Everybody talks about the story and the main quest and we talk about comparing the stories of WH with the 2 DLCs.... which is fine - there's a lots to compare. But for me, WH was about much more than just doing the main quest, going from marker to marker just because the screen tells you to. Wild Hunt, as a whole, is about true freedom in gaming. I mean, just look at the maps. If you don't take time to go explore the world, go to areas and islands and locations that have no markers on them, and often times don't have any hidden treasures near them (which is rare), just to see the layout of the world, then you're kind of missing out on what is really cool with this game - the fullness of the landscape they created. I spent months playing without doing any quests. And not on purpose. WH is the only game I've played that's ever allowed for that organically. I know the combination of the music, the wind howling, and the freedom of no time constraints from responsibilities, I really was able to get lost in the world, and I'll never forget some of those barren fields, swamps, islands (screenshots!) and more. So Teisco, I would suggest, if this is your first time in Velen, Skellige, and especially Kear Morhen, do some exploring without any questlog pointing you in a direction. Find those hidden areas, these empty spaces that give meaning to all the places that are loaded with content. It's a balance that will make you appreciate it all that much more.
I agree with Brogan in every word. And besides what you may think of which story is better, is not like B&W is a 10 and WH is a 4. Is more like a 10 and a 9.8 :roll:
Thanks but my plan is to get through the main quest and then go into HoS. Then after HoS I will go back to the main game and really detail it out with as many of the odd side quest and adventures I can find plus download and use the three companion mod so won't get too lonely Then, if I am not too burned out, I want to do the same with the two dlc's. I can easily see this game lasting me a year or more. The only problem I have with W3 is that after playing it for some time I cannot go back to Skyrim or Fallout 4 anymore. This game is just too good and it spoils one and makes most other prime games seem dated and boring.
I got the same feeling, but Skyrim has other strengths like class diversity and greater freedom in how you play out the story. Not to mention all the mods. But as far as storytelling and the world itself, Witcher 3 is ahead by miles.
Yes, I know exactly what you mean, and you need to appreciate how special that feeling is. Once you realize how big the game is, and get a sense of how much the designers put into it and how much cool sh1t is in store, you really owe it to yourself to get the most out of the experience. Take your time, do everything. Because trust me, those of us who have finished the game and see how little most everything else compares to it now, we would give anything to be able to experience it all over again for the first time.
actually i don't agree with that specific sentence and il explain. i have spent somewhere between 1000-1500 hours on the Witcher 3 in two different plays ( Yennefer \ Triss pick was the only difference ). you can also say the exact same thing about Skyrim, Fallout and some other quality AAA open world quest-based games. of course each game has its own system, size, gameplay and so on.. the main thing for me with the Witcher 3 is that it combines in a flawless way the story and the exploration - in the world the developers built. that's the difference between all of those open world games. many of em are top notch games, but each was problematic with his own things. the developers made the Witcher 3 completely perfect in a way you can enjoy a quality\well written story, and still explore the **** out of the world and enjoy many many quality side quests. and i can't say that on any game in that genre besides the Witcher 3. it is a true masterpiece.
No, you are absolutely right. I think I was just trying to emphasize the idea that they did pack SO MUCH into every little nook & cranny, that when you do go off the beaten path, it feels like this totally organic experience. And that is because, as you've said, they didn't just make the exploring a boring exercise or the side stuff simple fetch quests. There is depth, there is story in almost every area. (Like that hut near Keira's home where the woman & child are dead inside, and the man hung himself outside - you don'the even get a log entry for this) I have a similar amount of time played in the game, multiple replays, wifh a lot of those hours spent trying to do quests different ways, and I've constantly seen new sh1t. To this day, I still see new scenes or dialog when a LPer does a quest a different way than me and I am fascinated by how much cdpr poured I to this thing. Just amazing.
Yes, yes, that's all very interesting. But there's another settlement out there that needs our help. [Quest updated - Go to random location X and kill the random type Y enemies.]
Havent played FO4, but at least with Gwent it all accumulated towards the championship. So all Gwent tasks in themselves accumulated towards a task, and when doing those tasks they helped you with another bigger Gwent task (tournaments with story). And Gwent was surprisingly good, when you started winning and got better deck.
