I don't know if people played any of the Witcher games, but they are awesome. Fantastic stories. Fantastic music. Just all around, fantastic. Now, here's a fantastic (and brutal) trailer for the third entry

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0i88t0Kacs&oref

Meh to the trailer, they need to keep the tone more consistent (including the voice acting, half of which sounds like it could fit right into Watch Dogs or any other modern-set game).

That said The Witcher 2 was the most enticing to me of the PC hack-and-slash lot; it's a shame it never made it to PS3.  Will be keeping an eye on the new one.

Have you actually played any of the games, or did you  just feel like saying "meh"? As someone who has played the series since the first Witcher, I think that trailer was exactly Geralt and the voice acting was fine. I'm not sure what you expected? The Witcher 2 made it to the Xbox, as did the Dragon Knight Saga, another amazing RPG from Europe.

It's a very pretty trailer for sure, but I've been completely done with CG-only trailers for years now. Unless that's real-time (in which case it would be insanely impressive), but then it still doesn't tell me anything about the gameplay.

So yeah, Meh to the trailer.

I haven't played any of these games myself... the only thing I really know about them is my friend says he kind of has trouble finding time to play it when his kids aren't around. He's told me this isn't really the kind of thing you'd want them to play or see.

Well, based off your comments I expected something fantastic.   The pre-rendered graphics are very nice (parts of it I actually thought were live action).  However, as I mentioned, some of the voices (the two main characters, I believe) didn't sound right to me for a fantasy adventure.  If you're accustomed to the same voices from earlier games then I'm sure it wouldn't bother you.  Also the reverse-Matrix sped-up action I thought didn't fit the tone of the rest of the trailer.  So the storytelling in the trailer is mixed IMO and there's no gameplay to go by.

Not knocking the games (as I said I've been interested in them), just saying the trailer didn't impress me.

The first game was good. The second one is amazing, it's one of the best games ever. While there were some flaws in the gameplay, the strong story and the gorgeous graphics more than make up for it. The dialogues are the best I've seen in a game since Planescape: Torment. It's also (aside from some horror games) the only game I wouldn't recommend to a child.

I expect the third one to be great, but I'm a bit concerned that since it'll be an open world game, the story probably won't be as good as in the first two.

I would say the first game was great, although it certainly was not perfect. However, the amazing story easily trumped minor "issues". I agree that the dialogue is wonderful, and the fact that you make decisions that affect the world around you is something special. In fact, one of the beauties of the series is that morality is blurred. There is no clear-cut evil, and people are often deceitful and there's usually two-sides to most stories. You do what you think is best, and sometimes the consequences can be dire, but that's one of the strengths of this series. I also agree, this is one of the few games that truly deserves an "M" rating.

Here are the intro cinematics from the first two Witcher games:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55cxa453u5s
(note: sound needs to be turned up)

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ajukUlRKdA&oref

I personally prefer the first intro which I think is much more beautiful. Of course the second intro is intense. Although these are only intros, they really give you an idea of what the Witcher world is like.

Gameplay Trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ_G6XiHoUA

Apparently Obama recently mentioned The Witcher while in Poland!

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/04/that_vi … e_and_sex/

"The last time I was here, Donald gave me a gift, the video game developed here in Poland that’s won fans the world over, The Witcher. I confess, I’m not very good at video games, but I’ve been told that it is a great example of Poland’s place in the new global economy. And it’s a tribute to the talents and work ethic of the Polish people as well as the wise stewardship of Polish leaders like prime minister Tusk."

So Obama is not good at video games... what IS he good at?
Actually, I don't really know if he's been a "bad" president or "good". I tend to dislike politicians out of necessity.

Not to sound like an a-hole... but do you think Obama would sing those praises if he actually saw some of the content in the Witcher games? I know he's not super anti-game like some politicians like Lieberman... but I have to wonder.

I think politicians typically just make statements that they think will appeal to the public. Do I think Obama actually saw/played The Witcher? No way.

edit: Still a good PR moment for CD Projekt RED!

Awesome and brutal new trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtVdAasjOgU&o=&o

I did mention it was brutal, right?

https://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-i … 55884.html

"The problem with trying to review The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is that it requires you to stop playing The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt long enough to write a review.

This is not easy."

http://www.polygon.com/2015/5/13/853305 … 4-Xbox-one

Polygon generating moral outrage clicks again. $$$

I skimmed the review, keeping any eye out for the moral outrage part. Are you equating criticizing misogyny with selling out for link clicks?

I'm not going to say the game isn't misogynist (because it probably is) but considering the people most likely to read the review and their mindset (that they really don't care about that compared to the gameplay) I think avatar has kind of a point.

Not saying they shouldn't say anything... but I think what happened with Gamespot's GTAV review a few years ago pretty much proves this would generate clicks.

However this time the responses seem to be more tempered... I believe the author of the Gamespot piece was personally attacked which was a pretty damn ugly situation that went too far.

It seems that just about every game/franchise can be called misogynistic by some (heck, Tomb Raider has been called misogynistic). The Witcher, much like Game of Thrones, takes place in a fantasy world that is inspired by medieval Europe. Also, both stories take place during times of war, when so-called "humanity" goes down the drain. Sorry to say, but the reality is that life was tough for women in medieval Europe even when there were no wars

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/medieval_women.htm

In the Witcher, life is tough for everyone. I think The Witcher does a good job of showing the horrors of war while still weaving an amazing narrative and fantasy plot. I don't think anyone should be harassed for having/sharing their opinion, but I do think many people are living in a fantasy world [the irony].

https://medium.com/@adrianchm/the-boy-w … 7ac8d7f0a5

This guy addresses it far better, far more elaborately and far more eloquently than I care to.

The thing that got me was the "lack of people of color" part. Even for Polygon-quality writing, that is stretching for something to complain about.

