The Witcher 3

Kiith

Can you upgrade the Witcher sets in NG+? Or do you just craft newer, high level versions?

Martypants1

I can't beat the first griffin.

Nerdlingr

Martypants1 wrote: »

I can't beat the first griffin.

Use the blade oil you get in this mission. Use thunderbolt. Lock on and Target him, shoot him from the sky with crossbow/aard and he'll land. Get a few hits in then move/dodge. Keep drinking water, eating meat if you get injured. Repeat.

Kiith

Kiith wrote: »

Can you upgrade the Witcher sets in NG+? Or do you just craft newer, high level versions?

The ones you carry over will do for a while but you end up crafting them all over again with higher stats.

Thargor

That was one of the only things that annoyed me about this game, looking for epic gear is one of my favourite things about RPGs and in this it was just a fetch quest for Witcher School armour then forget about it, not a single other interesting weapon or armour in the game.

RoyalMarine

Funny you say that, I didn't craft a single item until I was preparing for the final fight.
Made the entire ursine set and completely destroyed Eredin.

I felt slightly cheated out of a good final fight.

I'm going to start a NG+ and hopefully it won't be as last time.

SterlingArcher

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Use the blade oil you get in this mission. Use thunderbolt. Lock on and Target him, shoot him from the sky with crossbow/aard and he'll land. Get a few hits in then move/dodge. Keep drinking water, eating meat if you get injured. Repeat.

Also use your shield spell. It will mean you can take a hit without taking damage, after he breaks it cast again..

sheep?

RoyalMarine wrote: »

Funny you say that, I didn't craft a single item until I was preparing for the final fight.
Made the entire ursine set and completely destroyed Eredin.

I felt slightly cheated out of a good final fight.

I'm going to start a NG+ and hopefully it won't be as last time.

Make sure you put it on death march difficulty.

jones

sheep? wrote: »

Make sure you put it on death march difficulty.

Why so? I think i'm playing at the second hardest level

Oh do you mean due to the armour he has?

sheep?

Naw, what I mean is that if he's finding it very easy, it might make a good challenge that's all.

Rorok

I didn't really like the witcher 2, is 3 a big improvement

Sonics2k

Rorok wrote: »

I didn't really like the witcher 2, is 3 a big improvement

Massive improvement. It's earned it's place in my top 5 games ever.

Truly and utterly deserved to win Game of the Year at the VGA's.

Robert ninja

Rorok wrote: »

I didn't really like the witcher 2, is 3 a big improvement

It's more streamlined in combat. Quite casual tbh. I'd say it's about as good as TW2 but definitely more accessable... it was designed to be.

They excel in their own areas.

TW3:

• Map
• Exploration
• Content
• Animation/Presentation

TW2:

• Challenge
• Pacing
• Atmosphere
• RPG Mechanics
• Sex

Quests... even more subjective I suppose. I remember finding a pan in TW3 and getting way too emotionally invested in trolls in TW2. The whole witcher senses and being a detective made some nice quests but wasn't used to its full potential (should have had more intrinticate examination of evidence & clues) so in the end just turned out to be an awkward quest compass for most of them while TW2 focussed more on judging people, choosing your battles and alliances rather than examining the environment then buffing up to take on whatever the red stuff leads you to.

Somnus

I'd agree with Robert Ninja, it's better in some areas but not as good in others.

The main drop for me between Witcher 2 and 3 is the pacing and atmosphere.

Having a more confined setting in the previous two games allowed for a really well directed pace and tons of atmosphere squeezed into each area. When you go open world you're bound to loose some of that, and I didn't feel as sucked into the world in Witcher 3. The main questlines are brilliant, but there's a potential for them to lose out on impact if you spend tens of hours doing other things between them.

This sounds like a complaint but it's not! I loved the game! Just a difference I noticed.

Somnus

Somnus wrote: »

I'd agree with Robert Ninja, it's better in some areas but not as good in others.

The main drop for me between Witcher 2 and 3 is the pacing and atmosphere.