Yup! Gwent was fun. I skipped it in my first playthrough but loved it in my ng+. Playing v/s nilfgaard with all those spies and decoys can be thrilling
OK, I have something I need to discuss about the game. I've seen this come up over and over again on various websites when this quest is brought up and nobody really makes a certain connection about the end results. This is a HoS main quest spoiler, so don't read on unless you have finished the 1st DLC... ok.... So the quest is Scenes From A Marriage, and it's the part at the end where you have to get the rose from Iris on the balcony. Now, I absolutely do not want to get into a conversation about what happens after you die, but whenever I see people discuss their choice, their reasoning kind of baffles me. Most everyone says they took the rose... because either Iris is dead already, or she's suffered enough. But from my very first play through of it, and to my continuing understanding of the decision you must make and how it is presented within the parameters of the game, I do not see any basis for taking the rose and ending her existence. And not merely because taking the picture of the rose to Olgierd as an alternative has the exact same result. First off, people say that taking the rose is freeing her from her suffering. But as the game dictates, when you do this she ceases to exist, so in fact you are not freeing her, you're KILLING her. She has existed to this point (from when she died) as a ghost, yes, but at least she existed. She was cognizant of her surroundings. Her very words on the balcony (and Geralt's confirmation later) of her no longer existing anymore were a clear indication of this result. This option, to me, is the equivalent of applying Specter oil to your Silver Sword and running her through. Then there's the notion that she has suffered enough, that the taking of the rose will relieve that pain. Yes, this is true, and I agree with the idea of putting an end to the unbelievably sad and empty life she had been living as a ghost. However, this was only the case up until you got there! Surely the killing of the Caretaker, and the reconciliation about her fears that must have taken root in her conscience when you defeated the 6 Olgierds changed at least some part of her reality. The dog and the cat said they were tasked to keep her company. Does it not make sense that now, after these events you made happen, they would recognize the opportunity to make things a bit easier for Iris to live on as a ghost? They stated they are still bound to her if she retains the rose, so surely they will adapt to their predicament and make the best of it? Also, you now know of her existence as a ghost. Why can't Geralt the famous Witcher of the North, at some point in this fictitious future check in on her from time to time, to catch up or just bring her news of the outside world? So, I think about the choice and I feel that too many people take too quick an assessment of the situation, because they are only concerned about the text in their quest log that says they "Must get the rose". As I said, from the very first time I played this, I recognized all of these details. Now maybe I am incorrect about some of them, or am mis-remembering them, or I am taking too many things for granted about the kind of story-telling going on here. Or maybe I'm just over-thinking it like always. But I do know one thing.... I sure hate it when I see that beautiful woman say "that no longer matters", and start to fade away. What do you guys think?
i want first person view in next game, stupid to work so hard on a world and zoom it out loosing all that detail.......
An option to alternate between 1st and 3rd person would be good. Just 1st person would be disastrous to the gameplay.
So I've been Playing some Zelda: Breath of the Wild. Everyone goes crazy about how great the world and exploration in it is but I'm finding myself highly disappointed by that. All I can think about when I'm wandering the world in that is how vibrant and beautiful a world CDPR created in TW3 and how lifeless and dull the world of BOTW is. Not only does it look amazing and is filled with detail but everywhere you go you find something interesting, a detailed side quest or some environmental storytelling. In BOTW maybe you'll find a chest or a korok seed, big whoop. Blows my mind how so many people are so positive on that game but so negative on this one.
Agree and disagree. Zelda is a fairly good open world game, and the world fun to explore due to the combat/physics gameplay being engaging mechanically. But the story is non existent and the story told through mostly the world/environments nowhere near enough nor good enough on it's own. The moment to moment action is very good, but as most open world games (and this suffers even more due to design choices) it suffers because there's too little of the good part as you spend most of the time jogging through the world trying to reach places.. (hence the game dubbed mockingly by many as grassy field simulator) The "characters" are poorly written and mostly poorly voiced caricatures. If you replaced the usual Zeldaverse characters with others this could have very easily been just some random but stylish open world game. And I love RPG's and even current era open world RPG's (#buzzword high sales game design - even W3 is guilty of that) I'm prime demo for this game, which is probably why I still like it despite it's many many shortcomings.
There is a mod for that, I think its only exploration and not combat though. Go to nexus mods. Speaking of, I can't play the game anymore without the mods I use.
the simple answer is that they simply prefer LoZ over TW3.. the art, the characters, the story etc. obviously if you look at it from a non-biased perspective, one would agree that TW3 is the more fleshed out game.
