It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Hickory: Your whole "review", which it isn't, smacks of pre-conceived bollocks. Go away, read the books, then put away the pre-conceptions and try again. I mean, seriously... Dragon's Dogma has a better story and characters than TW3?

You, sir, are completely and utterly missing the entire reason this game won so many awards.
Spot on there.
avatar
Martin_01: It's okay... That's your kind of taste. But you can't deny that a lot of people - professionnels too - are blown away by it. Maybe, you should progress...
avatar
IsengrimR: Those "professionnels", as you say, gave ME3 a 9.5/10. If that was their only transgression.

While I am not OP, I can state quite plainly. Witcher 3, in many regards, slaps hardcore fans of the previous games and the books in the face.

There is no arguing that Witcher 3 is a great game, and CDPR, while having their issues, one of them revealing that when it comes to lying, they can do it with the best of them (downgrade controversy) is one of the best devs out there. However, certain lack of attention to detail, lack of consequence and an utter disregard the root material (books) is treated with at points, makes my blood boil.

The way characters from Witcher 2 are handled, many not even appearing, is one thing. The other is how the characters from the books are handled... and they are, not to mention names, washed out of their depth so hard, almost the only thing left is their names.

Adding to that, the fact that the game is laughably easy due to the alchemy self-refill... Well, I will be hard pressed to not say that I feel certain things were changed to fit the "Call of Duty" crowd.

That is however, my speculation... Which seems to hold true.

Witcher 3 needed more time. I can almost feel how hard was the endgame rushed. How details were overlooked in the heat of the crunch and incoming release date.

I, however, wasn't there. Guess we will never truly know, but from what I've seen... I cannot find another explanation for it.

It is quite possible Witcher 3 needed another year. Or year and a half.

Frankly, I've been with Witcher games from the very get go, and WItcher 3 felt like a disappointment. Still feels like it. Curse of number 3 strikes again, I guess. But that is me. Too many people bought this game for my opinion to matter, even if I had a crowd behind me.

Hopefully, we won't see CDPR falling further from their "Making money to make games" attitude, if they were already not engulfed by "Making games to make money".

But that is enough me talking, I shouldn't speak of this, really. Only makes flamewars go higher.
Greetings

I myself have read The Last Wish.
Yes, I have enjoyed it. It was very interesting & a clever re-imagining of folktales.

But. Here is my theory about why CD Red tried to make their games far from the book plot.

Michael Moorcock - A well known and respected author of The Eternal Champion Series.
The champion (main character of the series), is a immortal entity which can travel to any part of the Multiverse. Its sole purpose is to uphold the Cosmic Balance.
Be it the Law – Justice, good, and freedom.
Or Chaos – Everything opposite of Law.

Every character from these series is an incarnation of himself from an another life. Sometimes even their future self's. These champions don't know that they will fight for the balance.
I don't wish to spoil anything about the plot but I'll just tell you about one of these incarnations.

Elric of Melniboné

Description in the 1972's novel Elric of Melniboné:

It is the colour of a bleached skull, his flesh; and the long hair which flows below his shoulders is milk-white. From the tapering, beautiful head stare two slanting eyes, crimson and moody, and from the loose sleeves of his yellow gown emerge two slender hands, also the colour of bone.

He is a emperor of a civilization of Melnibone. (In the prequal novels that explain his history)

He was introduced as a mercenary. Hired-Killer. Slayer of Monsters.

He is weak. Physically. Thus he must consume drugs made out of unique herbs to sustain himself. In addition of sustaining his life, they also make him in-humanly strong. Sometimes after a wrong mixture of herbs, or overdose, he can enter a berserk trans in which he will kill anything he sees. Thus he tends to stay away from those who are dear to him.

In addition to his abilities in alchemy. He is also a sorcerer. And a master sword fighter.

He is an albino and is nicknamed “The White Wolf”.

I will stop my description here.

Did CD Red know this? And tried to change everything.
Did Sapkowski plagiarized the character? Or was it just a coincidence?
For me, its still plagiarism. Even if the plot of the games, defers from the books by Andrzej Sapkowski. The character is the same.

It would be best, if they (CD RED & Andrzej Sapkowski ) would at least admit that Elric & Geralt are the same characters.
Don't get me wrong. The Witcher is still excellent, be it because it has the same character, or be it because the story is interesting. I still like the novels. I still love and enjoy playing the games.

