Thread has been deleted
Last comment
im not saying its bad or HIGHLY overrated but it definitely is overrated
anyone agree?
Your father is overrated
Your father is overrated
No it's not.
Edit : maybe it is to people who have the attention span of a two year old.
Your father is overrated
I think in terms of story its fun but the combat system sucks cuz its not like dark souls 3 xD
didnt play DS but yeah, combat itself is fine imo could be better but the targeting is absolutely garbage
yes, the targeting sucks. and with the spell that traps enemys its really easy.
everytime I start playing after the first couple of fights I quit and start DS3 :)
+1
if you ever played dark souls there is no coming back. You will always set the bar too high for other rpgs now.
I now.
I cannot play any other games with 3rd person melee combat since ds3 :( only From Software from now on :)
lmao no, ds3 is mediocre af, cool setting n shit but i dont want to play a level 100 times just to get through one boss.
100 times? Casul ... git gud.
im on a 2nd playthrough right now wtf you sayin boi
NG+ or a brand new playthrough?
brand new from lvl 1 for the second time
That's what I did too :)
Make sure to make the opposite decisions of what you made in the first playthrough to get the different outcomes. Especially in base game and BaW endings.
100% overrated
its good but nowhere near excellent as people say
bit boring
+1
how is this overrated to you? explain more
scenario, gameplay ... ?
imo the world, story and side quests are really fun. but the combat system is not fun for me
to me it's pretty good, and it was perfectioned in AC Origins
I didn't finish TW3 (15h playtime) but I liked it so far, and the art direction is stunning
But on the other hand, Kingdome Come litterrally absorbed me, it's fucking good. Not so many side quests, but very captivating
I heard kingdome come is full of bugs?
That's whats stopping me from playing it too. Apparently it's a huge bug fest with poor optimization even to this day. I don't know if my PC can run it :(
you can still buy it on steam, and refund it if it doesn't work properly
Just don't play more than 2h, and refund it 14 days max after buy
I don't want to buy on steam, it's way, way too expensive for a SP game that has alleged bugs and optimization issues.
If I buy from a legit re-seller like HumbleBundle or GMG I won't be able to get refunds.
you can still use steam to see if it works on your rig, I did it before buying some games on GOG or g2a
Doesn't cost anything
What if it's fine for two hours but I get insane bugs after like 5 hours? what then? :P
nah honestly huge part of the bugs were fixed after launch, but the game has now a bad reputation because of it.
The goal of testing it on steam is to see if your pc handles the game correctly, if it's fine in the 2 first it will be fine for the rest.
Finished it 2 months ago, didnt have any troubles except 1 quest not launching, but I just had to reload the save
This, exactly. I bought the game at release and played it from day one - the game was buggy, but I completed it and only about four or five sidequests (out of around 80) didn't work properly for me. I replayed the game again in June and completed everything. Optimization definitely isn't perfect, but the bugs are pretty much gone now imo
huge part of them were fixed 2-3 months after launch, it worked fine on high on my pc
There are some bugs, but nothing too terrible. And in the end, the game is really worth it
Immersion is insane
+1, Kingdom Come is fucking amazing
-movement sucks both on foot and on horse and in the water as well
-targeting is absolutely terrible with swords and signs
-lighting looks weird when the weather isnt perfect
-ai pathfinding is bad and stands out
-lipsync is bad
-bad loot, no unique swords that have unique stats, they all have only unique names
-the fact you dont get a solid gwent deck of other factions than northern realms until late game (huge issue)
-you dont get full exp from quest for lower lvls
-monster trophies are terrible
agreed on the loot, we need unique swords like in old Diablo
but still, which game of this kind stands out? TW3 is still probably the best
0/8
/close
everything in the game is fantastic, except the horse riding which is bad, and the combat mechanics, which is just above average
your father is overrated.
Its good gameplay wise and even better lore but it really is hugely overrated
lol no, how the fuck Witcher 3 is overrated? Witcher made new lvl, next generation of games...
