IMHO, its gameplay is mediocre-to-bad:
- Sluggish controls
- Character movement that is unrealistically limited without bringing something to make up for it
- Fiddly object interaction problems (e.g. candles often getting in the way of more important things)
- Bland combat mechanics
- "Open" world populated almost entirely with copy/paste combat encounters
- Little reward for exploration, since practically everything worth discovering has a map marker
- A tiny handful of side quests re-used over and over with different mini-stories to make the quests seem distinct (but the tasks to perform are mostly identical)
This game’s strengths are not the gameplay, but the lore, characters, and story, all of which could presumably be had from reading the books or watching the live action adaptation.
Oh, and Gwent. Gwent is remarkably well-designed for a mini-game within another game.
PieMePlenty@lemmy.world 10 months ago
You could try The Witcher 1. Gameplay there is…unique. A little dated today but IMO has the best writing of the three.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 10 months ago
I feel like you could only think that if you’re more interested in learning the setting than seeing the characters interact.
PieMePlenty@lemmy.world 10 months ago
What I appreciated with the first Witcher is seeing the story from all sides and I dont recall it feeling black and white. Humans were shown as hating elves for their attacks, but then you get to the elves and learn their part of why they were attacking. The writing feels raw with hints of racism, vulgarism and the like. It felt right for the setting.
The Botching story line (the barron) in W3 was probably my favorite and that was a side quest. I didnt feel the same momentum going forward in the main story of W3.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 10 months ago
I’d argue that there’s plenty of that in 2 as well, and by 3 it’s more about taking things to their conclusions as all the characters we’ve built relationships with start bouncing off each other but fair enough.