Poll of the Day > I'm playing The Witcher: Enhanced Edition and getting the typical WRPG pet peeve

(+) Yeah! (+)

A few years ago I started this game on hard mode and eventually gave up despite making it through the game quite far and really loving the game, but dying over and over through borderline impossible parts really turned me off and eventually just lost interest.
Now I started the game again, this time on normal mode. I love everything about it, the atmosphere, gameplay, the music, the exploration, story etc. but then I have to be reminded that I technically suck because I'm playing on normal.
JRPGs are flexible in that they almost always have new game+ so you can beat the game on normal knowing that as long as you progress, you can play on the harder difficulties and go at your own pace.
WRPG devs create amazing games, but then with the higher difficulty levels just kill all the amazing atmosphere and immersion by having us die over and over and use trial and error. If you want to actually have fun and enjoy the game you have to feel inferior by playing on a lower difficulty level.
Witcher 2 is apparently worse with this and not looking forward to that, but apparently Witcher 3 has new game+? Kudos to devs for getting it right the third time I guess.


---

Ferarri619 posted...

but then I have to be reminded that I technically suck because I'm playing on normal.

what if you just, didnt think of it that way? Its a single player game, who are you trying to impress? Does anyone else actually care how you play games?

---

Witcher 3 was "easy" on death march. It was the only game with dodge in it so the combat was far easier than the others. I died a bunch still. You should follow the beginner guide for skills. That's the only one I used.
---

You can always do a little level grinding. Look for a spot with a good ratio of enemies to it's size, especially if all the enemies are one type because then you can use the appropriate sword oil to kill them faster.

---

I misread this earlier. I never played Witcher 1 on any version. For Witcher 2 the monsters didn't respawn so experience was a major issue.
---

Why are you being reminded you suck for playing on normal? Nothing wrong with normal.

---

Mead posted...

what if you just, didnt think of it that way? Its a single player game, who are you trying to impress? Does anyone else actually care how you play games?

Pretty much. Difficulty in games is a way for players to customize the experience to be most enjoyable for them. If Hard is too hard for you to have fun, play on Normal.

---

adjl posted...

Pretty much. Difficulty in games is a way for players to customize the experience to be most enjoyable for them. If Hard is too hard for you to have fun, play on Normal.

A lot of people like myself get in the "get all achievements" mentality. I at least realize that some achievements are literally impossible for me to get like certain ones from the Arkham games.
---

Ferarri619 posted...

but then I have to be reminded that I technically suck because I'm playing on normal.

This sounds like your hang-up more than anything that actually matters.

I play WRPGs on the most casual of casual settings, and I dun give a fuck.

If you're interested in the story, the characters, the atmosphere, the music, the exploration, etc, you shouldn't actually care whether or not you're living up to an arbitrary standard of "gud". Don't bother gitting gud. Just focus on having fun and enjoying yourself.



Revelation34 posted...

A lot of people like myself get in the "get all achievements" mentality.

That's also on you, though. And it's not even remotely the common mindset, when you look at most RPGs and notice from the achievements that half the time it looks like not even 10% of people who started a game ever finish it.

To be honest, though, I'm kind of in the same boat. If I play a game where most of the achievements/trophies are easy, and there's only one or two frustrating ones you need to get for the full platinum/completion, I'll tend to do what I need to do to suffer (or cheat) my way through the hard ones to get the full 100%.

But there are plenty of RPGs where one or two extremely frustrating achievements pretty much turn me off the idea of completionism entirely (like beating the game on Insanity difficulty for Mass Effect) where I don't even bother to try to get those achievements, and just shrug as the game sits at something like 94% in my trophy list. At a certain point (usually after my first playthrough - I NEVER go for completion in the first run, because that's a really good way to destroy your enjoyment of the game first time through), I usually have to make the mental decision whether or not playing through on the highest difficulty (or doing whatever asinine challenge I need to do for full completion) is doable/worth it (the way I did when beating Dragon Age 1 and 2 on the hardest difficulty for 100%), or if I'm just going to say "Ehh, fuck it" (the way I did when not bothering to do Mass Effect Insanity runs for the 100%).

Multiplayer achievements are a good way to completely shut down any desire I have to complete as well - usually the moment I see them I immediately cease giving a damn about 100%. Even if they'd be relatively easy to do, just the fact that they're there at all annoys me. I don't think developers should shoe-horn crap multiplayer modes into otherwise single-player games, and I definitely don't think they should be adding achievements for them.