Having a more confined setting in the previous two games allowed for a really well directed pace and tons of atmosphere squeezed into each area. When you go open world you're bound to loose some of that, and I didn't feel as sucked into the world in Witcher 3. The main questlines are brilliant, but there's a potential for them to lose out on impact if you spend tens of hours doing other things between them.
This sounds like a complaint but it's not! I loved the game! Just a difference I noticed.

It's happened to me countless times over the years especially in Bethesda games but I have to say for all my exploration and side questing and general 'lets just see whats over here' in witcher 3 I didn't feel any loss of impact or disconnection from the main story at all , which I was fully expecting to happen given how much there was to do and how open the world was.

5uspect

I've found that WH does a pretty decent job of managing its open world. AOK was very constrained, with a frankly awful prologue.
Once it got going it was great but you always felt somewhat hemmed in retracing your steps. It's as if CDPR were reining in their own ambitions to make a solid game after they lost the fun of themselves a bit in the first game.

WH on the other hand builds locals compelling enough to keep you engrossed in them for a time before you feel the need to move on.
CDPR have really let themselves go wild but now with the confidence to back it up. However, I do agree that some of the Witcher sense tracking stuff could be better.

Gbear

Somnus wrote: »

I'd agree with Robert Ninja, it's better in some areas but not as good in others.

The main drop for me between Witcher 2 and 3 is the pacing and atmosphere.

Having a more confined setting in the previous two games allowed for a really well directed pace and tons of atmosphere squeezed into each area. When you go open world you're bound to loose some of that, and I didn't feel as sucked into the world in Witcher 3. The main questlines are brilliant, but there's a potential for them to lose out on impact if you spend tens of hours doing other things between them.

This sounds like a complaint but it's not! I loved the game! Just a difference I noticed.

I think W3 couldn't help losing a little bit from the more intimate environs of W2, but I don't see that as making the Witcher worse, but rather making open world games better.

It's the best effort I've ever seen in making a truly involving and consistent world that feels alive. It feels like a whole different ball game to something like Skyrim - not just an incremental improvement but something that feels qualitatively and fundamentally better.

But there are still further improvements to make upon that level of attention to detail - there always will be unless we can have a fully procedurally generated world that can mimic reality from first principles.
Of course, there's obviously plenty of room for improvement with the more "gamey" parts of it - the core mechanics of the game are perfectly solid and enjoyable, IMO, but that's not where the game sets itself apart.

5uspect

5uspect wrote: »

I've found that WH does a pretty decent job of managing its open world. AOK was very constrained, with a frankly awful prologue.
Once it got going it was great but you always felt somewhat hemmed in retracing your steps. It's as if CDPR were reining in their own ambitions to make a solid game after they lost the fun of themselves a bit in the first game.

WH on the other hand builds locals compelling enough to keep you engrossed in them for a time before you feel the need to move on.
CDPR have really let themselves go wild but now with the confidence to back it up. However, I do agree that some of the Witcher sense tracking stuff could be better.

Having been away from the game since I finished it during the summer that is one thing that clearly sticks out in my mind as being one of the few poorly done elements in the game. It was a right pain at tracking stuff some times.

sheep?

I personally don't find the idea of doing them a pain, I quite enjoy the detective element.

BUT, it definitely is a weak link, mechanically. What they needed more of were consequences for not doing the detective work prior to meeting the monster.

Like, as far as I can tell, you usually know what you're up against before you get to the monster, and accordingly you can prepare. However, why not make the clues a little more...missable, and not necessary to continue the investigation? That way you can either charge in head first, or do secondary clue hunting, and gain some sort of upper hand on the beasts.

Perhaps even take this further: If you do all the research, and sift through all the clues, you could gain a unique upper hand on the beastie (like finding it asleep, or in a weakened state etc.)

Just me streaming my thoughts, I'm sure there are flaws in this. It's definitely an area of the game that I like and I hope they improve upon.

