparingly.

First of all that's a bit unfair, since no game can make every element top-notch, hence why there's no such thing as a perfect game. Just look at the way the spear was handled in Horizon: Zero Dawn, or the climbing for that matter... not great. And secondly, this can be very subjective. Some people think the horse controls in Shadow of the Colossus is garbage.

Nope, it deserves the praise it received.

It has flaws for sure, but it still became one of the most influential RPG experiences I've had since the first RPG I ever played.

I haven't played the game in a year and I STILL think about it. I was thinking of firing it up again pretty soon once I'm done with Far Cry 5.

Rip Van Rabbit:
Nope, it deserves the praise it received.

This

Witcher 3 is fantastic. A beautiful, vibrant world, quests with unexpected twists that people actually took time and writing to plot out, awesome witcherized retellings of classic fairy tales, great characters (seriously, I don't think there has been a video game character I have loved to hate more than King Radovid).

Yeah the controls were kinda meh, still the greatest open-world game ever.

Casual Shinji:

Phoenixmgs:
Basically, if a game has an element in it and the developer doesn't care to make it top-notch, then it either shouldn't be in the game or be in there only very sparingly.

First of all that's a bit unfair, since no game can make every element top-notch, hence why there's no such thing as a perfect game. Just look at the way the spear was handled in Horizon: Zero Dawn, or the climbing for that matter... not great. And secondly, this can be very subjective. Some people think the horse controls in Shadow of the Colossus is garbage.

The main trick to making everything top-notch (or at least good) is for the developer to understand what the core of the game is and what elements are needed to support and enhance the core experience. Witcher 3 has quite a few elements that it really didn't need and feels like are just in there because they are popular vs needed for the game. Many games become diluted because of that. Witcher 3 didn't need the open world, the skill trees, or the loot system at all because none of them really make any sense for a master witcher on a time sensitive quest. All that time spent on extraneous stuff could've been spent making combat good for example or eschewing combat completely and making the game into a real detective game instead of just aping Batman's detective mode. The Game Maker's Toolkit Design by Subtraction episode can and should be applied to every game.

Horizon, while having its faults, does understand it's core far better than the Witcher 3. The spear was fine in Horizon for what it needed to do in machine combat as it wasn't a melee combat system. The human combat was the issue where the spear could've done more along with being the biggest fault of the game. At least Guerilla knew that they had the make machine combat good first and foremost whereas CDPR did the exact opposite building a combat system around humanoid combat when its main character is a monster hunter, not Batman. I'd rate Horizon as an 8/10 because it could be decently better at certain things.

And your last point about subjectivity is exactly the reason why ANYTHING having an aggregate review score of 90+ is asinine. To get a review score even in the low 90s (let alone the even more ridiculous 98 aggregates) requires such a large percentage of reviewers to find the game a masterpiece, subjectivity has to be basically eschewed for faux objectivity. There's tons of people that don't like several hit games because of valid reasons, where's the negative reviews for hit games that point out those reasons? Look at what happened with Greg Tito's review of GTA5 on this very site, he hated the writing and got bitched at by gamers for giving the game a 7/10, a rather generous score based on just the written review. That's why every game is overrated. Shadow of the Colossus is one of my favorite games and it's overrated too because there's people that hate the horse riding or the empty world or lack of things to do or whatever.

The other part I'd add is that I think a lot of hate for Witcher comes from the way its designed. If your used to games letting you play your way - do come here. The Witcher isnt designed for role play, exploring, sight seeing or letting you do things your way. You need to take it on its terms, not form your own playstyle. Until I learnt this, I had heaps of trouble geting engaged.

Yennefer is villian, willing to kill people to get what she wants. And this is meant to be a love interest. Its a big turn off and really undermines the main quest.

Casual Shinji:

Ezekiel:
Yes. Characters that go on and on and on about shit nobody cares about.

Wut?

Like I know you have a pension for shitting on everything, but seriously, wut?

Oh man, you can get a pension for that? I'm more than qualified! Where do I apply?

I think you meant 'penchant' =P

Azure-Supernova:
In my opinion, not really. But in a lot of people's, of course.

My main take away from The Witcher 3 is apparent when compared to the likes of AAA titles like Assassin's Creed Origins. CD Projekt Red employs around five to six hundred staff and is, by and large, an independent developer.
Ubisoft Montreal employs over three thousand people and has the publishing power of their parent company to back investment for their development.

