I know I can't make an informed opinion given that I didn't play #3. But I got The Witcher 2 for almost nothing when The Witcher 3 was about to come out. Just to see what the hype was all about. I could not get into that game at all. The combat was just too clunky and the game in general just really didn't grab my attention at all. So I did not even bother with #3. Maybe they fixed the gameplay but I haven't heard anything about that game that talks about the fantastic combat. I'm pretty sure that's not why people like it.
I'm sure with The Witcher 3 in particular the tech is fantastic and the story is massive. Probably the world is equally as big and impressive. But give me something like Wind Waker with a smaller world, less impressive tech but fantastic art direction and gameplay any day. Or better yet Breath of the Wild which appears to be delivering on both!
Opinions! Speculation! Ill informed rants! This is what the internet is all about.
Again, I never said that graphics were the only factor for the popularity of certain video games or even the most important factor. But I don't think you can deny that graphics aren't still a major factor, and I think many gamerd are skipping Nintendo games for that reason (including Nintendo games that are marketed to older audiences).
You just contradicted yourself...and the fact that that phrase is quite real is demonstrating that the gaming world is going that way, the wrong one
As much as I'm hyped for BOTW, before I'm celebrating it as "the greatest game ever take that Sony Fanbois" as I'm seeing posted, it still has a lot of questions hanging over it for me. Like if the big open world has enough stuff to do in it, is the slate a good enough replacement for items, are the sidequests any good etc as Ninty has just been selling the open world and not much else which is all well and good but this isn't the N64 where Hyrule Field will wow people and open world games have been done to death for years now.
I think Zelda can shine in the story aspect, for sure. Whether it can shine as an open world game remains to be seen.
I think you guys are really jumping the gun on the Zelda and TW3 comparisons. Most of you probably haven't even played TW3, and Zelda isn't out yet. TW3 is one of the most popular and most critically acclaimed games of this generation. It's often touted as an example of an open world game done right. Saying a game you know almost nothing about is gonna be way better than TW3, a game you've never even played, is the height of fanboyism. Who knows? BoTW might completely bomb, or at least not be the masterpiece everyone is expecting.
@BiasedSonyFan I prefer to use no data than bad data to be honest. I think that the critic reviews portray a more accurate perspective in my opinion.
Going in on the topic on films and books. Take Avatar (the 2009 film) for example. I've watched it twice in the theaters back in 2009. Still don't think the film it is great; The story was pretty lackluster and predictable in my opinion, but from a technical perspective, it was very impressive. As a product of entertainment, I still think it was good. I find it difficult to judge a product on just a single factor. Maybe a game falls short in being a game (using rallydefault's The Order 1889 as an example), but it can still be entertaining.
@skywake The general consensus is that The Witcher 3 is miles better than the previous entries. I wouldn't recommend anyone playing the first two games if they're interested in playing TW3, and I can't see myself going back to the original or TW2 either. I think that some of that clunkiness is still present in TW3, but as an open world game, it's probably one of the better games to date. Combat is nothing special, it does what it has to do, but that's it. Other than that, I can't say anything anything bad about the lore, the story, the world building, it's all really good. The sheer amount of content is maybe one of the most impressive things in the game. I think I spend over 150 hours in the main game, and I have still things left to do. The DLC are equally impressive, the first one adding an additional 20-30 hours of content, and the second DLC twice that amount. It also helps that I'm into the books, and although the game isn't officially canon, they complement each other well.
Ultimately, every game has its flaws. TW3 may fall short on its rather simplistic combat. I'm equally worried that BOTW may fall short on content, as I still think it looks quite empty. Oh, and by the way, The Wind Waker sported some of the most impressive tech for a 2002 game in my opinion! It was most definitely ahead of its times on a technical level.
I've played Witcher 3 and found it quite slow. I put a number of hours into it but just didn't find it that compelling.
Does anyone know if eshop vouchers will work on the Switch or is it just another mystery that Nintendo have yet to reveal? I've essentially got £59 left over in credit at my Game store and not sure what to do with it.
