Thirith on 1/1/2017 at 09:48
Small thing, but I really like the way Hearts of Stone stages its important conversations. I don't remember being conscious the same in the main game, but Hearts of Stone uses interesting cinematic angles, lighting and edits to give the conversations more weight. I remember one where Geralt and the hafling he was talking to were shot through through a window, and the halfling was more distorted due to the angle and distance, and it was a striking, interesting choice; or Geralt's first conversation with Master Mirror, the way he emerges from the shadows. The main game's storytelling was already confident and effective, but Hearts of Stone makes it visually more involving as well.
Sulphur on 1/1/2017 at 11:58
Yanno, the way TannisRoot feels about TW3 is exactly how I feel about Borderlands. I couldn't understand how people could rave about Borderlands when it seemed so blandly facile and boring as a game; I still don't, but I can understand the appeal from a differentiated (and decidedly abstract to me) point of view. For edge cases like this, it's probably more of a factor of what drives
us personally in gaming rather than the game itself.
Quote Posted by Thirith
Small thing, but I really like the way
Hearts of Stone stages its important conversations. I don't remember being conscious the same in the main game, but
Hearts of Stone uses interesting cinematic angles, lighting and edits to give the conversations more weight. I remember one where Geralt and the hafling he was talking to were shot through through a window, and the halfling was more distorted due to the angle and distance, and it was a striking, interesting choice; or Geralt's first conversation with Master Mirror, the way he emerges from the shadows. The main game's storytelling was already confident and effective, but
Hearts of Stone makes it visually more involving as well.
The neat thing about even vanilla TW3 is that all of its important conversations are blocked and framed from a cinematic POV, even if it's not necessarily visually involving. There's just such a lot of love that's gone in, and it shows. It makes sense that with Hearts of Stone, they managed to pay even more attention to the details and hone their craft some more.
bukary on 2/1/2017 at 10:10
Quote Posted by TannisRoot
Finished the Bloody Baron quest and...sorry, Witcher 3 just isn't for me. I don't think I'll ever be able to understand why this reviewed well.
Well, no one can force (or convince) you to like the game.
I played several different games after TW3. Fallout 4, Arkham Knight, Doom, Dishonored 2... They all felt like... games. ;) While TW3, for me, was something more that collecting/shooting/driving/fighting in some colorful enviroment. It was like an interesting movie or even an interesting book. "Just one more page/hour" syndrome was present. It was not only enjoyable, but also memorable. It was definitely the best gaming experience I had in many years. And it's probably the only game in a long time that I am willing to replay.
Unfortunately, TW3 "ruined" my gaming experience, because I still can't find the game that would be more fun or immersive. Fallout 4 failed (although not miserably). I'll try SOMA this week. We'll see. I hope I will not have to search till Cyberpunk 2077. ;)
Malf on 2/1/2017 at 18:52
bukary, Witcher 3 left me in an extended gaming funk after I completed it too. And even now, other big releases have to be something really special to compare to it.
I found that one solution was more sandbox style sim-ish games. Other gaming narratives were going to be hard-pushed to rival Witcher 3, so the types of games where you write your own story really won out. Things like Rimworld and Factorio, or my old favourite, Dwarf Fortress.
And then some good old fashioned ultraviolence, whether it be modern mods of old shooters (Brutal Doom), or new takes on old shooters (new Doom). Those types of game are very cathartic after Witcher 3, as they're a complete break from all the systems that come with an RPG its size. Generally speaking, because they've been designed with combat first and foremost in mind, you don't get frustrated with broken balance thanks to stats affecting how you fight. And let's face it, even at its best, Witcher 3's combat is merely passable rather than excellent.
henke on 8/4/2017 at 18:02
With FFXV done, I'm moving on to the next big weekend game, The Witcher 3 Expansions. Any recommendations for which one I should do first? (already finished the main game) Also, I don't need to be at a certain point in the story or anything to start these, do I?
Renzatic on 8/4/2017 at 18:10
Play the expansions in the order they were released. You can play Hearts of Stone at any time in the late game, though I'd suggest beating it all before starting Blood and Wine, since it acts somewhat as a epilogue to the story.
Malf on 8/4/2017 at 18:11
It's best to do them in order of release, as Blood & Wine expects you to have completed Hearts of Stone, and the enemies are scaled as such.
Sulphur on 20/6/2017 at 08:04
I've spent 70 hours in TW3, and I was beginning to feel like I was on the cusp of unravelling the final act (lifting Uma's curse), so I took a quick gander at the amount of story remaining for the main quest... and fuck me, I'm only halfway through? I guess paying attention to all those contracts and side-quests really does make the playtime in this game shoot through the roof. I'm finally beginning to actually enjoy the sidequest stories, as the starter/mid Velen and Novigrad ones were fine if nothing to really write home about, but Skellige was where things really started to get fun.