As for the Witcher 3 itself, for me it wasn't the difficulty level achievements that kept me from 100% it, it was the Gwent ones. I hate that damned game, and I'm not going to jump through hoops to master it to get a half-dozen damned achievements for what is supposed to be an optional side game. Same problem I had with New Vegas - I had zero intention of playing Caravan for two achievements. I don't need the 100% that badly.
---

Gwent was at least much more entertaining than Caravan at least, imo

---

I tried replaying Witcher 1 during the lockdown last year, I would have enjoyed it if Geralt wasn't so goddamn slow, he moved like he was walking at a brisk place when exploring but in combat he ran at Olympic level speeds, I was happy to get into a fight because it meant I could run across the map in a second.

I feel like one of the few who really enjoyed the combat from start to finish.

Mead posted...

Gwent was at least much more entertaining than Caravan at least, imo

Yeah, but I didn't like it.

A lot of people also loved Triple Triad in FFVIII, but I loathed that game.

I think the only mini-game card games I've ever really had fun playing in RPGs are Tetra Master in FFIX, Pazaak in KotOR, and Quasar in Mass Effect (and Pazaak and Quasar are basically just Blackjack). And even with those games, I really only played a few hands here and there before I'd get bored and go back to saving the world/galaxy/universe.

I get that CCGs are a popular thing so game developers like the idea of incorporating those into their games, but it just doesn't really interest me. If I want to play a card game, I will literally go play Magic: the Gathering somewhere (whether in real life or online).

Though if the next RPG I play adds Uno as an optional minigame, I will play the fuck out of that.
---

Witcher 3 NG+ is not really a NG+ that you would expect though, iirc, it scales the enemies with the level you are when you started again so if anything its gonna be even harder on NG+ plus all your equipment is garbage.

If it is any consolation, once you get the hang of how to play the game is supposed to be played the game is pretty forgiving even at Death March. You might need to die a few dozen times at the beginning to learn it though.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

This sounds like your hang-up more than anything that actually matters.

I play WRPGs on the most casual of casual settings, and I dun give a fuck.

If you're interested in the story, the characters, the atmosphere, the music, the exploration, etc, you shouldn't actually care whether or not you're living up to an arbitrary standard of "gud". Don't bother gitting gud. Just focus on having fun and enjoying yourself.

That's also on you, though. And it's not even remotely the common mindset, when you look at most RPGs and notice from the achievements that half the time it looks like not even 10% of people who started a game ever finish it.

To be honest, though, I'm kind of in the same boat. If I play a game where most of the achievements/trophies are easy, and there's only one or two frustrating ones you need to get for the full platinum/completion, I'll tend to do what I need to do to suffer (or cheat) my way through the hard ones to get the full 100%.

But there are plenty of RPGs where one or two extremely frustrating achievements pretty much turn me off the idea of completionism entirely (like beating the game on Insanity difficulty for Mass Effect) where I don't even bother to try to get those achievements, and just shrug as the game sits at something like 94% in my trophy list. At a certain point (usually after my first playthrough - I NEVER go for completion in the first run, because that's a really good way to destroy your enjoyment of the game first time through), I usually have to make the mental decision whether or not playing through on the highest difficulty (or doing whatever asinine challenge I need to do for full completion) is doable/worth it (the way I did when beating Dragon Age 1 and 2 on the hardest difficulty for 100%), or if I'm just going to say "Ehh, fuck it" (the way I did when not bothering to do Mass Effect Insanity runs for the 100%).

Multiplayer achievements are a good way to completely shut down any desire I have to complete as well - usually the moment I see them I immediately cease giving a damn about 100%. Even if they'd be relatively easy to do, just the fact that they're there at all annoys me. I don't think developers should shoe-horn crap multiplayer modes into otherwise single-player games, and I definitely don't think they should be adding achievements for them.

As for the Witcher 3 itself, for me it wasn't the difficulty level achievements that kept me from 100% it, it was the Gwent ones. I hate that damned game, and I'm not going to jump through hoops to master it to get a half-dozen damned achievements for what is supposed to be an optional side game. Same problem I had with New Vegas - I had zero intention of playing Caravan for two achievements. I don't need the 100% that badly.

Gwent was easy.

Hospy posted...

