I'm not talking about you :)

As for getting personal, that's not necessarily about attacking someone. I couldn't care less about being attacked, personally.

To me, a personal attack during an argument about something other than the person in question - is just an incredibly weak argument.

But I do have to evaluate where my time is best spent, and RPGFool is confused because he's emotional - both about the game (which is never a smart position when arguing rationally) and about me as a person.

That means the chance of getting somewhere productive is way, way too low for me to bother spending the energy required.

I don't know if you've noticed, but I tend to put a little bit of detail in my posts - and it takes some mental effort to continue to do so over and over again.

Sorry :)
I did and you're absolutely right about that. We are getting over the very same ground over and over again.

For the most part, yes. I do think, sometimes, some new points are added - and I'm always hoping it helps people to understand each other better.

To me, understanding where people are coming from - and why they like what they like is productive and quite useful.

But I don't think an exchange can ever really be productive if it's initiated from a position of having a combative attitude.

I try my best to avoid that, personally, but I do sometimes fall prey to it. That said, I usually notice it eventually - and then I immediately stop.

I never take things personally online. Well, almost never.

I'm sure most people here are both kind and decent - but a lot of you can't maintain a level head during an argument about your favorite games to save your lives ;)

I'm sorry, but there it is.

No problem. Was simply trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and to understand your comments.

As to your comment "I don't feel like wasting my time on people who get personal about it", followed almost immediately by your personal attack, "You've got to get over yourselves first"… guess you don't see a problem.

At any rate, regards to you.

__

You second post was much more level-headed - even though I'm pretty sure we both understand that reducing what I'm talking about in terms of combat to a love of button mashing is a pretty unnecessary degradation of my position.

That's an overt tactic designed not to understand, but to attack. Weak and useless.

Again, if you can dispense with the trolling claims and try to maintain a level head, we can have an exchange that might lead to something.

You're more than welcome to consider me a troll and have a personal problem with my online persona - but you have to put that aside if you want a genuinely productive exchange.

Can you do that - or can't you?

Well, obviously you could if you wanted to. So I think you can guess how I would rephrase my question.

I did say I thought I misunderstood you. Was trying my best to have a sincere, productive discussion and to understand differences in how we play games.

Am doing my best to move forward. The ball is in your court, man.

Best regards.

__

Sure, let's try.

Not sure what I've said to make you believe this, but that's not what I'm about.

I generally prefer to avoid combat when possible. Meaning, if there's an option to go with stealth, I go stealth. If I can talk my way out of a situation - I usually go that route, and so on.

However, for games where combat is a huge and mandatory part of the experience - like Witcher 3 - I prefer combat where I can at least choose my own playstyle.

That's not possible in Witcher 3 - because you're Geralt, and that means you can't be a stealthy archer type character - which is my main preference.

If I can't be a stealth archer - I want to be a dual wielding stealth character. I can't be that in Witcher 3.

If I can't be either of those, then something like a Holy Paladin is among my alternative picks. I can't be that in Witcher 3.

If I can't be that, then I - at the very least - want to be able to dual wield. I can't do that in Witcher 3.

So, you see, in terms of playstyle - the game already screwed me over.

However, if I can't pick my own playstyle - I can still enjoy combat if it's well executed and it's full of interesting choices when I progress my character.

Witcher 3 isn't really full of that - because the most interesting choice you make is really about using magic or not - then what two spells you want to focus on.

Which is ok, but not terribly exciting.

But I really like the Igni sign - so I pretty much just focused on that.

Problem is that the VAST majority of enemies actually didn't require much in the way of tactics or strategy. The VAST majority of combat challenge is literally about dodging and timing - and absolutely nothing else.

In the end, that means the combat was not only very limited in terms of my arsenal - and my choice of playstyle - it was also very, very straightforward in terms of my tactical options during combat.

But that's me.

Again, I have no idea where you're getting that from, but I think my above explanation should spell that out.

What makes you think I don't enjoy those things? I do.

That said, I don't follow when you're calling them challenges. I have no idea what challenge you're talking about here.

But I'm pretty sure I've openly stated that I really, really like the story and characters in Witcher 3. Many, many times - in fact.

If you've missed that, you simply haven't been paying attention at all.

Again, I don't see the challenge. Of course, if you think it's a challenge to read and listen to conversations - then I guess I follow.

To me, though - that's very passive and utterly void of challenge.

It actually was - I'm just good at those things. I'm not being a smart ass, but I really am good at games that require a lot of fast movement and dodging.

That's largely what combat was about - pretty much regardless.

I'm not sure why you think I don't know that other people love Witcher 3. I'm extremely aware of that - and I actually think I know why in most cases. Perfectly valid reasons, too. Just not my own personal preferences.

I assume that's ok with you?

Well, I don't assume that - because you seem somewhat upset that I don't like the game as much as you do.

I completely agree.

Not sure if anyone here is doing that, though.

I'm exclusively articulating my own opinion about the game - and why I didn't enjoy it enough to finish it.

I don't tell other people why it's a "bad" game. I'm explaining why I'm not as fond of it as most people seem to be.

