1eyedking Witcher 3 is a step below Risen in every way except story

[Makabb]

The Witcher was nothing more than false hope. It had a great premise but the gameplay was complete ass, as were just about all the quests too (fedex much?). It turned the concept of choices and consequences into a cheesy gimmick when it's something RPGs of old simply intertwined into their games without shoving it in your face. The combat system is quite terrible as well, about as fun as running head first into a wall.

I think the only entertaining aspect I found in the game were random NPC's telling me "Your momma sucks dwarf ****."

 

[ilitarist]

I don't know where this notion comes from.

That was my experience with my first playthrough on higher difficulty. It fun while I tried to figure out the game in first area. Then in Velen it just made sure level gating works (and it was strange because right near your start enemies would be too high level for you and you need to go for the main quest). But as you say level gating doesn't really gates anything. You won't even be able to use cool equipment till you levelup accordingly. For a very short period Velen felt dangerous and structured, but then outleveled monsters become trivial and the magic fades. Plus, again, you're supposedly professional monster-killer and those drowners are regarded as weaklings, they can only kill a man when swarm him. When I switched to hard the game become not easier but faster, I still shouldn't fight someone higher level than me but enemies of my level are always manageable and are always impotent unless you let them swarm you.

Risen, in comparison, had this problem of constant getting into wrong places, getting one-shoted by random fly and realizing you have to go somewhere else first. I think clearly showing enemy level the way it's done is Witcher is a more honest approach: it assumes our hero has some esotheric knowledge of how strong enemies are, but in Gothic/Risen it's very hard to imagine hero's journey without reloads or meta-knowledge which is immersive breaking. I mean how in-game the hero is supposed to know he is ready to take on one swamp area but not the other if no one tells him he should or shouldn't go into either of them?

At least Gothic/Risen had not problem of exactly the same monster suddenly being 10 times stronger because he lives in an endgame area.

 

[Falksi]

Yeah, agree with a lot of the comments about TW3. I loved TW2, but introducing an open world into the equation, combined with a much more drab/unspectacular plot, and then finally having repetitive quests thrown in (oh wow, I get to use witcher senses again.....) just made for a dull overall experience.

Think there's a good game somewhere in TW3. But like so many nowadays it's padded out with filler and gumph, and said quality gets lost.

The villages were awful. An absolute total lack of anything of note, just copy paste BS.

TW2 was a far superior game IMO. Truly exciting with it's branching paths and the multiple choices found in each.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Eventually I don't think level even matters much in W3. I remember taking down a level 50 wyvern while I was at level 30 or so.
Plus Gothic/risen had a pretty good difficulty indicator, that worked at least for rule of thumb, bigger enemies are typically the harder fights, starting from meatbugs and ending at dragons.

 

[ilitarist]

Eventually I don't think level even matters much in W3. I remember taking down a level 50 wyvern while I was at level 30 or so.
Plus Gothic/risen had a pretty good difficulty indicator, that worked at least for rule of thumb, bigger enemies are typically the harder fights, starting from meatbugs and ending at dragons.

Risen was not so good about it. IIRC swamp hideous worm monsters were giant and looked scary but where really less dangerous (and less XP-worthy) than some of moth monsters or mutated wolves.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Eventually I don't think level even matters much in W3. I remember taking down a level 50 wyvern while I was at level 30 or so.
Plus Gothic/risen had a pretty good difficulty indicator, that worked at least for rule of thumb, bigger enemies are typically the harder fights, starting from meatbugs and ending at dragons.

Risen was not so good about it. IIRC swamp hideous worm monsters were giant and looked scary but where really less dangerous (and less XP-worthy) than some of moth monsters or mutated wolves.

Nah, those moth monsters were neither dangerous nor xp-heavy.
Swamp things and mutie wolves were likely comparable to their Gothic equivalent though.

 

[Rpgsaurus Rex]

All Witcher games are bad. Risen is a good game. I can tolerate storyfaggotry in a game like PS:T because combat there is 5% at most, but having to spend most of the time going through the shit that is W1-3 combat to get to the 'awesome story' is masochism of the highest degree. "The Codex" (wtf is this "Mr. Codex" anyway?) likes DA:O too, so popularity polls should tell you nothing.

The reason for coming here is precisely because mass opinion on games sucks. This includes RPGCodex poll opinions. Look for people with interesting opinions and good taste, ignore the chaff. I don't even care so much for 'popamolers' or w/e, at least they like shit and are honest about it. It's the crowd mentality that "RPGcodex(tm) likes it, so it must be good!" creating mass hype for games that turn out to be meh taken seriously that is the true 'decline side' of the 'dex.

 

[sullynathan]

but when compared to every other Action RPG (specially Risen)

Again this is not true. If you're going to compare the Witcher 3's combat only to other action rpgs with bad combat then it looks decent.