#50
most of your 'proofs' are delusional, like literally fake info :/
how come some people agree with me then?
cuz there is haters who gonna hate even if game will be perfect
cant just call them haters and dismiss all their points lol, w3 is FAR from perfect yet very many people treat it like it is, your iq is very low and im not gonna reply anymore
yea it's far far from perfect but exactly witcher closest one, but you're just hater so...
the noclip documentary about the witcher series was pretty fun
Bad main story. They dumbed it down for the masses and it worked. Witcher 1&2>Witcher 3
But hearts of stone was excellent
Yeah on my second playthrough I realised that the story of Ciri and the wild hunt was just meh. But the bloody baron storyline, HoS and BaW were just god tier. I actually am considering playing just BaW alone because I just loved it.
BaW was really cool too but that duchess was retarded beyond belief and nearly destroyed the sense of the story for me.
HoS was excellent because it had at least one component that made me love the witcher series previously: amazing characters which I will never forget (Olgierd and O'Dimm) and the story was just fantastic.
It was a shame they abandoned all the nuanced political intrigue from the previous games (especially witcher 2 which had outstanding dialogues) and realistic, complex characters and storyline, and instead went just "hurr durr mad king killing minorities lul the chess pieces are talking to me geralt, big elves after ciri, kill kill".
Bit of a disappointment.
It was really awesome. It's the kind of stuff that brings the game to life, really fleshes out the world for you.
Blood and Wine was absolutely incredible.
counter-strike is overrated
wither 3 the worst game of all time. that's not even rpg.
it's an action RPG, it has never been sold as pure RPG
boring story play I agree
yea combat system suck a dick a little but still this is 8+ or 9/10 game
its not perfect but its looking great hope they will do witcher 4
no
it looks gorgeous
has an "okayish" fighting/skill system (i guess casual players are to blame for that. they didnt do it for the "hardcore" audience)
has wonderful storylines and some really awesome sidequests
overall better than most that came out recently.
My only issue with the Witcher franchise is the incredibly unforgiving combat. Oils, potions, two different swords, etc... It's not a game-killer and far from a bad example of how good Witcher 3 actually is, I just always sucked at combat in Witcher 3. xD
it hasnt been programmed very well tbh. i would love to see witcher being more into the direction of a dark souls-esque fighting system but as i said: its for casual gamers..
Completely agreed.
I loved the combat is Dark Souls and Elder Scrolls (despite how buggy the latter was), but it was nowhere as convoluted as Witcher's combat system.
Combat is really easy. Just spam ALT.
Haha - well I played it for console, so it was most likely easier for PC gamers. ^^
ALT = dodge
Dodge+1/2 fast attacks, repeat
Kill everything in death march without getting touched
I know ALT is dodge. xD I also know from Dark souls that dodging is very, very overpowered against certain enemies.
Any Witcher game is overrated
im not prokda wtf
Your father is overrated
NO
/close
/open
YES
HAHAH U FORGOT TO CLOSE IT!!
NO UR WRONG, WISHER 3 IS BESTEST
/superclose
I disagree entirely. It might have been at first, but overall witcher 3 has the accolades to back up it's success and therefore only overrated by the peers of the masses.
Knowingly overrated franchises are: Call of Duty, Assassins's Creed, Grand Theft Auto, etc...
GTA is not an overrated franchise but I agree with the rest.
My only beef with GTA is the praise that GTA V got when the game was nowhere as good as everyone claimed it to be, although that is my personal opinion.
GTA V was a great game for about a week... there is little replay-ability value. Otherwise I still see San Andreas as the crowning king of the GTA titles.
Are you kidding?
You get 25 hours of an amazing campaign (where all that 'praise' came from when it was new) and so much more in MP and you complain about no replayability lmao what more do you want?
Multiplayer was notably broken and buggy for a long time until changes to the game made multiplayer possible. Also I am not complaining as I did enjoy the game, I was simply sharing my opinion on why I believe it to be inferior towards San Andreas.
GTA franchise might not be overrated, but the 5th game definitely is in my opinion.
How is San Andreas even close to being as good as V? The characters were poorly crafted compared to V with little to no backstory, the missions were nowhere near as unique as V (in V you pretty much do everything in the campaign) and the story was a joke. Dialogue was out of this world compared to San Andreas especially for Trevor yet San Andreas is better?
This is the problem with talking to nostalgia filled idiots. If you stop orgasming from nostalgia and actually play the two games today with an OPEN MIND and no BIAS then you'd see how fucking trash San Andreas is compared to V.
Nostalgia is fine and dandy, but even with an open mind and your points intact - I have far more fun playing San Andreas than the fifth instalment.