And I agree that it was a shame that they didn't include a major amount of characters from the previous installments.
Witcher 1 & 2 had save import. Thus the items (Swords & Armor) could be brought into Witcher 2.
But Witcher 3 had the same "save import" which.........drum roll........ didn't have any effect.

gogwitcher300
Post edited December 28, 2017 by gogwitcher300
avatar
gogwitcher300: Did CD Red know this? And tried to change everything.
Did Sapkowski plagiarized the character? Or was it just a coincidence?
For me, its still plagiarism. Even if the plot of the games, defers from the books by Andrzej Sapkowski. The character is the same.

It would be best, if they (CD RED & Andrzej Sapkowski ) would at least admit that Elric & Geralt are the same characters.
Do your homework.

The Eternal Champion was published (omnibus) in 1994-2000.
The Witcher was published (short story) in 1990, reprinted in The Last Wish in 1993.

Now do the maths.
Post edited December 28, 2017 by Hickory
avatar
gogwitcher300: Did CD Red know this? And tried to change everything.
Did Sapkowski plagiarized the character? Or was it just a coincidence?
For me, its still plagiarism. Even if the plot of the games, defers from the books by Andrzej Sapkowski. The character is the same.

It would be best, if they (CD RED & Andrzej Sapkowski ) would at least admit that Elric & Geralt are the same characters.
avatar
Hickory: Do your homework.

The Eternal Champion was published (omnibus) in 1994-2000.
The Witcher was published (short story) in 1990, reprinted in The Last Wish in 1993.

Now do the maths.
Listen "almost human"
When I say Eternal Champion Series, make sure that you see the word S-E-R-I-E-S.
Yes, there is a book called ETERNAL CHAMPION.
I don't know if in England there is a certain time loop. But Elric was written in the 1960s.
The Eternal Champion was written in 1970.
Corum was written in 1971
The Final Programme was written in 1968

And every, AND WHEN I SAY EVERY you better read every letter from that WORD!!!
EVERY Eternal "Companion" says that the main character is the ETERNAL Champion!!!!

When I see your posts on this forum. It's a 100% chance that you will either troll someone.
Or that you will behave like a spoiled brat.

It could be that you have a certain problem with reading so please take time and at least watch this!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVe-CeThGug

And then do your own math.
Post edited December 28, 2017 by gogwitcher300
avatar
gogwitcher300: When I see your posts on this forum. It's a 100% chance that you will either troll someone.
Or that you will behave like a spoiled brat.
*Yawn!* This is getting old.

Sorry if I hit a nerve. Never mind, you'll get over it... eventually.
avatar
gogwitcher300: When I see your posts on this forum. It's a 100% chance that you will either troll someone.
Or that you will behave like a spoiled brat.
avatar
Hickory: *Yawn!* This is getting old.

Sorry if I hit a nerve. Never mind, you'll get over it... eventually.
Only few people have a decency to apologize and understand their mistake

And I thank you for that

Accept my apologies as well
gogwitcher300
Well, all I can say is that as a forty-something bloke who has played countless good, bad, and even downright ugly games for many years, The Witcher 3 and all three games in general, are the most captivating I've ever played.

I tend not to consider genres when thinking about games. Yes, I suppose you could say I like the RPG "genre" more than others, were I to try placing The Witcher series in a trite and convenient box, but I don't tend to look at games that way.

Personal tastes and individual preferences will always play a part in opinion, whether we're talking about a game, film, book, or even a piece of music. As a fan of fantasy and science fiction stories, when it comes to games, I very much enjoyed the immersion (and escapism) provided by the Mass Effect series, and The Witcher series.

If I were to focus on the immersion and escapism aspects, hands down, The Witcher 3 is perhaps the most enjoyable game I have ever played, bar none. That's my opinion, and just like arseholes, we've all got one :)

The story and dialogue were interesting, as were interactions with characters, and even little side comments from NPCs in the streets of towns and villages, all going about their routines, and all making the game world feel more alive. Of course, the world itself and the scenery are spectacular. Sometimes I pop into one of my completed saves (including all the DLC stories), just to wander around with Geralt. I've never had that desire in any other game, but the world itself created in The Witcher 3 is stunning and greatly enjoyable to explore.

