Lets keep it a stack, if you think Witcher 3 better than Bloodborne, you a fcking female

[basketball reasons]

Those of you saying W3 has terrible gameplay...

Explain to me from a gameplay perspective what is terrible about this...



It's not perfect, I personally have never been a fan of temporary god mode when performing a killing animation but to call that awful gameplay is just fat out hating...there was clear strategy to get into that gate...Without Quen the archers won't let you cast Igni and without torching the goons in front of the gate with Igni you would be walking into a fukking meat grinder...

I already know the usual hating fakkits would run into that gate, try to button mash through 20 goons, die in 5 hits then come on here and tell us how awful W3 gameplay is...

difference is, you can do everything in bloodborne basically from the beginning. you get different weapons and styles but ultimately the mechanics are all there for you at the start and you can play with them throughout the ENTIRE game. That allows you to master the combat as you go without any new mechanics trying to force you to play a different way.

I got five hours into the witcher and never saw the shyt in that video. like its cool but if you dont make everything as fun as it can be from the go youre doing a disservice to your audience.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

difference is, you can do everything in bloodborne basically from the beginning. you get different weapons and styles but ultimately the mechanics are all there for you at the start and you can play with them throughout the ENTIRE game. That allows you to master the combat as you go without any new mechanics trying to force you to play a different way.

And that's the problem with it to me. It's too repetitive. The same strategy you use to defeat the first enemy is the same one you use to kill the late enemy and everybody in between

In the Witcher you actually feel a progression in your characters power and your own skill, also you have to use different strategies for different enemies.

The gameplay in the Witcher is actually very tense and engaging. The controls are a bit stiff and take some getting used to but that's it.

Bloodborne is a step back in almost every way for the souls series.

 

[The Fukin Prophecy]

difference is, you can do everything in bloodborne basically from the beginning. you get different weapons and styles but ultimately the mechanics are all there for you at the start and you can play with them throughout the ENTIRE game. That allows you to master the combat as you go without any new mechanics trying to force you to play a different way.

I got five hours into the witcher and never saw the shyt in that video. like its cool but if you dont make everything as fun as it can be from the go youre doing a disservice to your audience.

Name me one open world RPG where they don't make you level up your skills and abilities bruh ????

Yall nikkas in here comparing apples to oranges...These are completely different games and I didn't even ask for a comparison to BB...I asked what is terrible about the gameplay in that W3 video...Yall keep saying the gameplay is bad and boring but none of yall have anything constructive to point out...

If you want to tell me the controls are stiff like Meach did, that's cool I get that...That's constructive criticism and he's right...

Being complacent because an open world RPG doesn't give you everything in the first 5 hours to pull off whats in that video is fukking asinine...

 

[Fatboi1]

And that's the problem with it to me. It's too repetitive. The same strategy you use to defeat the first enemy is the same one you use to kill the late enemy and everybody in between

In the Witcher you actually feel a progression in your characters power and your own skill, also you have to use different strategies for different enemies.

The gameplay in the Witcher is actually very tense and engaging. The controls are a bit stiff and take some getting used to but that's it.

Bloodborne is a step back in almost every way for the souls series.

It's a step back in every way while at the same time it's actually the highest rated "souls" game. Something not adding up .

Is it "Oochie wally wally" or is it "One Mic?"

 

[basketball reasons]

Alright let me go in. The combats floaty as hell compared to other open world rpgs.

Sword play feels like youre playing with sticks. I had a complaint when shadow of mordor came out that it was weird that the swords in that game felt like they were less impactful than batman's punches in the arkham games. Same feeling here except its even worse. Swords dont feel like they do shyt. Compare to dark souls where all movement feels heavy and substantial.

Targeting is temperamental. Felt this the most with that griffon battle. Couldnt tell when i was locked on, lock didnt stay on. Magic shouldnt take as many button presses to access either but thats a minor complaint.

I would have more but i havnt touched the game in a few months. ive been waiting to get the urge to try it again but everytime the game comes up i always see someone complain about the combat and saying it doesnt get better so it turns me off.