Given that TW3 was the third game an indie studio developed, I'm willing to cut some of the jankier aspects of the game some slack. It also helps that I really enjoy the universe of the Witcher and had been dying to just go out and do some basic Witcher contracting since played the first game. The end result was a game that played well enough, looked great and told a consistent story with some excellent character building. On top of the wonderful pro consumer decisions they made with DLC and Expansions. Overrated? Not to me.

'Indie studio'? Yeah right, only if you still consider Valve 'indie.' They're worth 2.3 billion dollars and run one of the most popular digital distribution platforms out there.

I haven't played it, but generally I dislike the term "overrated." As I mentioned in another thread about calling things "overrated" the only time I will ever say something is overrated is when I think something is good, but not good enough to deserve the popularity or praise it gets. Examples of such for me would be FF7. Does TW3 deserve the praise it gets? I don't know.

Casual Shinji:
Has the label 'perfect' or 'without flaws' ever been placed on The Witcher 3 by fans though, or on any other well regarded game? At best you'll have people saying they loved a game so much they choose to ignore the flaws. Maybe this is miscommunication, but people tend to confuse fans saying 'I love this game to death' or 'This is the best game I ever played' with them claiming there is absolutely, positively nothing wrong with it.

Let's see, 17 100 scores right off the critic side of metacritic, 700 and change on the user side. Which is aroundish 20% on the first and 8% on the latter.

So yeah, there's a decent chunk of people saying the game is objectively perfect. There's an even wider swath running along the second-only-to-absolute-perfection band.

You can swing the other way around with the concept too. How many people are quick to throw down the 0/10/, worst game evar stuff on entirely functional games. Even if we exclude games that literally don't function, there's still a ton of horrifically badly executed games out there then whatever iteration Call of Duty is on.

First of all that's a bit unfair, since no game can make every element top-notch, hence why there's no such thing as a perfect game. Just look at the way the spear was handled in Horizon: Zero Dawn, or the climbing for that matter... not great. And secondly, this can be very subjective. Some people think the horse controls in Shadow of the Colossus is garbage.

Well yeah, simpler concepts are easier to execute well. "Tetris is a perfect game" comes up because its a simple concept, executed to its best. You can certainly not enjoy Tetris, or find it simple, but that's a rejection of the concept, not a criticism of the execution.

Fundamentally, with current tech (and even if you had all the budget and talent in the world to apply), the whole living breathing open world stuff really can't come off perfectly. Its too many variables and complex systems to try and merge together. Open World designs also been kind of sluggish since around the mid-90s since designers realized that you can't just simulate our world, because players don't play like actual living beings in games and everything goes to shit. SO there's an ongoing creative struggle for ideas to make a world that interacts with the player and itself organically, but isn't destabilized by some sociopath with a hoarding complex or any of the other behavior that manifest with detached virutal avatars.

Shadow of the Colossus is an interesting example, as a game that did try and stick almost entirely to a small set of core concepts, and you could probably find less obvious gaps in the execution of those concepts because of it.

The Bloody Baron questline alone makes the game amazing.

It is not overrated, it has set the bar by which all other CRPGs can aspire to.

It has some faults, but they are drowned out by all of its positives.

It's not perfect, but it's still the best of its genre out there.

It's weird for me. I've had the game since release but I've got almost nowhere in it.

When I play the game I love it but when I stop I really don't feel any pull to go back and so I end up going weeks, sometimes months, between playing.

Casual Shinji:

Ezekiel:
Yes. Characters that go on and on and on about shit nobody cares about.

Wut?

Like I know you have a pension for shitting on everything, but seriously, wut?

I'm serious. I often intentionally picked the dialogue options that would get the boring assholes to shut up quicker. I know a good talky when I see it and TW3 isn't one.

Ezekiel:

Casual Shinji:

Ezekiel:
Yes. Characters that go on and on and on about shit nobody cares about.

Wut?

Like I know you have a pension for shitting on everything, but seriously, wut?

I'm serious. I often intentionally picked the dialogue options that would get the boring assholes to shut up quicker. I know a good talky when I see it and TW3 isn't one.

I'm hit and miss. Anyone in Skellege can shut up, especially the trickster monks. What complete a-holes, using someone's pretentiousness as an excuse for poor behaviour. Whoreson is a waste of space and I still don't care about Dandelion after three games. But Dijkstra, Baron, Kiera and Ciri can keep going. Even Thaler and Avelleon have much to add. It has some of the best characters in gaming but some of the worst too.