Robert ninja

^ There should've been more investigation that didn't require witcher senses. Old fasioned things like even in Resident Evil just flipping the item upsidedown in the 3D viewer could reveal something stuck/written to the bottom of it. What's Geralt going to do? Smell the ink under it?

Dyr

I put up with a lot of nonsense in the first witcher for the sake of the enjoyment of the setting but the detective thing was a joke "of course people can change into other people through magic!" how obvious it is now!

Played the witcher 2 for a bit but just couldnt summon the strength to deal with more of the obtuse=challenging approach of cd projeckt red (its former soviet block thing I reckon)

Will probably give witcher 3 a go once I've upgraded the graphics card but it will be more in hope than expectation I suspect

5uspect

Bambi wrote: »

I put up with a lot of nonsense in the first witcher for the sake of the enjoyment of the setting but the detective thing was a joke "of course people can change into other people through magic!" how obvious it is now!

Played the witcher 2 for a bit but just couldnt summon the strength to deal with more of the obtuse=challenging approach of cd projeckt red (its former soviet block thing I reckon)

Will probably give witcher 3 a go once I've upgraded the graphics card but it will be more in hope than expectation I suspect

There's been a steady progression in the accessibility of the games over the series. While it's not as easy to pick up and play as your average game the Witcher 3 is by far the most easy to get into in the series. The confidence with which they present the entire package is breathtaking when you consider the previous games.

Also regarding the Witcher 2, once you finish the crappy prologue it really gets going. The tutorial they added in the enhanced edition wasn't really very good either. However it's an excellent game in spite of these failings.

astonaidan

I am really really really bad at Gwent, I have yet to win a game, spend most of the time confused as to whats going on.
Spend a few hours today clearing white orchard so making some progress, not a lot but something is better than nothing

GhostInTheRuins

Lads, when's a good time to start Hearts of stone? I'm level 31 and just finished the bald mountain quest in the main storyline and starting Final Preparations. I've looked online and some people say it's better to finish the main story first and others say to do it before you finish the main story, so I don't know really. I'd like to hear people's thoughts here.

If I start hearts of stone am I locked into doing it until I've finished or can I still go roam the map and do secondary quests/treasure hunts/witcher contracts?

sheep?

I've always felt weird doing DLC after main quests, but I've heard this is quite substantial in itself. I haven't played it yet (downloaded it after starting again on Death March).

I'm personally going to do it after the main quest, but only because I've heard it's actually quite difficult.

EDIT: Also, was wandering through Velen earlier and passed a lad who just said:

"War. War never changes."

Lone Stone

Do quests disappear if you out level them I think one chain I was doing for roach and big bald dude to kill some crazy red dude vanished after I found the cobbler?

Corvo

Lone Stone wrote: »

Do quests disappear if you out level them I think one chain I was doing for roach and big bald dude to kill some crazy red dude vanished after I found the cobbler?

Djikstra and Radovid quest? I think that one can disappear yes, as other quests may effect the characters within. I can't remember exactly what does it mind. They are a rarity though.

Stone Deaf 4evr

sheep? wrote: »

I've always felt weird doing DLC after main quests, but I've heard this is quite substantial in itself. I haven't played it yet (downloaded it after starting again on Death March).

I'm personally going to do it after the main quest, but only because I've heard it's actually quite difficult.

EDIT: Also, was wandering through Velen earlier and passed a lad who just said:

"War. War never changes."

There was a great bit in Witcher 2 where I was walking through a town and one guard rattled of Roschach's monologue from Wathcmen, but at the end instead of saying. "No", he shrugs and say "alright"

got a genuine laugh out loud from me, which is unusual in a video game.

sheep?

Corvo wrote: »

Djikstra and Radovid quest? I think that one can disappear yes, as other quests may effect the characters within. I can't remember exactly what does it mind. They are a rarity though.

It's only happened to me once that I can remember. When I completed Search for Junior and also went to see Radovid with Roache, I lost the quest for Cleaver. Very minor, so I didn't mind.

I've been mostly doing the main quest and have missed most of the side quests, so which side quests are you favourites? I might try a few