Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You mean it's not possible just to randomly ride around through towns, stopping at taverns at the like and looking at noticeboards for work - then choosing whether or not to do those things?

I bought it, I'm enjoying it so far, only thing is, I can only play it on low settings.

Machine is a i5 2500k, 6GB of RAM and a GTX 650 Ti Boost.

Plays more than acceptably, and my machine is what.... 4 years old now? I'm guessing you are good to go.

The main character is a fething cliche though, most of them talk with stereotypical British medieval accent but he is a typical long haired, stubbly, grim sounding American bloke who whispers all the time like Wolverine or Solid Snake.

For once I want the hero to have a super camp voice and still beat the gak out of everyone.

Sort of like John Inman with a sword.

Its a mint game though, Im only a few hours in, but Im enjoying it just as much as Skyrim.

 Pacific wrote:
You mean it's not possible just to randomly ride around through towns, stopping at taverns at the like and looking at noticeboards for work - then choosing whether or not to do those things?

The best way of describing it would be semi-open world. It's not Skyrim or Fallout in that you can't walk from one end of the world to the other without loading screens, but the areas themselves are fairly large, with small settlements and locations scattered around, taverns, and noticeboards. It is possible to ride around completely off-rails, and choose whether or not to accept noticeboard quests or markers you see during travel.

I suppose the closest game I can personally compare it to is Fable 3. You have free roam over areas linked by loading screens (fast travel roadsigns in TW3 rather than cave entrances or roads going into the distance) with side quests available in those areas. In industry terms, this does still qualify as open world, but next to the likes of TES and Fallout, can seem rather confined, and may lead people to think that if they can see it, they can go there, which isn't necessarily true for TW3 as you have boundaries you cannot cross and which will automatically turn you back and around if attempting to cross them.

I'm currently in the second area now, and I do have to say that it us huge. As I was just replaying Fallout: New Vegas before TW3 came out, I would say that just this second area is at least half the size of the map in F:NV. Maybe even the same size, as you can travel faster in TW3 than in F:NV.

You can travel around the map, exploring the hidden areas and looking for Witcher Contracts, but, unlike Bethesda games, the content does not level with you. I'm only level 9 and I've picked up some quests that the game suggests I need to be in the 20s to do.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I'm currently in the second area now, and I do have to say that it us huge. As I was just replaying Fallout: New Vegas before TW3 came out, I would say that just this second area is at least half the size of the map in F:NV. Maybe even the same size, as you can travel faster in TW3 than in F:NV.

You can travel around the map, exploring the hidden areas and looking for Witcher Contracts, but, unlike Bethesda games, the content does not level with you. I'm only level 9 and I've picked up some quests that the game suggests I need to be in the 20s to do.

Yeah, I remember picking up a witcher contract that is level 33, when I was only level 4 or 5.

I prefer this though. I like that I have to come back to some areas. It also makes exploring a lot more exciting.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
and my God were the people who whined about graphics being downgraded for PC not just wrong, but completely wrong.

They were downgraded though. At least CD project will be returning them to their previous state in future patches. Personally I am waiting for a few more patches before I buy this, both the Witcher and the Witcher 2 essentially required an 'enhanced' edition to fix various problems with the base game so I am happy to wait; no disrespect to Cd project intended, at least they actually fix issues. I don't really have the time to donate to a huge RPG at the moment anyway.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
and my God were the people who whined about graphics being downgraded for PC not just wrong, but completely wrong.

They were downgraded though. At least CD project will be returning them to their previous state in future patches. Personally I am waiting for a few more patches before I buy this, both the Witcher and the Witcher 2 essentially required an 'enhanced' edition to fix various problems with the base game so I am happy to wait; no disrespect to Cd project intended, at least they actually fix issues. I don't really have the time to donate to a huge RPG at the moment anyway.

To a level that was still incredibly respectable to 99.9% of people playing it, yes. There is nothing wrong at all with the graphics in their current incarnation, and the people who continually wail about how they're betraying PC players are the people who have the high-high-end systems capable of rendering every amoeba in a game.

Well I've just started to play the game, if people are saying the graphics aren't good enough.. what the feth?!

This is quite simply the most beautiful game I have ever seen. The graphics are absolutely, jaw-droppingly gorgeous.

 mattyrm wrote:


The main character is a fething cliche though, most of them talk with stereotypical British medieval accent but he is a typical long haired, stubbly, grim sounding American bloke who whispers all the time like Wolverine or Solid Snake.

He sounds a lot like Jim Carvizilvizelvalxclaxvel in 'Person of Interest' (badass in that show, he's most famous for playing Jesus in Passion of the Christ).
I'm really enjoying his character for that reason.