Witcher 3 NG+ is not really a NG+ that you would expect though, iirc, it scales the enemies with the level you are when you started again so if anything its gonna be even harder on NG+ plus all your equipment is garbage.

If it is any consolation, once you get the hang of how to play the game is supposed to be played the game is pretty forgiving even at Death March. You might need to die a few dozen times at the beginning to learn it though.

I killed the wyvern or whatever it was in the mountain monster hunt way lower level than I should have. You just need to get the timing right.

I died once but I got lucky and for some reason the game counted it as out of combat so reloading just kept it at the same health.
---

Its fine to play in normal. As long as you have fun. If you werent having as much fun on hard, you dont have to force yourself. The point of games is to have fun, AFAIK
---

The Witcher 1 becomes way funnier when you realize all the tough guys play Yahtzee

---

Revelation34 posted...

A lot of people like myself get in the "get all achievements" mentality. I at least realize that some achievements are literally impossible for me to get like certain ones from the Arkham games.

And that's fine, but if you need more practice to be good enough to get all the achievements, it's better to play the game on a manageable difficulty so you enjoy that process instead of burning yourself out trying to pretend you're better than you are.

---

adjl posted...

And that's fine, but if you need more practice to be good enough to get all the achievements, it's better to play the game on a manageable difficulty so you enjoy that process instead of burning yourself out trying to pretend you're better than you are.

Nah I don't think I could have done some of those even on easy. Maybe if it was something like 15 years ago I could have.
---

Ferarri619 posted...

I technically suck because I'm playing on normal

that's not true, the name of the difficulty is meaningless and relative anyway. completely depends on the game.

(see for example the gamecube and wii fire emblem games. on the gamecube one, normal and hard are as you'd expect. but on the wii one, normal is the same as the previous game's hard, and easy is the same as the previous game's normal.)

Witcher 1 for me was really hard at first on normal until I got used to the combat. on hard supposedly you have to use all available buffs to stand a chance, but I don't think I tried it.

hard is meant for people who already know the game, so they can have a reason to explore the game mechanics further than they did before.

---

Sahuagin posted...

that's not true, the name of the difficulty is meaningless and relative anyway. completely depends on the game.

(see for example the gamecube and wii fire emblem games. on the gamecube one, normal and hard are as you'd expect. but on the wii one, normal is the same as the previous game's hard, and easy is the same as the previous game's normal.)

Witcher 1 for me was really hard at first on normal until I got used to the combat. on hard supposedly you have to use all available buffs to stand a chance, but I don't think I tried it.

hard is meant for people who already know the game, so they can have a reason to explore the game mechanics further than they did before.

That reminds me of Ghouls 'n Ghosts where they only had hard and normal. I think the game itself stated that they felt it wouldn't be right to have an easy mode because the game was difficult regardless.
---

Sahuagin posted...

(see for example the gamecube and wii fire emblem games. on the gamecube one, normal and hard are as you'd expect. but on the wii one, normal is the same as the previous game's hard, and easy is the same as the previous game's normal.)

And then 13 flipped that and Normal was incredibly easy compared to prior games and it was widely recommended that series veterans play on Hard for their first playthrough.

Revelation34 posted...

Nah I don't think I could have done some of those even on easy. Maybe if it was something like 15 years ago I could have.

Oh, I meant the achievement hunting mentality in general. Whatever the game and however hard the achievements are, I don't think anyone should expect to be able to get the hardest ones on their first time experiencing the game. The point of achievements is to provide replay value and an incentive to keep playing after beating the game. If you can get them all on the first pass, that makes them pretty pointless.

---

adjl posted...

And then 13 flipped that and Normal was incredibly easy compared to prior games and it was widely recommended that series veterans play on Hard for their first playthrough.

Oh, I meant the achievement hunting mentality in general. Whatever the game and however hard the achievements are, I don't think anyone should expect to be able to get the hardest ones on their first time experiencing the game. The point of achievements is to provide replay value and an incentive to keep playing after beating the game. If you can get them all on the first pass, that makes them pretty pointless.

It was the combo ones I think. I sucked at the combat because I could never get the timing right for most of the combos but the combat was still easy with what I could do.

I'd rather get them on the same playthrough. Like the ones in Divinity Original Sin 2 were pretty shitty since the story doesn't change vastly between characters. I no longer have time for games that long though.
---

What kind of a build are you playing with?

---