I like V and respect it's success, but in my opinion it's incredibly overrated.
zZz still waiting for reasons why SA is a better game than V and why V is overrated (the fact that you say that makes me think you're one of those old idiots who thinks hating on mainstream makes them look less like a grumpy old fuck who can't accept something different because it makes them less relevant)
I'll just fall asleep and wait for you to think of something, is that ok?
Put aside your disdain and learn to respect others opinions before replying and we'll get somewhere.
I prefer San Andreas because I have more fun playing it. It feels more like a GTA game and the story is still enjoyable to this day. In terms of gameplay, I prefer it... It's a classic that cornerstones GTA, GTA V is impressive but overrated in my opinion.
I take it you didn't play Fallout before making this awful comparison, hmm?
You're the one making claims of something being better yet providing no single reason other than your personal experience which fuck me is quite possibly the worst thing to use when making comparisons for anything period. Please never try to review anything from a professional standpoint...ever.
Also still waiting, I might literally fall asleep. If you get triggered by the word fuck then perhaps consider not being such a grumpy old fuck and realise that it's a video game forum? not HR meeting with you because you shat all over your coworker's desk.
I provided an excellent reason - I have more fun playing SA than the fifth instalment.
Falling asleep might be a good idea if you're having trouble understanding this concept.
Maybe don't make claims of something being better than something else when you can't provide a single reason why?
Here are some examples of reasons for video games since you can't seem to understand:
>Story
>Soundtrack
>Physics
>Graphics
>Dialogue
>World Design
>Character design
Does 'I had more fun' fit into that list? I don't think so. But I'm not the 40 year old expert so what would I know.
Still...waiting...
Again, all valid points but you fail to factor into the main account of a game.
I prefer SA's soundtrack to V, same goes for story. GTA V excelled in many things, but it got stale very fast.
It took you six essays to list a single reason, congratulations! Here is your reward, a watch! : --O--
I agree about the soundtrack, but V is still better because of all the reasons I listed in #86.
It took you several posts to express your opinion correctly.
Try not to compare the franchise to Fallout and we can discuss this subject to your hearts content.
" but V is still better because of all the reasons I listed in #86."
According to your opinion, which I ultimately respect.
Have a good day, friend.
San Andreas is better. Reasons: SAMP>>>>GTA Online x100
Story about a poor gangster rising up and becoming rich and powerful>> more interesting than rich people getting rich again.
RPG elements felt like they actually did something in sa. Getting hitman level with guns changed the way you shoot. You could eat and get fat, you could workout and get buff. More unockables: Vigilante gave you extra armor, ambulance gave you more hp. GF gave you special unlocks. Collectables made weapons spawn. Cheatcodes were way better and more fun.
Just progressing from one are to the next makes san andreas better than 5. Looking forward to unlocking new areas is literally one of the best things in GTAs and 5 only has one city and shit loads of desert.
Going from LS to hillbilly county with the country music was much more immersive than switching to trevor in the desert with a few hillbillies.
Everytime you enter a new area the game becomes completely different and it happens 5 different times. From gangster in LS, to Hillbilly in the country, to finally gaining some money and power in SF, to learning to fly and breaking into the military base in the desert, to being a rich casino owner in LV and then back to LS to take back your hood. So much more variety than LS, desert, LS, one mission in the snowy area, LS, LS.
30 hours of consistently good gameplay is worth much more than 100 hours of repetitive boring trash (Ah hem Fallout 4). Pretty much any game that isn't a sandbox or an RPG has little replayability but GTA does thanks to MP and mods.
I'd rather spend 100's of hours exploring an open world than doing the game thing over and over again for 30 hours.
Let me guess, you also think Fallout 4 is a good game because it has a huge open world and tons of content?
You guess incorrectly. If you'd have said New Vegas, then you'd be spot on. .
So why don't you like Fallout 4 if you'd rather spend so much time exploring than follow a set path?
Fallout 4 is nowhere as polished as New Vegas, but I did enjoy playing it. Linearity is perfectly fine and I have no problem with it, I just got very bored of GTA V incredibly quickly.
If this offends you, then I apologise for having a perfectly candid opinion.
#50
This doesn't make it overrated as all you've done is point out flaws which every successful game will have.
Compare Witcher to other franchises and you'll see a clear difference instead of churning out the same game over and over again until it dies down.
combat, ai, movement, loot, are all major systems and they are all quite flawed, the game is carried by writing, storytelling but overall its overrated
I'll admit it's a little overrated when you take into account the masses, but honestly the combat aside, it's one of the best single-player RPG's you can play in the modern day.
Dragon Age, Fallout and Elder Scrolls kind of defined that single-player RPG experience of old, but Witcher definitely had a fantastic story to fall back on.
Also you cannot deny The Witcher DLC is astounding.
im not saying its bad, im currently playing it again and i like it but i encountered so many design flaws and issues that i just had to start this discussion, you can fix some with mods but still.... overrated
the DLC is probably the best out of any games imo
It's far from perfect I will agree with you there. I actually prefer the second instalment over the third, so I'm going to be lit on fire by hardcore fans of the franchise considering it's far inferior. :P
Best graphics of its time
Fantastic storyline
Well written characters throughout
Solid combat with good depth
Yeah naa it's not overrated.
Best graphics my ass
Crysis had better way earlier
Crysis 1 looks worse, crysis 2 looks worse, crysis 3 looks good but not better.
What platform did you play the games on because I played both on PC with a gtx 1080 and a Ryzen 1700x and Witcher looked better and crysis ran at like 25fps on ultra.
I doubt you have ran any of them
Great argument you have there.
I never played crysis 1 because when it was relevant my pc was a toaster however without mods crysis 1 is clearly far worse looking than witcher 3, played like 80 hours of crysis 2 and absolutely loved it. Played an hour of crysis 3 and refunded it because it ran like actual ass.
Enjoy your day.
so because your PC isn't up to standard, a lighter game gets the "best graphics award?"
logic 0/8
#50
coming from someone who played 120 hours of the witcher, yeah, it is overrated. Graphics were great for the time, story was cool, characters were believable, world was well crafted. Combat was a consolized joke. Mash atack, mash dodge, repeat. Bosses were boring and predictable (A little better in the blood and wine dlc). You can enter any house and rob the fuck out of everyone and not be noticed, even though people were standing there watching their stuff be taken. AI was average at best, side quests were repetitive and lacked imagination. Great thing is has no pay to win, no micro transactions, loot crates, or any other bullshit. All in All 7/10. Slightly above average game.
Wtf? Completely agreed with everything you wrote (including that the combat is shit), but in what world are the sidequests lacking imagination? How many of them did you play? (I've played 450~ hours btw)
I feel like there were the tier 1 side quests, that were thought out, and then a bunch of bland ones.
yeah it is, i like it alot, but the combat in this game is pretty trash and given the fact that combat is a big part of the game it is pretty noticeable
witcher 3 might be, hearts of stone fuck no there is nothing better on pc that this
+1
I which sense is it overrated in your opinion ?
Little bit of a lackluster main storyline, but there plenty AMAZING side quests.
The map felt very alive for the most parts, the graphics are beautiful and the game runs smoothly on most pcs. Only the combat didn't really challenge me ever. The possibilites in combat were also quite limited.
Is it overrated though ? Idk. Probably not, cause i can't think of any better open world rpgs in the last 5 to 7 years.
#50
some valid points. but
-Lipsync was pretty good imo.
-never cared for the monster trophies
-movement is solid in my experience
thats the thing, trophies are a part of the game, part of the witcher contract system so everyone should care for them, but they are so bad no one does, their bonuses straight up suck
movement is still objectively not good, even with the newer option that they added because the original movement system was garbage
that's fair. I still dig the game a lot nonetheless.
me too, im not saying its bad
I've never been an rpg fan so I might be biased, but if only the combat was better I would have enjoyed the witcher, I couldn't bother playing an rpg if the combat isn't good, might as well play an action rpg like titan quest, grim dawn or diablo.
Personally, I've enjoyed Kingdoms of Amalur more than I enjoyed the witcher
Your father is overrated
Witcher 3 is for role playing nerds and socially awkward losers
It has its flaws, like the combat is shit. But its still one of the best games ever made.
I don't really know how people rate it. It's okay, maybe 7/10 or 8/10
Do not agree. It is an amazing game deserving of all the praise. I am not saying it is perfect, it surely has problems. But I would not call it over-rated.