Gaming thread
- Thread starter nobodythank you
- Start date
By what measurements? It may be subjectively one of the best, but objectively, no just no. I have been playing for a very long time... like I still have an original Pong console somewhere. I was a server side game dev back in the early 2000's and worked with the teams on some of the biggest FPS franchises ever (COD, BF, AA, FC, etc.). I found Witcher 3 to be pretty meh and the 3P controls are really bad on PC. It's also possible to progress the main storyline too far too fast and get stuck in a place where you cannot survive the next boss no matter your skill level and you cannot retreat forcing a reset of the game to be able to play at all.
Tons of them. Off the top of my head some others...
GTA V
Saint's Row
Heavy Rain (look it up on youtube, it's too NSFW for SS)
Playboy Mansion The Game
Leisure Suit Larry - the objective is to get laid
Beach Volleyball (old 16bit game)
Duke Nukem (The original)Beach Volleyball (old 16bit game)
The game has one of the most well written, and morally ambiguous narratives with difficult choices, decisions and consequences out of all mainstream RPGs. Wheter one likes that or not is subjective yes, but not what it is. I can only think of few others, mostly 2d classics and some good WIP indis that have a similar level of ingenuity, complexity and thought put into it. I haven't played RdR2 yet though but it sounds similarily great. There are other well known RPGs / games that give you multiple choices and endings but not all affect the narrative and world more than just change your character's affiliation and the finale, which is just an observable fact.
Environment, characters, general visuals, quests, and gameplay, combat mechanics are well thought out, unique and well designed.
Skill / abilities system and their visuals as well.
Compared to most other RPGs I've played, even the main quest isn't as linear.
I mean you can't really compare FPS with RPG narratives. Don't get me wrong. I used to play the COD series just because of the story and cool missions, which also have replayability value.
Having a good story is one thing. Having a good story with hard decisions to make that affect the game enlarge, make you think and consider loading a savegame, is objectively something entirely different, no ? not new, but done better than many other games. Thus one of the best. Again, not the best. It certainly didn't get the GOTY award ( and after such an unstable release ) for no reason.
Fair enough. Let's just agree to disagree.Btw, I really don't get how ppl have trouble with the controls ^^
I thought Witcher 1 had arguably the clunkiest controls in the series but once you got through the tutorial it was pretty straight forward, but maybe I'm just weird lol
Last edited:
To be fair though, I've played the game's enhanced edition with all dlcs after the devs fixed t. So that might have been a different experience than playing it right after launch. The 2nd Witcher game is also better with some of the decision making imo.
Jaknight
Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2018
- Messages
- 691
Best RPG
1.) Fallout new Vegas
2.) fallout new Vegas
3.) Fable 1&2
4.) witcher3
5.) Skyrim
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 726
Yes you absolutely can. Halo & Half-Life are just two FPSs that come to mind with a much better story than Witcher (and were there first!). Their stories were top tier and paved the way for future storytelling possible in the Witcher series. You don't have to choose your own adventure. You play and are immersed in the story. Hell, even the game I didn't play, Skyrim is a better example using your criteria. However, if you want the choices matter experience, look at Mass Effect (except that trash ending), or Deus Ex, or even Max Payne. All RPG or RPG-like enough with stories that are just wild.
To your point, Objectively, Witcher has done well thanks to the work of countless games before it. Subjectively:
Two can play Dank Meme Broadside
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 726
OHHHH! Just found something cool many of you may be interested in.
games-to-grunts-program-offers-free-video game downloads to active duty troops veterans
Just checked it out this morning and you can create an account and connect it to id.me and get a slew of games for free on STEAM. They regularly do releases and whatnot. They even have something for you console peasants. Twice already they have offered 12 and 24 month packages of Xbox Live for free. Check it out. It is worth it.
games-to-grunts-program-offers-free-video game downloads to active duty troops veterans
Just checked it out this morning and you can create an account and connect it to id.me and get a slew of games for free on STEAM. They regularly do releases and whatnot. They even have something for you console peasants. Twice already they have offered 12 and 24 month packages of Xbox Live for free. Check it out. It is worth it.
Jaknight
Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2018
- Messages
- 691
The NCR wants to know your location
The very same applies to Witcher, only you have not just a great immersive story but far more options and freedom like other RPGs, which is objectively better : P
I mean Halo / HL all these FPS games are great. I'm not trying to downplay them. They are great for what they are. But you have a pretty linear 4-6hour blast and it's done.