 

[Nuclear Explosion]

but when compared to every other Action RPG (specially Risen)

Again this is not true. If you're going to compare the Witcher 3's combat only to other action rpgs with bad combat then it looks decent.

Have you played Risen? It actually has decent combat, the best of all PB's games. Admittedly, it is still nowhere near as good as Dark Souls' combat but it is not terrible.

 

[ilitarist]

It may be wrong place to ask it, but was Risen 3 good? Risen 2 is universally frowned upon but Risen 3 is just ignored. I only played Risen 1.

 

[sullynathan]

Have you played Risen? It actually has decent combat, the best of all PB's games. Admittedly it is still nowhere near as good as Dark Soul's, but it is not terrible.

I played it for 5 minutes, it certainly controlled better than Gothic but I deleted the game and went back to play Gothic 3. At the time ,I had beat Gothic 1 & 2 but reading the bad reception for G3, I chose to play Risen but went back to G3 just to finish the trilogy.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Hold on, saying R1sen is a gud game has suddenly become controversial?

Lolwut.

Fuck you faggots I LIKED RISEN 1 THIS MUCH

 

[RuySan]

To me R3 is as shit as R2. Maybe even more, since I couldn't even be bothered to finish.

Have you played Risen? It actually has decent combat, the best of all PB's games. Admittedly it is still nowhere near as good as Dark Soul's, but it is not terrible.

I played, and loved it. And still prefer TW3 combat. It just felt absolutely FUCK YEAH! I just had to mess with difficulty settings, and when they're right, Geralt fighting is like a ballet of death.

 

[Makabb]

Hold on, saying R1sen is a gud game has suddenly become controversial?

Lolwut.

Fuck you faggots I LIKED RISEN 1 THIS MUCH

much controversy

 

[Kahr]

Risen 3>Risen 2

 

[Sykar]

No.

 

[Kahr]

Yes.

 

[Sykar]

Yes.

I guess I should have specified that I responeded to the topc creator. As for Risen 3 and Risen 2, both forgetable turds so it does not matter which turd smells worse, they still stink.

 

[Gepeu]

Admittedly it is still nowhere near as good as Dark Soul's, but it is not terrible.

i dont even

 

[HoboForEternity]

risen 1 got pretty good combat, especially with humanoid ememies wielding weapons

 

[adddeed]

It may be wrong place to ask it, but was Risen 3 good? Risen 2 is universally frowned upon but Risen 3 is just ignored. I only played Risen 1.

Bro, do not listen to these edgelords and dumbfuks here. Both Risen 2 and Risen 3 are well worth playing. There are no games like those PB makes.

I loved Risen 1, and I would rate Risen 2 and 3 about the same. They changed some things for the worse and others for the better, but overall, i loved the series.

 

[kreepr]

At least Risen 3 had larger areas than R2. Combat more or less the same and it added some interesting settings (minus the end game wannabe Irdorath map).

 

[DJOGamer PT]

In Gothic 1/2, combat was elegant once you understood it (which many people did not). You would watch the humanoid enemy for signs of their attack, and then parry in split-seconds. If you timed it right, you would parry successfully and counter-attack without taking damage. This was stringed together many times into a beautiful flow, reminiscent of classic movie sword-fighting scenes. To this day, it is one of the better implemented melee combats in RPGs.

Let's just calm down.

Gothic's strong point are:

-Quests
-Exploration
-Level Design
-World Building

In those departments, there are almost no other games (except Morrowind, Enderal, Nehirim) that can rival the first 2 Gothic's. They are the best sandbox games in those aspects.

Combat, shealth and the Character Development system never were Gothic's strong points. As well as Gothic's community. They are compused of fanboys that can't see anything wrong with these games, and keep most mods and guides in German.

Someone make a game combining Souls combat with Gothic exploration, faction system and character development.

you know what, you might actually get that. Try Breath of the Wild.

No. Breath of the Wild, while a good game(for the moment), will fall victim of it's ridicolous world size, and the fact that is Nintendo first attempt at a game like this. Also it's combat is still a far cry from the complexity of Mount and Blade or Dark Souls (but it does seem enjoyable and challenging enough).

 

[adddeed]

Combat, shealth and the Character Development system never were Gothic's strong points..

You know how I know you're a dumbfuk?

Character development is one of the strongest point of the series. Combat is also probably best done out of most other action rpgs.

 

[sullynathan]

Also it's combat is still a far cry from the complexity of Mount and Blade or Dark Souls

What is complex about mount and blade combat? Souls combat was influenced by legend of Zelda but even at that, it isn't complex.

Oh yeah, character development was done well in gothic. The only real flaw I find in gothic 1 was its heinous combat, gothic 2's combat wasn't as bad but it wasn't great either.