@Mellor2000
I've tried SO HARD to get into the Witcher games, but I just can't. It's literally everything I enjoy: medieval setting, spells, intriguing monsters, brooding protagonist, etc. Swords and sorcery stuff that I usually go nuts over. But I've played all three of the games, and I just don't understand what everyone is going bonkers about. I can't get past the clunky gameplay regardless of how deep the story may be.
But I'm also someone who thinks video games should be GAMES first and foremost with fun and addicting gameplay even if that means zero story arc, and I generally prefer to consume deep stories through books.
The ''average'' gamer isn't the person that goes online to talk about video games, and certainly isn't going to rate the game on Metacritic. FIFA 17 only has 468 user ratings, that's nothing compared to the umpteen million copies it sold.
Fair points. However, that data is the most popular data that we have to help us figure out how a video game is received by gamers from a critical standpoint. At the very least, that data should provide some perspective to this debate: popular video games (and movies and books) aren't necessarily good, and people aren't oblivious to that fact. For example, I know plenty of people who spend money to watch action movies multiple times that they know aren't great movies but are appealing because they have great special effects. This is not some farfetched concept.
User ratings are often either really good or really bad — it's not just with video games but also with movies and books. Not many people want to bother with a rating system that allows for many ratings between the two extremes; they either like the video games that they play or they don't.
I'm not denying that games with good graphics sell, but those games still got poor user ratings. If the stereotype was true and non-Nintendo gamers care only about graphics and not gameplay, they would be rated much higher than that. Despite selling well and having good graphics, a lot of those games fizzled out quickly. Besides, not all of those games are bad. Minecraft and Fallout 4, for example, are generally regarded as good games for the most part, at least outside of the PlayStation community. A lot of them had significant hype trains behind them before launch too, like The Division and Fallout 4, which would definitely help with sales.
Not necessarily. The ratings could simply reflect that people know those video games aren't necessarily good but are strong in areas that allow them to sell well (graphics, hype, brand, lack of alternatives due to a lack of competition, etc.). See my reply to @Octane.
Again, I never said that graphics were the only factor for the popularity of certain video games or even the most important factor. But I don't think you can deny that graphics aren't still a major factor, and I think that's one important reason why many gamers are skipping Nintendo games (including Nintendo games that are marketed to older audiences).
Probably the case for quite a few people (The Nintendo thing). I know a guy in real life who doesn't bother with a lot of games because the graphics aren't that great. That was back in the PS3/Wii era though, so I doubt he has nearly as many games to complain about anymore. Graphics can definitely impact sales though, for sure. Probably some of it isn't necessarily related to eye candy, though. I'm sure a lot of people think good graphics means the game is probably good quality because the game is high budget.
@Mellor2000
I've tried SO HARD to get into the Witcher games, but I just can't. It's literally everything I enjoy: medieval setting, spells, intriguing monsters, brooding protagonist, etc. Swords and sorcery stuff that I usually go nuts over. But I've played all three of the games, and I just don't understand what everyone is going bonkers about. I can't get past the clunky gameplay regardless of how deep the story may be.
But I'm also someone who thinks video games should be GAMES first and foremost with fun and addicting gameplay even if that means zero story arc, and I generally prefer to consume deep stories through books.
There's no rule book for how games "should" be. There are plenty of games out there that have great gameplay but an either terrible or very simple story, like Little Big Planet. Then there are games like TellTale's The Walking Dead that have very little gameplay but very compelling characters and stories. Neither of those games are necessarily better or worse than each other. They're just intended for different kinds of people who can embrace the games for what they are. Of course, those games are obviously not trying to have a good story (LBP) or good gameplay (TWD), so that doesn't excuse TW3 for not standing out from the crowd from a gameplay perspective, since the devs were actually trying there, but people who enjoy games with immersive worlds, great characters and quests, and a compelling story, while forgiving it for only having an acceptable quality combat system will definitely have a good time with it. It all depends on what you're into.
Zelda might actually surpass TW3 in both gameplay and story, or at least gameplay, but that doesn't mean TW3 sucks or has nothing to offer, because it's a great game for people who can look past less than amazing combat.