I think it would be 'cliched' if it were a character with a shaved head or a wearing a cowl and being all super cool and moody, both of which feature in 98% of action hero games released over the past few years. Long white hair I think is just about characterful enough

 Avatar 720 wrote:
...... the people who continually wail about how they're betraying PC players are the people who have the high-high-end systems capable of rendering every amoeba in a game.

Graphics quality was degraded though, primarily so that the game would work on consoles (who are already far, far behind the power curve despite only being 18 months old). People who 'wail' about consoles holding back PC games on a technical level are correct, that is irrefutable and it is churlish to attack them stating the obvious.

As the console market is about 150% the size of the PC market and AAA developers will always follow the money so this is a problem that won't be going away until such time as consoles become modular (in other words PCs). At least the Witcher's graphical downgrade is only temporary.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mattyrm wrote:

The main character is a fething cliche though, most of them talk with stereotypical British medieval accent but he is a typical long haired, stubbly, grim sounding American bloke who whispers all the time like Wolverine or Solid Snake.

At least he is a fairly old cliche, the Witcher was released in 2007 and the character hasn't changed

Remember that Geral / The Witcher is based on a book series, thus his character is, give or take, set in stone. He's not that generic, though. Just because he's male? He's an actually interesting character with a lot of inner conflicts, starting with his very identity. He is neither human nor monster, hated by many, even those he protects with his life, he is emotionally barren, he can never have children (has its upsides, though...) and enjoy the life of a family and he will never find inner peace. Deep manly voice is clichée? Says more about you, eh?

Just kidding.

Geralt is far from being clichée if you really look at him. He's a complex, dynamic character.

I will say after playing 10 hours of it, Its a beautiful game, even the dead bodies are pretty in their own way


I really like the road system they implemented where your hose will travel the road's path automatically

And yes the enemies are annoyingly intelligent, its a challenge and thats fun

Those peasants sure know their video games.

"War. War never changes." - "No, you lazy bastard will never change!" (Or something along those lines)

Yea some of the peasant lines are hilarious.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
...... the people who continually wail about how they're betraying PC players are the people who have the high-high-end systems capable of rendering every amoeba in a game.

Graphics quality was degraded though, primarily so that the game would work on consoles (who are already far, far behind the power curve despite only being 18 months old). People who 'wail' about consoles holding back PC games on a technical level are correct, that is irrefutable and it is churlish to attack them stating the obvious.

As the console market is about 150% the size of the PC market and AAA developers will always follow the money so this is a problem that won't be going away until such time as consoles become modular (in other words PCs). At least the Witcher's graphical downgrade is only temporary.

You missed the part where I didn't disagree with you about it being degraded, quite intentionally seeing as though it was the very first thing in my post. I never said anything about holding back PC games, I said it about the people claiming that TW3's graphics are awful. I also didn't attack them in any way, I made a simple statement that they're likely to be people with very high-end systems.

My post was: yes they were, but the vast majority of players still find the graphics very good, and that the people who disagree likely have systems high-end enough to be able to remark on what, to them, is poor graphical quality. Nothing about consoles holding PCs back, no 'attacks', no attempts to refute anything. You're putting whole other arguments into my mouth.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
I said it about the people claiming that TW3's graphics are awful.

Very few people actually did this, and thats only because its the internet.

What's funny about the graphics issues is, looking at Nvidia's tweak guide for the game, if you manually adjust a lot of the settings in the config file to be even better than the game's ultra options, even a PAIR OF TITAN Xs go as low as 20fps, depending on the settings.

The colour palette almost reminds me of a pre-Raphaelite painting, it's beautiful.

Got the sound wired through a separates system and floor-standing speakers as well, the classical score is really quite something.

I don't think that I've seen game that is such a sensory tour-de-force.

So, what's everyones favorite parts about the game?

While I love the quests, I'd say my favorite is the contract quests. I really enjoy all the story and fun that goes into hunting these monsters, then discovering what they are at the end!


major patch is coming soon as well!

http://www.gamepur.com/news/18906-witcher-3-will-get-big-patch-600-changes-soon-includes-improvements.html

 Pacific wrote:
You mean it's not possible just to randomly ride around through towns, stopping at taverns at the like and looking at noticeboards for work - then choosing whether or not to do those things?

Not sure on this entry, specifically, as I was talking about the series-in-general. In which, no, you couldn't do something like that. In order to move from one area to the next, in TW1 and 2, you have to complete the main storyline quest before the next region will unlock, and it is not possible to go back to a previous region to turn in a quest you later complete.

20 hours clocked in 3 days... I didn't move for about 12 hours the day the game released on PC here in Aus...

Thoroughly enjoying it and knowing that there is all free dlc to come even when I finally finish the main story is always a perk on top. Also the game looks stunning but then I'm running some decent hardware at the moment on my computer so staying at 60 on very high - ultra makes this game so beautiful...