Name me one open world RPG where they don't make you level up your skills and abilities bruh ????

Dark souls. Essentially all you level up is you ability to do damage and ability to take it. You dont get abilities. Dragons dogma lets you gain abilities but theyre all upgrades to what you already have. The game gives you all the mechanics from the start to let you play around with everything to maximize your fun. Those two games changed the open world rpg game, witcher didnt keep up.

 

[basketball reasons]

but seeing that video i may have to try it again. No one told me about that flame hand

What abilities would you guys recommend if i want to stay away from swords?

 

[The Fukin Prophecy]

Alright let me go in. The combats floaty as hell compared to other open world rpgs.

Sword play feels like youre playing with sticks. I had a complaint when shadow of mordor came out that it was weird that the swords in that game felt like they were less impactful than batman's punches in the arkham games. Same feeling here except its even worse. Swords dont feel like they do shyt. Compare to dark souls where all movement feels heavy and substantial.

Targeting is temperamental. Felt this the most with that griffon battle. Couldnt tell when i was locked on, lock didnt stay on. Magic shouldnt take as many button presses to access either but thats a minor complaint.

I would have more but i havnt touched the game in a few months. ive been waiting to get the urge to try it again but everytime the game comes up i always see someone complain about the combat and saying it doesnt get better so it turns me off.



Dark souls. Essentially all you level up is you ability to do damage and ability to take it. You dont get abilities. Dragons dogma lets you gain abilities but theyre all upgrades to what you already have. The game gives you all the mechanics from the start to let you play around with everything to maximize your fun. Those two games changed the open world rpg game, witcher didnt keep up.

That's exactly how it works in Witcher 3...

The skills you see in that video are UPGRADED...I was around level 35 when I recorded that...

As far as the targeting in W3, I never use the lock on to target feature and I am not quite sure why you would...I always free swing, Geralt will always attack the target you are facing/guide leaning towards...As you can see in the video, it works very well...


Sword play in Witcher 3 feel like you're playing with sticks? Sticks easily decapitate and dismember like in that video I posted...

Lets look at "great" BB sword play gameplay...




Seriously bruh, that scream did more damage than the fukking sword...

 

[Foxmulder]

difference is, you can do everything in bloodborne basically from the beginning. you get different weapons and styles but ultimately the mechanics are all there for you at the start and you can play with them throughout the ENTIRE game. That allows you to master the combat as you go without any new mechanics trying to force you to play a different way.

I got five hours into the witcher and never saw the shyt in that video. like its cool but if you dont make everything as fun as it can be from the go youre doing a disservice to your audience.

 

[basketball reasons]

Still feels heavier

 

[basketball reasons]

If a game cant convince me in the first five hours i aint spending another 80 hoping it get better

i was even going to go back to it but then i bought scholar of the first sin played the fukk out of that.

 

[Neuromancer]

So no story info then?

 

[Mr Clean]

ya'll really over rate the difficulty of bloodborne. easiest souls game. the dlc on ng+ and up is for real though

 

[Zardoz]

Bloodborne is Souls Lite. There's too little of anything, half the game is repetitive underground dungeons (if you don't do these, you're missing out on a lot of exclusive enemies and bosses), and you're lucky to connect to anyone.
It's not on the level of previous Souls game to be honest, but maybe the DLC will change my mind.

As for Witcher 3, it's glitchy as fukk but I loved it. This is exactly what I was hoping an Elder Scrolls game to be like (could never get into Skyrim).

 

[Foxmulder]

If a game cant convince me in the first five hours i aint spending another 80 hoping it get better

i was even going to go back to it but then i bought scholar of the first sin played the fukk out of that.

Five hours in the witcher is like 5 minutes breh. It took me about that to really know what I'm doing.

 

[basketball reasons]

Five hours in the witcher is like 5 minutes breh. It took me about that to really know what I'm doing.

I get that, but everyone i asked (even those who love the game) said the combat didnt get any better than the first few hours so i was turned off