Now everything is better than one of the highest rated games ever, out of principle ? Come on. We can do better than that. ^^
I actualy think Skyrim is the better game ( played vanilla and heavily modded +150 mods ) and also one of the best out there because of it's nigh unparalleled sandbox experience and mod community.
Again. I think I can't highlight the ONE OF part enough. Y'all sound like I dropped a bomb saying one of the best rated RPGs and games is one of the best RPGs and games. I didn't say it was the best game. I'm not even saying it's the best RPG.
I actualy wanted to use it as another example, but Witcher 3 did right what Mass Effect did wrong with conclusion and closure.
Eh this is fine. I'm not gonna argue my point further.
Since I'm right anyway.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 726
Fixed that.
This statement right here tells me you have not played either game or you suffer a form of temporal displacement. If you play through and explore everything, it will take longer than 4-6 hours per game. The current record for HL speed run is just over 20min, but that is bypassing much of the content. Halo is around an hour and a half with the same issue
LoL False my friend. IGN (#31), Metascore (not even on first page), Time (not in top 50), Wiki (only 7th best on PS). This list is the first page of results in a Google search. Although I did exclude slide shows cause let's be honest, those are cancer.
Yes I did not play the game. That doesn't mean I didn't spend hours watching my roommate play the game and enjoy the story. When I didn't have a PC for a while of course. IIRC you did say it was one of the best (bolded).
To be fair, the ending wasn't the story creator's fault. That was a studio decision that bit them in the ass. Otherwise, it is one of the best series of all time. And, No. You are subjectively correct. You are also objectively wrong.I actualy wanted to use it as another example, but Witcher 3 did right what Mass Effect did wrong with conclusion and closure.
Eh this is fine. I'm not gonna argue my point further.
Since I'm right anyway.
[/QUOTE]Fixed that.
which is .... what then ? not objectively better - so less content is better ? Why tho ? ^^
Most pure FPS I played didn't take really longer than that. Completing HALO 1 actualy took me almost day with pauses the first time because I explored. Not gonna lie.
But what is that compared to hundreds of hours you invest on your avarage RPG ? also HL2 is pretty short and there isn't really that much to explore. I needed maybe 6 hours ?
IGN and Time critic scores, really ? ^^
Let's take a look at that list and analyse how those IGN/Time "critics" rate and rank things.
IGN critics think Pro Skater in general deserves higher ranking than Half Life and HALO.
Yet notice how the Witcher 3 User Metascore on the very same table, is higher than literaly anything on Page 1.
Now let's move to Times.
They think Space Invaders and SimCity2000 should be ranked higher than Half Life, Halo and many other games I think we both consider more sophisticated and fun. I spent many hours building in SimCity2000 but really .... ? ^^
Yeah I was also totaly blown away by the deep narrative of Space Invaders and Pac Man. lol
Witcher 3 became GOTY in the Game Awards 2015 - in a buggy ah state. They needed more than a year to fix it. That fact and the more reasonable user scores are a far more realistic reference point if you ask me.
But hey, that's just my crazy opinion. ^^
This is another one that slightly irritates me.
Is Transformers one of the best ever franchises because it made billions ?
Is the Last Jedi a great movie because the critics insist that it is and it made over a billion ? I still have nightmares from the fight choreography of the throne room scene.
Yea and I stand to my statement. Objectively W3
is, and Skyrim is a completly different game when you dive into it's ocean of mods.Did you play the entire series or just Witcher 3 btw ?
I absolutly agree with that.
Not as much as those "critic" scores. ^^
Last edited:
My post wasn't about whether Witcher is a good game. It was about the word "objectively". All I asked was how it was objectively better How are you measuring that? Where are the studies supporting your assertion?
Take a look at the definitions for "objective" and "subjective" Then read the rest of this.
This passes for analysis? (btw, you misspelled "analyze")
Again, it depends on how you are measuring it. In their day, those games (Space Invaders and Pacman) were the only entries in their categories. Without them you probably wouldn't HAVE Witcher, or any other video game. Sim City and the Sims was a completely groundbreaking franchise. If the measure of "Best Game" is "has the most impact on the world" Then yes, they are absolutely better games than just about anything that is out today, objectively. If the answer is that you don't agree, that is subjective. If the measure is "level of sophistication" then they aren't. It's all about how you measure it.