But there has only been a few glitches so far but so far they have been far and few and in fact I haven't had an issue in so long now.

I entered Novigrad for the first time today. Damn, that place needs some Nilfgaard.

 Sasori wrote:
So, what's everyones favorite parts about the game?

For me, the best part is often not knowing what the "right" choice should be, as you never know what the ultimate consequences could be. Even something that feels right at the time could end up being the bad choice. Resolving the Whispering Hillock quest in Velen was a hard choice for me, as an example. You just don't know enough to truly decide either way. Some of the choices in the game can be really tough. The Witcher 2 had one of the hardest decisions I've ever made in a game, and I look forward to similar things in #3.

Spoiler explaining TW2 choice:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
So, what's everyones favorite parts about the game?

For me, the best part is often not knowing what the "right" choice should be, as you never know what the ultimate consequences could be. Even something that feels right at the time could end up being the bad choice. Resolving the Whispering Hillock quest in Velen was a hard choice for me, as an example. You just don't know enough to truly decide either way. Some of the choices in the game can be really tough. The Witcher 2 had one of the hardest decisions I've ever made in a game, and I look forward to similar things in #3.

Spoiler explaining TW2 choice:

Spoiler:

Roche path, choice to kill or spare King Henselt. I probably spent at least 10 minutes thinking about it before making a decision. I ultimately decided to spare Henselt, as Geralt is, after all, trying to prove to the world he isn't the one killing kings.)

Yeah, that quest in Velen was pretty hard to decide on!

So far? Random NPC dialog. Though it's not quite as funny as some of the comments from dwarves in TW1 & 2 (yet), I did find 2 guards doing the "go get the gimp" bit from Pulp Fiction.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
So, what's everyones favorite parts about the game?

For me, the best part is often not knowing what the "right" choice should be, as you never know what the ultimate consequences could be. Even something that feels right at the time could end up being the bad choice. Resolving the Whispering Hillock quest in Velen was a hard choice for me, as an example. You just don't know enough to truly decide either way. Some of the choices in the game can be really tough. The Witcher 2 had one of the hardest decisions I've ever made in a game, and I look forward to similar things in #3.

Spoiler explaining TW2 choice:

Spoiler:

Roche path, choice to kill or spare King Henselt. I probably spent at least 10 minutes thinking about it before making a decision. I ultimately decided to spare Henselt, as Geralt is, after all, trying to prove to the world he isn't the one killing kings.)

Indeed. Roche is the one killing kings

I purchased this over the weekend, but haven't dug into it yet. Is this like the Mass Effect series, in that decisions and actions from pervious games carry over? This is the first game in the franchise I've picked up and feel kind of lost. Is it worth it/beneficial to do a playthrough of each?

I'm curious, how much of the boring repetitive quests are there, i.e. kill X number of Y beast, retrieve package for me, etc.? Those kinds of RPGs really throw me off.

nels1031 wrote:I purchased this over the weekend, but haven't dug into it yet. Is this like the Mass Effect series, in that decisions and actions from pervious games carry over? This is the first game in the franchise I've picked up and feel kind of lost. Is it worth it/beneficial to do a playthrough of each?

You get an option when starting a new game to enter your decisions from The Witcher 2, or to use the default. You get to submit the decisions you made after the Opening.

Enigwolf wrote:I'm curious, how much of the boring repetitive quests are there, i.e. kill X number of Y beast, retrieve package for me, etc.? Those kinds of RPGs really throw me off.

I haven't run into any yet. Of course, there are Contracts for slaying a certain monster that is terrorizing the area, but not "Kill 10 Ghouls" or something like that.

 thenoobbomb wrote:

nels1031 wrote:I purchased this over the weekend, but haven't dug into it yet. Is this like the Mass Effect series, in that decisions and actions from pervious games carry over? This is the first game in the franchise I've picked up and feel kind of lost. Is it worth it/beneficial to do a playthrough of each?

You get an option when starting a new game to enter your decisions from The Witcher 2, or to use the default. You get to submit the decisions you made after the Opening.

Enigwolf wrote:I'm curious, how much of the boring repetitive quests are there, i.e. kill X number of Y beast, retrieve package for me, etc.? Those kinds of RPGs really throw me off.

I haven't run into any yet. Of course, there are Contracts for slaying a certain monster that is terrorizing the area, but not "Kill 10 Ghouls" or something like that.

Ugh, good.
The first witcher was full of those sort of quests.
At least they are easy to finish though, since they tended to ask for body parts, and you will always have a ton of those for alchemy.

The only 'package' quest I've come across was also part of a longer chain, and actually served a very visible purpose in it, unlike RPGs where you get someone an item and the last you ever hear of it is in the Quest Complete screen.