• fosforus@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • brenticus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • ManosTheHandsOfFate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • teichflamme@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The world is interesting, Geralt is a cool character to play, combat is nice enough, and first and foremost every quest is worth looking into.

      The game has a ton of side quests that had more thought put into than the main quests of other games

    • UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • And009@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • daemoz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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