Good article.

I think Gies is a bloody idiot (his review of Bayonetta 2 was ridiculous, for one thing), but I also think that people who use terms like "social justice (warriors)" unironically are not to be taken seriously, so this is just all a big fuss between melodramatic people as far as I'm concerned.

Life got you down? Play the Witcher 3, and be happy you don't live in that world
Granted, it's not real life, but it is based on medieval Europe... but damn awesome game!

So I finally started playing (the complete edition), and I'm playing it on the hardest difficulty level. Yeah, definitely getting some Dark Souls vibe from it (is that a good thing?) Anyway, after getting my ass destroyed by this freakin' werewolf (supposedly I should be able to beat him... *should*) I've taken up some easier quests and am leveling up. That's the thing I love about this that is somewhat missing from Dark Souls -the "role playing" part of role playing. Dark Souls has become a bit too much action-oriented, and too much a farming sim for me, at least that's how I feel after Bloodborne, while in The Witcher 3 you really do play a role in an intricate world. Challenging, but awesome. Tonight, I'm going to finish off that werewolf

Picked up the second one on 360 for ridiculously cheap.

Interesting world this takes place in.

I've been having trouble getting used to the game, however. I wish it played a bit more like Dark Souls. Also the menus and interface are not very well done. Kind of feels cluttered.

I played through the first and second game. The first was amazing. Pity it was only out for the PC. The second was great too, although I think I preferred the first. However, the series should be taken as a whole, since it's one continuous story. The story in the Witcher is one of the best of any RPG I have played. I love the atmosphere in Dark Souls, but it can't compare to the Witcher's story. How far have you progressed? What difficulty level are you playing?

Finally got around to playing this! It really is fantastic...
So, I am playing it on the hardest difficulty setting. The first 10 or so hours it is a bit like Dark Souls, in that unless you are very careful a group of "easy" enemies will make short work of you. You do of course get more powerful, and the enemies do too, but once you gain levels it's much easier to dispose of them! Still, you can't just press x through the game! Overall, I would call the setting, theme, felling, as a mix between Dark Souls and Skyrim. Definitely, a very mature game (much more so than Dark Souls), brutal at times, honest, lots of "moral" decisions that are not black and white, beautiful game.
Not perfect of course. Some of the quests I have done are asinine -fortunately most are good if not great, but some are really lame. Some of the mini-games are lame too. The boxing mini-games while cool, are lame. You just keep hitting strong attack and basically your opponent is helpless. On the other hand, the Gwent (card) mini-game may just be the best mini-game ever in any video game. Music as always is fabulous. And, you get to have sex on a unicorn
The latter definitely made Conan's day... or night.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfjLRuE1CLw

Honestly I hated everything about this game. Played it for like 6 hours and threw it out.

To each their own. I think this is one of the best RPGs to come in a long time, and I think the fact that it has won over 250 Game of the Year awards and over 800 various awards really says all that needs to be said.

Because if a game wins hundreds of awards it is objectively good and YOU HAVE TO LIKE IT.

Come on now, avatar.

(Disclaimer: I loved it and it was my GOTY last year, but still)

Eh, not to start a fight here, but I've honestly never placed any kind of value on video game awards; however, that might be because games receiving awards was something that was spawned after I gave up caring about games. All I care about is if I like the game or not. When a game touts that it has won hundreds of award on its cover I couldn't care less. Also, when half of those awards are given out for partially-completed games at events like E3 it also fuels my disinterest in the idea of "awards."

However, I don't really place much stock in awards given to entertainment mediums either. The only two I can think of is Goodfellas should have won best picture in 1990 and Ghost deserved their 2016 Grammy win for "Cirice" IMO. Beyond those two I don't think about Grammys, etc.

Objectively it is a "good" game. In terms of "liking" the game that is always subjective. However, just like books, movies, art, etc., games in principle win awards/praise because they are objectively "good". So my statement still stands. Again, you can dislike anything in terms of personal taste, but any game that wins so many awards is worth looking into in my opinion.

There is no such thing as "objectively good."

Period.

I'm not going to argue philosophy with you, although I did study philosophy during college. Regardless, I'll say you're welcome to your world view and I'll stick with mine. Many philosophers/scholars would agree with you, but certainly many would also disagree.

"INTRODUCTION: SUBJECTIVISM AND OBJECTIVISM"

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/1 … -chapter-8

Also, many scientists would argue that "good" can often be thought of as a statistical value. If a game wins over 100 game of the year awards, the chances of it being a "good" game are extremely high, we're talking easily over 5-sigma. Just because someone does not enjoy a game does not mean it's not good, and vise-versa. What you said above "Because if a game wins hundreds of awards it is objectively good and YOU HAVE TO LIKE IT." can be correctly rewritten as "If a game wins hundreds of awards, it is likely a good game." I never said anything about "liking" a game. There are great games I don't like and have no intention of playing, but I will admit they are excellent nonetheless.

I don't think "good" is a statistical value. I think it's a subjective statement.
But no point in arguing if science can't agree on it, I guess.

This is just weird though.
How can you say a game is excellent if you've never played it!?

A statement like "it's won hundreds of awards, so I/you might like it" makes sense, but why would you say "it's excellent" without ever playing it? You might hate it!

Sure, I can hate an excellent game. Not liking a game is just my personal opinion. However, it doesn't mean the game isn't excellent, beautiful, artistic, etc. For example, I played a little bit of Grand Theft Auto III and didn't like it. Not my game. Had no interest in IV. Yet, I saw enough of the game to know it's excellent. No contradiction. Analogy: I've come across people that have barely read any Shakespeare and don't necessarily like Shakespeare, yet they wouldn't argue that Shakespeare was one of the greatest English writers. Why? [rhetorical question]