I heard on boogie2988's channel that some people who tried the demo weren't too impressed with the basic gameplay. Of course, that isn't taking puzzles and boss fights and whatnot into account. Still though, I think fighting most enemies and generally running around the map will be basically the same as it always was, with some differences here and there.
@BiasedSonyFan Eh, I take a written review over any of the ''I gave it a 10 because the score needs to be higher.'' or a ''IT SUCKKSZ! therefore 0.'' any time. Even if I don't always agree with the critic reviews, at least I can read them and try to understand why the reviewer didn't like the game, regardless of whether the arguments are valid or not.
The Witcher 3 does take a while to get into, with the sword play, you can't go in all guns blazing so to speak and more often or not you need to craft certain oils to put onto your sword to kill certain enemies. It does require though plenty of time and patience.
I decided I'll probably just and wait and buy a Switch later on. I really want to play Zelda when it came out, but I'd rather not go through the hassle of hunting one down. It also gives me the opportunity to get some more work done and see how the Switch thing handles itself.
I decided I'll probably just and wait and buy a Switch later on. I really want to play Zelda when it came out, but I'd rather not go through the hassle of hunting one down. It also gives me the opportunity to get some more work done and see how the Switch thing handles itself.
That's what I'm doing too. I'm having fun with my recently purchased PS4 in the meantime. In 2 or 3 years I'll be able to tell if a Switch is worth investing in compared to a gaming PC, or a PS5 when it comes out. I can't envision myself not getting a Switch, though. Gotta have my Nintendo fix, which I haven't had since the Wii.
@KirbyTheVampire
I never said TW3 "sucks." Where the heck did I say that? Why do you and @jump seem to be all over my posts, putting words to me that just aren't there on the screen? I said that despite the Witcher series including lots of ideas that I enjoy, I couldn't get into any of the three games, and that I find the gameplay clunky in all three. That's it. I never said it "sucks," nor did I even compare it to Zelda. Please stop attributing words and arguments to me that I've never made, it's getting pretty annoying.
I also think @jump's comment about Zelda being clunky is whitewashing. I think A Link Between Worlds has some of the smoothest, addicting top-down gameplay I've laid hands on. I also think Wind Waker's controls are fluid and fun to play. Ocarina, Twilight, and Skyward Sword I do find to be stiff in terms of controls, much like Witcher. I would go further to say, though, that Witcher's 1's controls were straight-up unintuitive, whereas I wouldn't use that word for any Zelda game.
@KirbyTheVampire
I never said TW3 "sucks." Where the heck did I say that? Why do you and @jump seem to be all over my posts, putting words to me that just aren't there on the screen? I said that despite the Witcher series including lots of ideas that I enjoy, I couldn't get into any of the three games, and that I find the gameplay clunky in all three. That's it. I never said it "sucks," nor did I even compare it to Zelda. Please stop attributing words and arguments to me that I've never made, it's getting pretty annoying.
I also think @jump's comment about Zelda being clunky is whitewashing. I think A Link Between Worlds has some of the smoothest, addicting top-down gameplay I've laid hands on. I also think Wind Waker's controls are fluid and fun to play. Ocarina, Twilight, and Skyward Sword I do find to be stiff in terms of controls, much like Witcher. I would go further to say, though, that Witcher's 1's controls were straight-up unintuitive, whereas I wouldn't use that word for any Zelda game.
Jeez man, it seems impossible to just have a friendly discussion on this website. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, I just thought it was a simple way of saying that you don't care for the game. In hindsight, "sucks" was a poor word choice. And I know you didn't compare it to Zelda, but the comparison between TW3 and BoTW was still going on at the time, and since you said you don't know what everyone's going bonkers about, I used that as a way of saying that even if games like Zelda are better in the gameplay area, TW3 is still a good game for people who enjoy deep stories and such despite gameplay that isn't anything mindblowing. I know you have nothing against TW3 or people who enjoy it, but there was a lot of talk from others at the time about how BoTW was totally gonna blow it out of the water despite the fact that some of them have never played TW3 and none have played BoTW, so the post was also intended for them. Sorry if that skewed the context a little.
Forums
Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread
Posts 9,701 to 9,720 of 69,786
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic