Umm... Can I actually come out and say that I think the Witcher series is vastly overrated? "Dodges tomatoes"
As a hack and slash/adventure game it's pretty good,but as an RPG it sucks balls.
The first game was pretty underwhelming when it came to combat to be honest, I would only recommend it if you want to experience the full story. Also its graphics wew kinda meh even for that time, especially considering it was released around the same time as Crysis.
The second game had much better combat (similar to the third) and I'd say its story was also a lot better than the first (would recommend if you want an enjoyable challenge, but not in a Dark Souls kind of way).
The third one is a masterpiece, enough said...
That is really an interesting opinion to me.
The first game, with it's top-down gameplay and movement key based combat, was much more appealing to me, than the action focused combat of the 2nd and 3rd one. Specially when considering it was built on Neverwinter Nights' Aurora Engine, it really is a hymn to modding.
I agree with Mirsh aswell, it is good to see a fantasy universe without WoW-esque armour and clothing, and in which the game world actually feels like the real Middle Ages, and it does not cram modern perceptions or sensibilities, down the player's throats.
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of well written characters and meaningful story decisions.
Also as a medieval enthusiast, the design for armor, clothing and weapons (except for some of the witcher/sorcerer stuff) are spot on. A lot of it is sourced from 15th to 16th century examples and really beautifully done. You can tell the designers knew what they were doing, wouldn't surprise me at all if some of them were reenactors themselves.
Hierarch Hemmelfart?
Now it all makes sense to me why is TW3 so good, it is blessed by Pope himself :D
Umm... Can I actually come out and say that I think the Witcher series is vastly overrated? "Dodges tomatoes"
As a hack and slash/adventure game it's pretty good,but as an RPG it sucks balls.
i thought it was the other way around the RPG and adventure was good, the hack and slash was uhhh ok.
The first game was pretty underwhelming when it came to combat to be honest, I would only recommend it if you want to experience the full story. Also its graphics wew kinda meh even for that time, especially considering it was released around the same time as Crysis.
The second game had much better combat (similar to the third) and I'd say its story was also a lot better than the first (would recommend if you want an enjoyable challenge, but not in a Dark Souls kind of way).
The third one is a masterpiece, enough said...
That is really an interesting opinion to me.
The first game, with it's top-down gameplay and movement key based combat, was much more appealing to me, than the action focused combat of the 2nd and 3rd one. Specially when considering it was built on Neverwinter Nights' Aurora Engine, it really is a hymn to modding.
I agree with Mirsh aswell, it is good to see a fantasy universe without WoW-esque armour and clothing, and in which the game world actually feels like the real Middle Ages, and it does not cram modern perceptions or sensibilities, down the player's throats.
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of well written characters and meaningful story decisions.
Also as a medieval enthusiast, the design for armor, clothing and weapons (except for some of the witcher/sorcerer stuff) are spot on. A lot of it is sourced from 15th to 16th century examples and really beautifully done. You can tell the designers knew what they were doing, wouldn't surprise me at all if some of them were reenactors themselves.