BTW, GOTY is a popularity contest... It has exactly zero value for anything other than marketing to gullible gamers who think it means something. I know a TON of games that were better in every way than the GOTY for their release year. I also know studios that deliberately time their releases to have weaker competition for GOTY for the boost it gives sales.
Let's look at who was nominated in 2015
GAME OF THE YEAR
Bloodborne
(From Software/Sony Computer Entertainment)
Fallout 4
(Bethesda Game Studios/Bethesda Softworks)
Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain
(Kojima Productions/Konami)
Super Mario Maker
(Nintendo EAD Group No. 4/Nintendo)
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
(CD Projekt Red/Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment)
The only one there that had a shot at winning other than W3 was Fallout 4. (Metal Gear and Mario aren't real competition because GOTY traditionally favors US publishers over Japanese except in extreme cases) It's entirely possible that if Fallout had listed as an FPS that it would have won, but Bethesda chose to categorize it as RPG and put it head to head with Witcher. In fact, Witcher 3 was nominated in 7 categories, of which it won exactly 2 (Best RPG, Best Developer). It lost in all 5 other categories. Metal Gear even had as many category wins as Witcher. (Best Action/Adventure, Best Score)
Take a look at the definitions for "objective" and "subjective" Then read the rest of this.
Nobody said that. He was pointing out the, once again incorrect, use of the word objectively.
If the objective measure of a game is the length it takes to do a full exploration, then games like 7 Days to Die that have rolling random world creation are better as it is literally an infinite world. If you exclude infinite worlds, then you have the space exploration games. There's one mentioned earlier in this same thread that would take literally a year to completely explore the universe as it existed at game release.
This passes for analysis? (btw, you misspelled "analyze")
Again, it depends on how you are measuring it. In their day, those games (Space Invaders and Pacman) were the only entries in their categories. Without them you probably wouldn't HAVE Witcher, or any other video game. Sim City and the Sims was a completely groundbreaking franchise. If the measure of "Best Game" is "has the most impact on the world" Then yes, they are absolutely better games than just about anything that is out today, objectively. If the answer is that you don't agree, that is subjective. If the measure is "level of sophistication" then they aren't. It's all about how you measure it.
It's your OPINION... Check the definition of objective and look for the word opinion anywhere in there. That was my whole point.
BTW, GOTY is a popularity contest... It has exactly zero value for anything other than marketing to gullible gamers who think it means something. I know a TON of games that were better in every way than the GOTY for their release year. I also know studios that deliberately time their releases to have weaker competition for GOTY for the boost it gives sales.
Let's look at who was nominated in 2015
GAME OF THE YEAR
Bloodborne
(From Software/Sony Computer Entertainment)
Fallout 4
(Bethesda Game Studios/Bethesda Softworks)
Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain
(Kojima Productions/Konami)
Super Mario Maker
(Nintendo EAD Group No. 4/Nintendo)
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
(CD Projekt Red/Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment)
The only one there that had a shot at winning other than W3 was Fallout 4. (Metal Gear and Mario aren't real competition because GOTY traditionally favors US publishers over Japanese except in extreme cases) It's entirely possible that if Fallout had listed as an FPS that it would have won, but Bethesda chose to categorize it as RPG and put it head to head with Witcher. In fact, Witcher 3 was nominated in 7 categories, of which it won exactly 2 (Best RPG, Best Developer). It lost in all 5 other categories. Metal Gear even had as many category wins as Witcher. (Best Action/Adventure, Best Score)
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 726
Although @compforce did an excellent breakdown, I will add one thing, I provided multiple credible sources. Individually I would agree that some are a bit wonky, but I did provide multiple ones to at least break the claim made about the game. Just because you didn't like the sources, doesn't mean they aren't academically valid.
ETA: Critic scores are derived from more than just user feelings. While they are a contributing factor, critic scores typically take into account sales, impact, bugs, and more. So while not infallible, it is a good metric on how well a game performs. It just isn't the only metric.
To sum up, I will grant you that it is subjectively one of the best (in your humble opinion). Objectively? On no account.
Sure. It's not just about the lenght of something but the content and it's quality. But I thought that was obvious.
A lot of games have big areas and terrain to explore. But what's the point in roaming the pixelated maps of Thunder Brigade for hours in your hover tank ? ^^
If I didn't make it clear in my earlier post, I meant the level of sophistication, impact and quality when I listed points like game design, mechanics, content, story writing, I'll also add character progression which is very important, freedom, choices and decisions you are offered as player, that influence the game and it's outcome, and also influence future game development. Aka in short the quality it offers as not just open world RPG but as a game in general.