That's really all it is.

Of course, I'm not a person who thinks it's appropriate to be ashamed of holding a minority opinion. I think any opinion is valid. Your opinion is just as valid as my own.

But I'm not going to sugarcoat anything - or serve my opinion up without being extremely clear about what I really think. That's just my way.

Obviously TW3 wasn't a good fit for you. Nevertheless many millions of others, myself included, did enjoy the game. As I tried to say, I don't expect that every game will be a great fit for every gamer.

I don't see it as problems with the game or problems with the gamer. iF the shoe doesn't fit, it doesn't fit. Try out different shoes. To my way of thinking it's much more productive to move on to other shoes than listing all the reasons why the one pair of shoes doesn't fit.

Sometimes trying to accommodate differences between what one wants and what is available can lead to enjoyable results. But that's a matter of personal preference and specifics. And as you said, you did spend time trying to enjoy TW3.

TW3 simply wasn't a good fit for you even though it was a great fit for others.

It is what it is.

Regards.

__

To me, there's no conflict between moving on and talking about games - including those you didn't particularly like or greatly enjoy.

Then again, I like exchanging in general - and I love talking about games and game design.

I'm not the kind of person who thinks it's only useful to talk about positive aspects of everything - and I don't think it's any better to talk about things you like versus what you don't like.

It's all a part of the human equation and it's all interesting in terms of learning about ourselves and others.

I like reflecting on these things and I will always seek to understand why people think and act like people do.

So, in that way we're just very different.

I'm completely ok with you not talking about things you don't like - and I highly recommend accepting that I'm different in that way, because I'm probably not going to stop talking about all kinds of aspects of all kinds of games.

The only reason I've talked more about Witcher 3 than many other games, is that it's constantly being mentioned. In fact, I'm often holding my opinions back because I think it's appropriate to let the fans have a few threads where they can just praise the game in unison. That's ok.

But when an article talks about something new like Cyberpunk by a familiar team - I can't exactly ignore the past and pretend I don't have reasons to expect certain things might not be quite as amazing as the press and the fans would have you believe.

I'm a believer of balance in that way - and I don't really think it's helpful to just stay silent and never voice my opinion - even if it's counter to the popular one.

I thought we were trying not to be personal.

But I will say I try not to spend a great deal of time worrying over things I cant change. Personal preference. And I do agree that we're different.

I'm not trying to change or judge you. It's your thing.

Regards.

__

You're wasting your time on him…it's been going on for two years and derails every single, even completely unrelated thread, into usual childish tripe.
( Nothing wrong with voicing unpopular opinion on something outside of range of topic…but it's silly to turn it into several pages of your private soapbox, especially when repeating the same thing, again and again).
Simply don't give it attention and use ignore function. :)

I thought we were talking about how we're different persons, which is pretty hard to do without getting personal.

I have nothing against getting personal - and in fact, I think that can be even more interesting than games.

I have a problem when getting personal gets in the way of a rational and level-headed debate.

Personally, I think this exchange has been interesting and useful - even if you still don't quite seem to understand what I'm about.

I don't see reflecting upon games and my own personal preferences as a form of worry. Worry would be if I had a problem with not loving all games.

I have no problem with that.

Again, I think it's perfectly ok to dislike games or aspects of games. I don't think stating the reasons why needs to have anything to do with worry.

Anyway, thanks for the exchange.

Glad that's all settled.

__

Not an exaggeration at all actually. The only reason I know is I had plans for lunch and had to leave my house by 11:30. I checked the time at 11:10 just as I started a dialouge/ cutscene. 11:30 came and I was still in the dialouge, had to leave the game running since it won't let you save then. This was the blood and wine expansion which has you chasing around a "monster" and many of the dialouges end with "lets go" or "not ready yet" choosing lets go has you warp straight to the next spot starting another dialouge or following someone by horse or on foot to the spot and another dialouge starts. Not sure if you've played the expansion but it's much more cutscene/dialouge heavy than the game.


You're right . Bad wording on my part, the quests are not leveled in that you may do any quest you have at any level you are. However, everything else is leveled which basically levels the quests imo. For example, I did a quest for a blacksmith I believe it was level 24 or more when I was level 10. He promised to craft me an amazing sword upon completion. I completed the quest and since I was level 10 I got a level scaled weapon. It was level 7 and much weaker than many I already owned. So much for the amazing weapon. On the flip side I went back to do a quest that was level 7 when I was around level 25 or so and I pretty much got no expierience because I had great outleveled the recommended level of the quest. So while you may do any quest any any order it's clearly set up for you just to pick the quests that are close to your level and if you don't you'll actually end up penalized.

No, I would call that sight seeing. Otherwise every pretty game would be said to have great exploration. The towns look great but theres nothing to see. You can go in houses and rob people blind while they watch, Watch them sleep sometimes under tables and in other weird places, it is fun for about 20 seconds to jump on them while they remain sleeping and never wake up,you can listen to the same comments over and over as you go through town and sometimes you'll run in to some thugs to beat up. Not much fun to explore there no matter how pretty.