In the end, although many seem to get hung up about "freedom" when creating characters, while it's fun to create an almost god-like "mini me" to play as in a fantasy game world, I also find walking in the boots of a specific character, as part of a story and narrative, just as engaging. That said, I am quite imaginative, absorbing myself in the "role" of the character I'm effectively "playing" in the "game" in question, even if that character is fixed within the narrative, such as Geralt. I'm me every day of my life, so it's fun to be someone else for a while, albeit someone still guided by my decisions.

As for the story, whether it's faithful to the books, or plucks ideas from elsewhere, I honestly don't mind or even care too much. It's interesting enough throughout to keep me engaged, and keen to explore the different possibilities that my decisions (on behalf of Geralt) will present. Enough to encourage playing through the game various times, making different decisions and enjoying different outcomes and interactions.

Few games have presented me with as much simple pleasure and entertainment as The Witcher 3, such replay value, or stay on my PC as an "essential" piece of software. It's unfortunate that the OP doesn't share the same enjoyment as I have from the game, but we're all different people, with different tastes and preferences, and that's fine.

For what it's worth, I rarely read the so-called "professional" reviews, because I have absolutely zero faith in any of them. Also, if someone is gushing with platitudes and superlatives about anything, I take them with a pinch of salt. My own experiences and preferences define whether I think something is good, or not, as the case may be. Again, it all boils down to our own individual preferences and tastes.
avatar
IsengrimR: Those "professionnels", as you say, gave ME3 a 9.5/10. If that was their only transgression.

While I am not OP, I can state quite plainly. Witcher 3, in many regards, slaps hardcore fans of the previous games and the books in the face.

There is no arguing that Witcher 3 is a great game, and CDPR, while having their issues, one of them revealing that when it comes to lying, they can do it with the best of them (downgrade controversy) is one of the best devs out there. However, certain lack of attention to detail, lack of consequence and an utter disregard the root material (books) is treated with at points, makes my blood boil.

The way characters from Witcher 2 are handled, many not even appearing, is one thing. The other is how the characters from the books are handled... and they are, not to mention names, washed out of their depth so hard, almost the only thing left is their names.

Adding to that, the fact that the game is laughably easy due to the alchemy self-refill... Well, I will be hard pressed to not say that I feel certain things were changed to fit the "Call of Duty" crowd.

That is however, my speculation... Which seems to hold true.

Witcher 3 needed more time. I can almost feel how hard was the endgame rushed. How details were overlooked in the heat of the crunch and incoming release date.

I, however, wasn't there. Guess we will never truly know, but from what I've seen... I cannot find another explanation for it.

It is quite possible Witcher 3 needed another year. Or year and a half.

Frankly, I've been with Witcher games from the very get go, and WItcher 3 felt like a disappointment. Still feels like it. Curse of number 3 strikes again, I guess. But that is me. Too many people bought this game for my opinion to matter, even if I had a crowd behind me.

Hopefully, we won't see CDPR falling further from their "Making money to make games" attitude, if they were already not engulfed by "Making games to make money".

But that is enough me talking, I shouldn't speak of this, really. Only makes flamewars go higher.
avatar
gogwitcher300: Greetings

I myself have read The Last Wish.
Yes, I have enjoyed it. It was very interesting & a clever re-imagining of folktales.

But. Here is my theory about why CD Red tried to make their games far from the book plot.

Michael Moorcock - A well known and respected author of The Eternal Champion Series.
The champion (main character of the series), is a immortal entity which can travel to any part of the Multiverse. Its sole purpose is to uphold the Cosmic Balance.
Be it the Law – Justice, good, and freedom.
Or Chaos – Everything opposite of Law.

Every character from these series is an incarnation of himself from an another life. Sometimes even their future self's. These champions don't know that they will fight for the balance.
I don't wish to spoil anything about the plot but I'll just tell you about one of these incarnations.

Elric of Melniboné

Description in the 1972's novel Elric of Melniboné:

It is the colour of a bleached skull, his flesh; and the long hair which flows below his shoulders is milk-white. From the tapering, beautiful head stare two slanting eyes, crimson and moody, and from the loose sleeves of his yellow gown emerge two slender hands, also the colour of bone.

He is a emperor of a civilization of Melnibone. (In the prequal novels that explain his history)

He was introduced as a mercenary. Hired-Killer. Slayer of Monsters.