Going by those measurements and impact, yes absolutly.
You mentioned historical/game dev impcat.
Witcher 3 set a higher standard just in terms of story telling and quests especialy when it comes to open world games, and that's not just my subjective view or opinon.
For example, back in 2017 or earlier, EA openly stated that they would make their newest Mass Effect title ( Andromeda ) similar to Witcher 3 in regards to quests and sidequests, because they had learned from the mistakes of other games where quests were not as meaningful. So W3 factualy inspired the developers of another great franchise, which is Mass Effect, to improve upon. Androma obv didn't exactly turn out to be the greatest title in the franchise, but that impact is a fact.
Mass Effect: Andromeda will have 'meaningful' sidequests akin to The Witcher, says game producer
Mass Effect Andromeda Will Have Witcher-Like Meaningful Side Quests
People also argue that AC:O was heavily inspired by Witcher 3, and I totaly agree with that assessment judging by some eary similarites. This is a more positive example.
'Assassin's Creed Origins' Learned Important Lessons From 'The Witcher 3' And 'Dark Souls'
But I won't go as far as others who claim it's a "rip off", because it also borrowed elements from ME.
Yeah, I know that I have to improve on my English. How is your Georgian btw ? : P
Sure it's not the same level of impact as the first ever game in history had on all other games that ever followed, but if we measured everything by just that ( like in some of the articles quoted ), than you are probably right in that those games had the greatest impact of all. But we are not talking just about historical impact and wheter the first ever steam powered vehicle was more important than the latest achievements in vehicular technology.
But we are in fact looking at a product that directly impacted the development of other, and competing products, in the same time period.
So in this case, we can add historical/game dev impact to the list as well, which is not a small feat. Those are at least two big franchises it impacted.
No doubt.
The Witcher 3 is also regarded groundbreaking and inspired other games.
It was one of the most anticipated games because of it's successful prequel, and I mentioned earlier Witcher 2 subjectively did some things better even.
Exactly what greater value do the scores of a couple or more dozen critics have compared to tens of thousands of "non-critic" consumers ? every individual human is a critic of the product they buy, consume and rate. "Critics" are just as opinionated as everyone else.
Are the masses of consumers who gave Witcher 3 a higher rating than anything listed on the first page of such IGN "Metascore" that "critics" rated with +90, to be treated like they didn't know what they were doing, and are just heavily biased towards Witcher ? that's not objective.
But what is a fact, is that the user score on those sites, lists, and distribution platforms rank the game one of the highest, and that is objectively true.
Wheter the first ever pixels on a screen, influenced game development aeons ago is not a measurement for the quality of more sophisticated games.
Besides I just provided an example of how Witcher 3 directly influenced the development of at least one other great sophisticated franchise in the same time period. I didn't even consider that something to measure modern games because every single product was inspired or influenced by something else ( first of all, if given, by their source - which in this case is literature ), and has to stand on it's own and compete with others. But since you brought it up, there you go.
Oh sure, no doubt. Me too. But Witcher 3 def deserves the praise and it's not just GOTY, and on top of that it was highly regarded despite it's sloppy release, and long before the DLCs came out and the devs smoothed everything out.
Maybe. But that's mere speculation, and well, it is an RPG so : P
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 726
You really wanna die on this hill huh? Ok.....No
Your take on W3 is so biased that you're making the counter argument for me. I'm going to use your own argument and context here. Ill make the point as a whole throughout my rebuttle below.
*side note, how do you know the pixelated maps of TB don't have some easter egg, upgrade, or whatchamadoodle unless you check?
Also No. Again, using your own argument:
IGN - Mass Effect Andromeda: Revisiting BioWare's Worst Game After a Year
Forbes - mass-effect-andromeda-is-the-worst-reviewed-game-in-the-franchise
Mashable - Mass Effect: Andromeda' reviews are in: Bad game is bad
If your argument is that W3 is so good they made MEA modeled after it to make the ME series better then you just sank your own battleship. If we use this metric only. But we cannot can we? Just like we cannot only take user scores into account (more below). MEA was HORRIBLE. It is widely regarded (even by die hard ME fans and acolytes) as absolute crap. That doesn't mean W3 was horrible, but if we go by your standards then W3 is trash. However, that would not be fair or accurate, would it?
