Back in 1998 we learned what would happen if a video game company one-for-one converted a pen and paper ruleset into a video game. That game was Baldur’s Gate. In many ways the game was great but this was in spite of the ruleset and not because of it. Owlcat has done the same thing with the same results: a confused mess. DnD and Pathfinder rules exist in a vacuum; unless you are coming from that enclosed space it’s all unintuitive. This is compounded by the fact the game is balanced as if it is a pen and paper session with a DM. In a tabletop session an NPC gives me a quest to kill a basilisk. My character doesn’t know anything about basilisks and I spend a few hours wandering around town to try to find someone who knows anything about the creatures and their weaknesses. In that same quest in Kingmaker the NPC wouldn’t tell me anything he knows basilisks himself, I can’t ask around town to get more information, and then I have a fight against a creature made within that vacuum at a disadvantage because I didn’t meta and look up the rules. Then there are the bugs. I’m sure everyone knows the reddit meme Patchfinder Bugmaker by now. This game has earned that meme and then some. To the point that any time something starts to go wrong there’s I debate with myself as to whether it’s a bug or another case of lack of communication. This game released awhile ago and the state it’s in is unacceptable. The Wild Cards DLC they just released? It re-broke things that were fixed. Every time they try to fix the game something else breaks even worse (it’s like a programmer’s worst nightmare). That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a good game underneath all of the frustration (I wouldn’t get this upset if I wasn’t invested) but I highly advise anyone looking at this title right now (December 30, 2018) to wait a year for patches before buying and even then you’ll probably want to heavily mod it.
I never played it on console when it first came out several years ago because of mixed reviews. At the time DD was considered something of an oddity; a sort of Eastern look at Western style open world RPGs with some mechanics that were heavily criticized at the time (restricted fast travel). I first played it last year when the PC port dropped. In my first playthrough I enjoyed but wasn't just wowed with DD, but then I began my second playthrough with a self-imposed rule against using fast travel and suddenly the whole game made sense--later I learned that the game was originally designed to be played that way but Capcom had caved to mixed reviews who complained about the lack of fast travel and made it much easier and virtually unlimited to use). With the exception of Souls games, you won't find another action RPG with as many buffs, debuffs, and game mechanics because Dragon's Dogma, despite all its classes, attributes, weapons, armor, and loot, is more an adventurer simulator at heart than an RPG. It’s the Oregon Trails in Forgotten Realms.
To be honest, I'm, like many others, am late to the Witcher-verse party. My first introduction was the Witcher 2 Xbox 360 port back in 2012. I originally didn't finish it (mostly because I'd never heard of the Witcher and was recommended the game by a friend--who had played the PC version--based on my obscene love of Dragon Age: Origins and I was very put off by the lack of character creation at the time). After a couple of confused hours, I put the controller down and walked away. Boy, I didn't know what I was missing. Fast forward to May 2015 and the Witcher 3 is released and reviews and gamers alike are gushing about it. I held out for awhile, remembering my experience with tW2, but eventually caved and I'm so glad I did. The Witcher 3 was so great, I decided I had to go back and play the entire series. (Which, brings me to my review.) Firstly, value. In a simi-blind run, the game took me about 60 hours to finish, and I still didn't finish all the side quests. For $10 you're getting a LOT of game. The story is good (many think it's best of the series, but I think mostly that's because it does have some of the biggest plot twists in the series--the later games are better written but without shocking reveals at the end). The gameplay is a little funky. I found going into the isometric screen helped me a lot in tough combat situation. There are lots of different gameplay mechanics involved in this game (just like any classic RPG), and they can be tricky to get used to. The dialog is better than average, and this is the "I lost my memory" Geralt, not the loveable monster slayer with a heart of gold Geralt in tW2 and especially tW3, which can make him kinda hard to really like. Overall, I think it's a great, if a bit odd game, worth more than the asking price (I wouldn't have cash for it at the time, but after playing it once I think that its worth the full retail price of a new game) and a descent introduction to the series (though confusing at first).
