this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2025
156 points (98.8% liked)
Games
37376 readers
1903 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here and here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Like playing Gwent instead of fighting monsters as the witcher?
I felt that way about blitzball in final fantasy 10 (I think). Never finished the actual game.
An argument could be made that Gwent offers better gameplay than the larger game in which it resides.
Then you purchased a wrong game and should just play solitaire.
Witcher 3 is absolutely great, but if you just go through only the main quest, won't explore the world and won't do side quests then I can see you ending up disappointed.
What I like is that side quests can impact the main quest and even the ending.
Perhaps.
But you've made a lot of assumptions in your comment, and you're mistaken about most of them.
I played the side quests. Many came with a good backstory, but that is not gameplay. Nearly all were copy/paste instances from a small pool of tedious tasks. There were a few memorable exceptions, but very few.
I explored the world, as much as one can "explore" something that is fully labeled with point-of-interest markers. They lead the player to a repetitive handful of uninspired encounters, cloned over and over again.
It has plenty of other flaws as well. If you loved it, then I'm happy for you, but I found the gameplay boring.
The strengths I found in The Witcher 3 were its story, lore, characters, and Gwent. Not its gameplay.
Meanwhile, Gwent is a surprisingly well-designed strategy game. So much so that it ended up spun off into a stand-alone version (although I don't know how good the spinoff is).
To each their own, I suppose.
Gwent is actually a slight hack of an existing board game called Condottiere, which is IMO the better game.
This one?
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/112/condottiere
Yep. I played an earlier version but it's the same game.
The key thing that made me notice was the scarecrow cards that allowed you to pick up your units, those make sense in Condottiere as it's divided in rounds where you fight multiple battles, so it made sense to pick up your units if you had excess power and were winning anyway, save your strength for the next battle in the round, whereas it made a lot less sense in Gwent given its 1v1 nature and fixed amount of rounds.
Mind you Gwent evolved a lot afterwards, I don't know much beyond the witcher 3 version, which I still enjoyed plenty.
Are we certain Witcher is the larger game in which Gwent resides and not the other way around?
There is no argument if the statement is objectively true
The Witcher 3's gameplay was so bad that I couldn't finish it (the map and the quests' gameplay part too, but that's another story). Gwent was pretty cool though
An argument could be made that you are a genius. Both arguments would be equally wrong.