I like my exploration to be rewarding for instance in dark souls ( shout out to JDR13 ;) ) You were rewarded for exploration. There was figuring out Dark anor londo- which changed an entire existing area, Finding the merchant shiva of the east- access to different weapons, Finding ash lake- an entire new are with a boss, figuring out the head parasite that implanted a parasite in your head that would grow and even give you a new weird parasite attack unless you learned how to cure it, find out how to cure being cursed which halved your HP and a lot more to find. trust me none of these things were easy to find either. there"s no map or witcher senses to guide you. Hell I wasn't even sure if I could cure my curse and thought I might have to play the rest of the game at half HP. To me thats exploration and beats the heck out of some pretty buildings.

Hello,

Is that the Cyberpunk 2007 thread or it is another "I hate TW3, fights are too easy, I am not a some kind of master but so easy they are I am bored to talk about them but here are another 100 posts about TW3 because I hate that game" or "I do not like when people get personal but I think than you are wrong because you are you and I am obviously right because I am me" thread with our forum Hero shelling everything writing with walls of text?

Because just scrolling around I see lot of Ignored posts from him but not that much Cyberpunk discussion..

sakichop, You must be a Gothic fan. We have ELEX for rewarding exploration soon. :)

So you're talking about dialogue not actual cutscenes. You don't have to wait for those to play out. You can move it along as fast as you like by hitting the space key and just reading what they're saying rather than waiting for them to speak it. Unless you're a slow reader, you can go through the dialogue much faster that way.

When you say "everything else", you actually mean just the loot. ;)

Like I said, the level scaling can't be toggled off for loot. It sucks, but there's not much else to say about it. At least it gives you a choice for the enemies which is more than can be said for most games.

You can call it whatever you like but that's not going to change that it's just your opinion. :)

I found all sorts of interesting places while exploring in TW3. It's not as content dense as a Bethesda game, but I didn't need it to be. I liked that there wasn't a dungeon or building full of enemies and loot around every single corner. To me, that made it feel more like a plausible world as opposed to a gaming sandbox.

We have different takes on what makes exploration rewarding, but there's nothing wrong with that. After all, we wouldn't want everyone to be the exact same now would we? Also, some of the things you mention are more related to puzzle-solving than exploration.

Dark Souls does have some cool stuff, but I found the world exploration limited by how linear the game is compared to true open-world games. You're very confined to certain paths in DS. You can choose your basic direction, but you just end up travelling down a series of corridors/paths in most of the areas. I don't find those types of games very satisfying to explore.

DS is closer to something like Kingdoms of Amular when it comes to that aspect.

Sure I could read it but I don’t feel that’s how it’s intended to be experienced. As I said though it’s just the blood and wine DLC. The rest of the game was fine. Which is a testament to just how well done the quests are because in a lesser game it would have gotten on my nerves.


That and XP. That’s all the game rewards me with so there’s nothing else to include.


I think that goes without saying we’re all just stating our opinions for the most part. He did ask my opinion though.

Out of curiosity, what intresting things did you find. I really felt like I tried to explore but I just count find anything interesting or rewarding.


Yeah, when I explore I like to find things that are weird or different, thing that make me say wow or what the heck. I suppose there’s some puzzle aspects in a way to the things I mentioned but you must really explore to find them all and they all can be totally missed if you don’t explore.

Yeah, dark souls isn’t fully open world.

KOA? Now you’re just trying to start a fight.;)

TW3 is a world as it is described in the books. If exploration is for you something about 'wow' or 'puzzles' I can understand it is not your thing. I say that without any negative hint.

The TW3 world is a place inhabited by people, humans or otherwise. So there is really no 'wow' factor as something extraordinary. It shines for the depictions of the consequences of war, of cruelty or raw magic when it hits the land.
It shines in the desolate landscapes of Skellige, the traumatized lands of Velen, the changes in Novigrad with the rise of the intolerance and racism. It is bright when on top of those elements the story unravels and characters appear like the first meeting with the Witches in the bog for example. It was beautiful, it looked like it was taken from a painting of Hieronymus Bosch.
And what about the quest in Undvik when you hunt for the son of your friend in a small island devastated by an Ice Giant?
I stop here :)

I think it's intended to be experienced whatever way suits the player best. :)

Yes XP is leveled to a degree as well. I didn't consider that because it's irrelevant to me as far as exploration is concerned. You accumulate more than enough XP throughout the flow of the game.

I also don't consider it a negative because I don't feel like I should still be receiving XP for killing monsters 10 levels below me or finishing a level 7 quest when I'm level 20.

If you couldn't find anything interesting than it's probably just safe to assume that we don't find the same things interesting. :)

It's not a complaint that I've seen from many people though.

Did you find the tyromancer's laboratory in TW3? That was a good wow moment for me and one of the more interesting places I've seen in an RPG. There were also several cave systems that really impressed me with their level design, especially some of the underwater areas.

I wouldn't say there was a lot of "weird" stuff though, but I guess that depends on what one considers weird.