Discussion in 'Games, Gaming & Game-demos' started by morbias, Jun 6, 2016.
And it is - if it wasn't, then it would have had a difficulty slider.
It's not. Mario on the NES doesn't have a difficulty slider, so that one is for try-hards as well.
This is going to be my last comment on the subject, but there is a reason why dark souls top all "most difficult games" lists - you are obviously into that kinda try-hard gameplay, but that doesn't change the fact that the game is objectively speaking very hard.
While the game counts among the harder ones made this generation, that does not say much as most games today are fairly easy to begin with. DS provides a challenge and has some internal jank to it that is frustrating at times (these are unsolved bugs with hitboxes and occasionally collision - these are bugs and not design), but the challenge is fairly comprehensible and reasonable. It requires the player to pay attention, learn how to manage stamina, and pay attention to attack telegraphs when it comes to bosses - most of it being things that the previous generations on NES, SNES, etc had to deal with even with the mainstream games of that day. Just because that game needs to be taken slow and strategically (at least until familiarised) does not put it on the same level as the freakish bullet hells the Japanese come up with from time to time, or specific games like Speedrunners from Hell.
And that's my final piece about it.
EDIT: And let's not count "top 10 hardest" lists made by journalists - they don't play games very well (hence stuff like the DOOM 2016 fiasco).
Lol yeah, let's ignore the opinions of people who you deem as bad players...
Yes, let's. You seem to do the same with people whom you label as try-hards, so it shouldn't be a problem.
I merely suggested it to the person I replied to, based solely on what he or she had posted earlier.
Witcher 1, 2 and 3 are story oriented games. the third game is by far a more open world game. if you strip the third game from the story\dialogues than it becomes a gorgeous
monster hunting game. it will take hundreds, maybe thousands of hours to level up without finishing quests and participating in dialogues connected to the story.
if you don't like heavy story\dialogues the Witcher series are not for you. i would recommend playing Skyrim since its quests are far more basic,
the story isn't that deep, the characters are forgettable.. and its an amazing game to play.
i would not enjoy the Witcher series if the story was any less than what it is. its an important part for its success.
is their a better re shade than this ?
pretty cool job he did
My two cents,
This sat in my library for ages and i finally got down to playing a bit more yesterday. I had some initial qualms about playing and once your able to get over the fact you can't slay everything from Novigrad to Velen the game becomes pretty enjoyable. I was expecting Skyrim RPG mechanics when really W3 brings it's own uniqueness to the table.
- Something about the Geralt's character and the way he handles stuff.
- Geralt's pretty badass.
- Fluid combat mechanics & Kill Moves.
- Horse riding is fun and better than any other game i've come across.
Having fun so far for my first Witcher game.
I envy you for being able to enjoy it for the first time. Stick with it, it only gets better and you'll get hundreds of hours gameplay.
bloody baron yet? that is where i was hooked on 3.
Finished it a while ago, side questing at the moment.
well.. that's it for me. finished Blood n Wine few mins ago. this was my third or maybe fourth run.
that's my final run of the Witcher series.. was fun, time for me to move on
i played on death march and made some ground rules to make it engaging and it took me a while
since i didn't play every day.
- no set bonuses
- tried to finish 100% of the game, including every question mark on the maps
- invested in RW ( that range for the Whirl is INSANE )
- made Geralt cosmetics as cool as possible ( Ursine \ Wolf \ Manticore mix )
i gotta say.. Hearts of Stone is simply insane in terms of story\character depth. in a way.. it reaches the
best moments\ parts of the entire series.
having said that.. the second expansion is somehow lesser. i like Blood n Wine and everything out
there is still quality stuff.. but the story becomes a bit stale unlike Hearts of Stone or the original game.
something funny about the Witcher 3... i always thought that if il try to finish 100% of the quests\open the
entire maps in every region, it will last longer than Skyrim. gotta say i was wrong.
im not saying this in a good or bad way because both games are different at their core for me, but Skyrim
is much longer. im not talking about Mods or the main story. im talking about opening the entire map, do every quest,
every possible side-quest, every conversations and leave no stone hidden. its very surprising for me.. but Skyrim
is actually "bigger". that's my take on it.
the bloody baron is very much in the vein of hearts of stone but hearts of stone takes the character building to 20. odimm as a character is amazing. everything about hearts of stone is perfection writing character and evern pacing wise hands down the best DLC i ever played and think the only DLC to make me tear up.
blood and wine the call backs to fairy tales and them working that into the witcher world and how surreal fantasy land that whole DLC is, the side quest with your horae? 100/10. the fact they worked them seamalessly into the witcher world also was brilliant.
i gonna be sad as hell when cdpr sells out hi hope it not for many decades. why witcher 3 is the best rpg in decades and maybe the best ever it is certainly worth considering. fingers crossed cyberpunk can top it but tap down that hype stuff .
the bloody baron was also very very epic i agree. i liked his char and his voice actor very much.
the Murders in Novigrad side-quest was also top notch.
one thing i disliked about the game and found tedious is the Dandelion search.. some moments
were dull and sooooooo tiring.
you got to think also that skyrim is using the raidant quest system to severely pad out its content and those quests are so generic as to be insulting. i wish howard would shove that garbage or put some effort into it. i dunno how many radiant quest givers are in skyrim but you would have to figure out their core missions which is hard because they boil down to kill or fetch and they just randomize the location/objective so 2? and the quest givers. these things gluitted my quest book in syrim to the point i just did wtf ever ignoring the quest book till my games so broken i cant play 5 min wo ctd anymore and cant be arsed to sort it.
same for fallout 4 but those givers are in specific spots and bit easier to ignore also think there are mods to disable them they are nothing but busy work and fo4 i think they had 4 missions or so and the hostage rescue one was super rare so that was kinda exciting when you rolled that one other it was go here kill these over and over and over and over in and game when you go around killing stuff over and over and over and over. i hate radiant quests.
this is the effort todd howard puts into his games .
cdpr and the witcher 3 had its fair share of generic side quests to fill things out, but they mixed in some main sized quests into those side quests, they put deeper story into some of them, put you with characters from gerlalts past, stuff you did not expect in modern rpgs but things old school rpgs like fallout 1 and 2 arcanium, baldurs, side quests were involved, everything was just text and skill rolls not gfx and fx so they focused more on the game element and gave you more options. modern rpgs got more and more away as voice acting got big and animations got more involved and games got bigger it gets more expensive to do all that and well big studios get lazy and hire inept people also . and it is far easier to copy and paste your missions into areas ala inquisition, big reason i never finished that game was the filler was so excessive and GENERIC as to be off putting.