But the impact of those first games is what paved the way for, and inspired the games that come later. While to some, Starcraft is one of the best RTSs ever made; Command and Conquer is one of the best. Not because it came before Starcraft, but because it revolutionized AI usage in an RTS. An example of this would be how the AI was coded to work and respond to player input. It was something that had never been achieved in an RTS genre ever. If we are looking at how W3 impacted competing products (using your own standards again), then look at my previous section. MEA was a disaster. Using your argument of course.
No, what is objectively true is that most users who played W3 enjoyed the game. At one time a majority of the world believed the Earth was flat. Didn't mean they were right. At one time it was widely believed that it was ok to smack the old lady around. I think it is safe to say that this we both agree that isn't ok lol. I realize this is a bit of a strawman argument, but consider this specific point in order to see what I am getting at. It is the most popular on that list right now, until it isn't. Something will dethrone it. Individual likes are fickle and subject to being, well... subjective.
Just like the critic score isn't a sole factor, neither is the user score. I get it, you like the game. Alot. However, W3 isn't the groundbreaking masterpiece that you are trying to claim it is. Groundbreaking would be HALO CE, Doom, C&C, Legend of Zelda, (even Super Mario Brothers) and more. Why? because they were wildly popular, were the first in their fields to do certain things, wildly successful financially, and paved the way for other games of their respective genres to grow and expand. At best, W3 only meets 2 of the 4 criteria I used to make my argument. It is wildly popular and financially successful. It did not, however, pave the way for its genre to grow (it just gave users a more to do), and it was not the first to do so.
Actually it isn't mere speculation. He made a logical argument against that based on it only winning two out of seven nominated categories, AND the fact that historically, FPSs have done better. It is a logical deduction based on facts. Speculation is your entire argument bruh lol.
I am really not stating anything controversial or shocking, and if I were biased I'd say W3 is the best game ever or something in that line. I consider a number of games superior to Witcher 3.
I spent hours to roam the maps just to still that curiosity lol
Read it again.
My point, and I made this very clear, is that the Witcher 3 had a direct impact on the vision of other game developers because of it's quest design / story telling, since you brought it up as a metric. That's just a fact, not my opinion. MEA devs tried to immitate what was good about Witcher 3, but failed in making a proper game, which has absolutly ZERO to do with Witcher 3.
There is an entire article about why MEA flopped.
The Story Behind Mass Effect: Andromeda's Troubled Five-Year Development
tl;dr: the devs say "Mass Effect: Andromeda was just trying to do too much with too few resources." and it blew in their faces spectacularily.
MEA's flop is not a measure for the quality of M3, but I used that as an example of other game developers taking inspiration from W3 for their own product, as a direct impact W3 had on game development, since that metric was brought into the discussion.
There are a more successful examples, like AC:O and potentialy a number of other games.
So to claim Witcher 3 didn't have an impact for it's genre to grow, is just factualy wrong.
The fact Witcher 3 inspired other highly regarded franchises, one of which' latest installment turned out to be trash for completly unrelated reasons, would make Witcher "trash" / a low standard product ?
That is not just "not fair". It's objectively wrong.
I am not using just one particular metric. I listed several points which factualy make Witcher 3 such a success in the first place and inspire other games.
Again, not arguing the import and impact of older games. Just saying it's not the one and most important metric to judge modern games. Every game has to stand on it's own, in a competitive environment.
Users and "critics". Yes.
.... a bit ? ^^
If that is your opinion, it is fine. Others do consider it a masterpiece, and groundbreaking. You read such labels in many articles about Witcher 3. Yet others don't because they have their own personal studio GOTY favourites.
Personaly I do not consider it as groundbreaking as many other games just out of technicality and principle of impact, but content and quality wise among the best currently out there. Objectively it does many things better than many other mainstream RPGs and the fact some of the big ones try to immitate many great aspects of it, speaks for itself.
But it does though ? case in point. Other devs try to immitate what it did right and even use that as marketing strategy. Ofc it wasn't the first and won't be the last. That's obvious.
Edit: Yeah ... you know what nvm.
I'm wrong, you're right. Whatever lol
Before this escalates, I'm out.
Last edited:
Florida173
SOF Support
I pirated a copy of the Witcher 3 and gave it a good ~10 hour try.. Got really bored and uninstalled. I wanted to like it.. But nope.