He is weak. Physically. Thus he must consume drugs made out of unique herbs to sustain himself. In addition of sustaining his life, they also make him in-humanly strong. Sometimes after a wrong mixture of herbs, or overdose, he can enter a berserk trans in which he will kill anything he sees. Thus he tends to stay away from those who are dear to him.

In addition to his abilities in alchemy. He is also a sorcerer. And a master sword fighter.

He is an albino and is nicknamed “The White Wolf”.

I will stop my description here.

Did CD Red know this? And tried to change everything.
Did Sapkowski plagiarized the character? Or was it just a coincidence?
For me, its still plagiarism. Even if the plot of the games, defers from the books by Andrzej Sapkowski. The character is the same.

It would be best, if they (CD RED & Andrzej Sapkowski ) would at least admit that Elric & Geralt are the same characters.


gogwitcher300
What a bunch of crap. Elric and Geralt are nothing alike. Their personality, motivations, background, world views and interactions with others are completely different, in many cases absolutely opposed. They look similar, so what? So do Tarzan and Conan. It's not like Moorcock invented the albino archetype. He burrowed it himself from another author, and besides, while Elric is sickly and weak, Gerald is atheletic and masculine. Both are nicknamed the White Wolf? So is Jon Snow, your point? Wolf, Eagle, Lion, Tiger were very conmonly used as nicknames as symbol of bravery and strenght in ancient times and the same with the colors Black, White, Golden, Crimson and Silver. Fantasy works that take inspiration in similar backgrounds just follow suit. If both were nicknamed the Pink Badger, maybe you'd be onto something.

Yes, Elric and Geralt consume strange concoctions regularly, but it is neccesity in the case of th latter who wouldn't be able to leave his bed otherwise. Geralt doesn't need them. He's already physically superior to the average man. He uses his potions to get special advantages when the situation requires it, exactly the same way a D&D character in similar circunstances, or Popeye the sailor.
Dennai Quote:
What a bunch of crap. Elric and Geralt are nothing alike.
End Quote:

Greetings Dennai

I recommend you to watch these two videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P80UTMrpFIY
&
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVe-CeThGug

No, I am not using The Rageaholic as the "only" source of my information.
I have read the first two books, Elric of Melniboné 1972 and The Sailor on the Seas of Fate 1976.

The whole point of the dispute between Moorcock and Sapkowski, is that the latter can't admit that Geralt is at least 1% alike. Yes, there could have been an "writers inspiration" for Sapkowski, but Moorcock at least had the decency to admit that he used "The Broken Sword", as the major influence for his novel.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/715287.The_Broken_Sword

I enjoyed the books and the games too.
Yes, they have different goals. (Elric & Witcher novels have a completely different plot).
One is a Emporer/Merc, that is power hungry. He understands that he is evil, and tries to run away from his fate.
And the other is a Monster slayer, who wishes to protect his loved ones.

Regards,
gogwitcher300
avatar
gogwitcher300: The whole point of the dispute between Moorcock and Sapkowski, is that the latter can't admit that Geralt is at least 1% alike.
You know this... how? Have you spoken to him personally?

He does, in fact, acknowledge Moorcock's work as part of his sphere of influence. Here is a direct quote from an interview of his:

"Me and fantasy, it was love at first sight. I remember reading Tolkien for the first time, in the sixties – Tolkien was published in Poland in the early sixties, practically at the same time as in the United States.

I was utterly enchanted. Then Ursula Le Guin with Earthsea, Roger Zelazny with Amber, Michael Moorcock with Elric of Melniboné, Jack Vance with Lyonesse, Stephen R. Donaldson with Thomas Covenant, Marion Zimmer Bradley with The Mists of Avalon. In 1985, when “Fantastyka”, then the only Polish SF magazine, announced a literary competition, I decided – till today I don’t know why – to take part and write a short story. A fantasy short story, of course. And so it started."
Post edited January 07, 2018 by Hickory
J.K Rowling said that while writing Harry Potter she didn't hear about Kaytek the Wizard.

Before Rowling, Terry Pratchett (known for The Discworld Series) was the best seller author in England.