Drathnoxis:
Oh man, you can get a pension for that? I'm more than qualified! Where do I apply?

I think you meant 'penchant' =P

Hey man, second language, cut me some slack. :(

Seth Carter:

Casual Shinji:
Has the label 'perfect' or 'without flaws' ever been placed on The Witcher 3 by fans though, or on any other well regarded game? At best you'll have people saying they loved a game so much they choose to ignore the flaws. Maybe this is miscommunication, but people tend to confuse fans saying 'I love this game to death' or 'This is the best game I ever played' with them claiming there is absolutely, positively nothing wrong with it.

Let's see, 17 100 scores right off the critic side of metacritic, 700 and change on the user side. Which is aroundish 20% on the first and 8% on the latter.

So yeah, there's a decent chunk of people saying the game is objectively perfect. There's an even wider swath running along the second-only-to-absolute-perfection band.

You can swing the other way around with the concept too. How many people are quick to throw down the 0/10/, worst game evar stuff on entirely functional games. Even if we exclude games that literally don't function, there's still a ton of horrifically badly executed games out there then whatever iteration Call of Duty is on.

People need to stop taking review scores so freaking serious, and see them for what they are; a numerical value on the amount of enjoyment the reviewer had overall with the game. See, I doubt you're going to find a review with a 10/10 that throws zero shade on that title.

Ezekiel:

Casual Shinji:
Wut?

Like I know you have a pension for shitting on everything, but seriously, wut?

I'm serious. I often intentionally picked the dialogue options that would get the boring assholes to shut up quicker. I know a good talky when I see it and TW3 isn't one.

Well, that's more nuanced then your initial criticism of 'people talk about the things in this world, boo'. Which would be an odd thing to complain about considering what the game is and where it takes place.

Overrated is the kind of critique people make when they think they're smarter than the sheeple and can see the truth.

If I was carving a gravestone for the Escapist and wanted a pithy quote to sum it up it'd be 'x is overrated'.

EscapistAccount:
If I was carving a gravestone for the Escapist and wanted a pithy quote to sum it up it'd be 'x is overrated'.

Drathnoxis:
'Indie studio'? Yeah right, only if you still consider Valve 'indie.' They're worth 2.3 billion dollars and run one of the most popular digital distribution platforms out there.

But they fundamentally are an indie studio. They're larger than your average bedroom developer, but they're still on the smaller side for a development team. The Witcher 3's budget was some ?55 million. GTAV clocked in at ?190m. Bear in mind both games are considered AAA, despite having vast disparities in resources.
But the best game to compare TW3 to would probably be Horizon Zero Dawn.

Budget - ?40m vs ?55m
Development time - six vs four years
Team size - 270 vs 240

Despite their similarities, Horizon Zero Dawn was being backed and published by Sony. The Witcher 3 was self funded. That ?55m budget encompasses development and marketing costs, Horizon's doesn't. So whilst CDPR aren't one man and his dog developing a 32 bit, side scrolling platformer in their bedroom; they are by no means comparable to a majority of AAA developers.

Ezekiel:

Casual Shinji:

Ezekiel:
Yes. Characters that go on and on and on about shit nobody cares about.

Wut?

Like I know you have a pension for shitting on everything, but seriously, wut?

I'm serious. I often intentionally picked the dialogue options that would get the boring assholes to shut up quicker. I know a good talky when I see it and TW3 isn't one.

Yeah, main issue I have with TW3 is way too much boring dialogue. But skipping the dialogue means skipping most of the game as this is what they put most effort in(considering you'll find another talk addict 20 minutes later). Not all of the dialogue is bad, some of it is genuinely great and had me engaged but so much of the talk is just mundane fluff that never gets interesting. Admittedly the quality of the writing is good and so is the delivery but even 'good' writers can pen boring stories. And TW3 is nothing but story b/c as a game neither does it have the exploration of a typical open world RPG(everything is tied to the cobweb of chatty NPC's) nor can the shit combat be considered good gameplay. You are just funneled from one dialogue option to the next. Again, various quests have some genuinely great story moments but when playing a game start to feel like reading a book of which there are way too many boring pages you just wish it had something more to compensate for.

Sounds like you simply don't like the story in a story-centric game. That doesn't make it shit- it's just not for you. Move along.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here