His Discworld books, beginning with The Colour of Magic in 1983, satirise and parody common fantasy literature conventions. Pratchett was repeatedly asked if he "got" his idea for his magic college, the Unseen University, from Harry Potter's Hogwarts, or if the young wizard Ponder Stibbons, who has dark hair and glasses, was inspired by Harry Potter. Both in fact predate Rowling's work by several years; Pratchett jokingly claimed that he did steal them, though "I of course used a time machine." The BBC and other British news agencies emphasised a supposed rivalry between Pratchett and Rowling, but Pratchett said on record that, while he did not put Rowling on a pedestal, he did not consider her a bad writer, nor did he envy her success.Claims of rivalry were due to a letter he wrote to The Sunday Times, about an article published declaring that fantasy "looks backward to an idealised, romanticised, pseudofeudal world, where knights and ladies morris-dance to Greensleeves". Actually, he was protesting the ineptitude of journalists in that genre, many of whom did not research their work and, in this case, contradicted themselves in the same article.

She did say that she read Tolkien. But......she didn't admit that the major amount of things in her books, are
a straight forward rip-off.

Fans of author J. R. R. Tolkien have drawn attention to the similarities between his novel The Lord of the Rings and the Harry Potter series; specifically Tolkien's Wormtongue and Rowling's Wormtail, Tolkien's Shelob and Rowling's Aragog, Tolkien's Gandalf and Rowling's Dumbledore, Tolkien's Nazgûl and Rowling's Dementors, Old Man Willow and the Whomping Willow and the similarities between both authors' antagonists, Tolkien's Dark Lord Sauron and Rowling's Lord Voldemort (both of whom are sometimes within their respective continuities unnamed due to intense fear surrounding their names; both often referred to as 'The Dark Lord'; and both of whom are, during the time when the main action takes place, seeking to recover their lost power after having been considered dead or at least no longer a threat). Several reviews of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows noted that the locket used as a horcrux by Voldemort bore comparison to Tolkien's One Ring, as it negatively affects the personality of the wearer. Rowling maintains that she hadn't read The Hobbit until after she completed the first Harry Potter novel (though she had read The Lord of the Rings as a teenager) and that any similarities between her books and Tolkien's are "Fairly superficial.
Tolkien created a whole new mythology, which I would never claim to have done. On the other hand, I think I have better jokes."

You get the picture.

gogwitcher300
Post edited January 07, 2018 by gogwitcher300
Not every game is suitable for everyone. This game has one of the highest scores of any video game and is a persistent top seller on GoG and Steam. The latter even has it as one of the best selling games of 2017, while it's already over two years old. User reviews are 98% positive, which is unheard of.

Surely the game does something right. But I guess it's not for OP.

I have the same problem with Witcher 1 and Witcher 2. I could never get into them, believe me I've tried many times. However, I won't deny these are good game.

The Witcher 3 is the almost perfect RPG. You can't deny it's good, only that you don't like it because it's just not for you. After playing it for over 500 hours I can say no other RPG comes close and this game is the future benchmark for (open world) RPGs
avatar
Socratatus: Before I start I think CD Project as Devs have a good philosophy in general with their games. My views on this game do not mean I hate the Devs. It is just my opinion.

Ok, I waited a loooong time before buying this game because the gushing reviews made me... suspicious. Finally, there was a sale and I bought it.

I`ve been on the game now for two solid days just about and I have to say I am... underwhlemed.

I have read many reviews on GOG of this game. Many. "Better than the Mona lisa!" "OMG! the best rpg ever!" "In 30 years I have never played a better RPG!!" All kinds of imaginative comments made. Someone even told me it was better than morrowind.

Seriously? Were these jokes?

I have played many rpgs from the Early Ultima on the Amiga to Baldur`s Gate 1 & 2 to Morrowind and its expansions (wonderful game) to Dragon Age 1, Dragon`s Dogma to Skyrim and I can say that the Witcher comes nowhere near to leaving these games in the dust.
I must say i loved witcher 1 and 2 more, as a story, but cdproject red has done with witcher 3 something amazing which I didn't find in any of the open world games i played. They have given a story driven experience for this large openworld and has done it in flying colours, and its not easy.
This is not a game where you are put in a world and make you'r own story, do whatever you want, this is a game which puts you in a world and make us experience a story through characters.That is the reason why i do not want to compare other open world games with the witcher. The game is restricted in a good way. and if you are feeling bored it's really because you're not invested in the game and that is fine.
I just want to say witcher aint no dragon age, no skyrim but for me its better than those games because of this unique feeling you get in every witcher game and really deserves the praise they got, no doubt.
Post edited January 22, 2018 by n4nirmal09