The Witcher 3 Alchemy System

[Scholdarr.452]

I'm not sure what "whole internal logic means", especially since the two systems aren't consistent with one another. Out of curiosity, I'd like to hear how you perceive this internal logic.

Internal logic: you can't use potions during combat. You need to prepare and drink potions before going into combat. That very basic principle was apparent in both previous witcher games.

But, I'll quickly add that I think this is moving the goalposts. In my post I said that I believe gameplay should trump lore when it comes to abilities, and I still stand by that. So accordingly, even if TW1 and TW2 were more loyal to the lore (which requires explanation since they are not intuitive, considering they have opposing characteristics), that in itself doesn't mean TW3 shouldn't digress from them - if they didn't have good alchemy systems for a game.

The point is that if you take something away you have to give at least as much. They took away from the lore but what do we get in TW3? I'm not convinced that the system in TW3 is better from a gameplay perspective. I think it's even weaker. So I've lost double time here.

As to why they might not have been good, it's hard to argue in objective terms to this side or that. Some like long duration, some like short. Some like being able to use potions at all times, some like only before battles. Arguing over what gameplay mechanic is superior is tough. I personally find that TW1's durations were too long and they had me covered for countless battles without requiring any additional input. Short durations can be appealing to me since I feel the potion use becomes more tactical. Theoretically.

I agree. But I think something between TW1 and TW2 would have been perfect. And imo the negative effects should be much stronger once the duration is over. So you'd have to really think about using potions and whether it's worth it. That would make the system more tactical imo.

Immersion is a very popular word, and a very subjective one. My immersion is not damaged one bit by this system. In contrast, Ciri's powers ruin my immersion significantly more. A person's immersion can be dependent on many different things. This alchemy system doesn't harm mine.

How can Ciri's powers ruin your immersion? We don't even know which powers she will have in the game in much detail and we also don't know the context of the usage of any of her powers. Or do you know more than me about this topic her (although that is a bit off-topic)?

As for how the new system might make the gameplay better (again, I need to experience the implementation myself, and I think this is way too much speculation - that won't affect anything anymore other than our attitude and making us biased before we even open the game - when in a month and a half we can have a more solid discussion) - it maintains TW2's short durations, which I find better than TW1's long ones, while giving you a small degree of control that can allow you to play at a more leisurely pace, without that nagging thought in the back of your mind that your potions is wasting away.

Or it might makes the gameplay worse...which is my opinion.

While I think TW2's short durations are better than TW1's long ones, they also made me rush - activating them mid-battle will allow me to enjoy a much more deliberate pace.

Rush in which way? You were fast and effective in killing? Well, that's how Geralt usually fights...

Or what do you mean here?

But as I've said: a system like the in previous game requires a bigger amount of openess to role-playing. I just think that you've played TW2 the "wrong way" for whatever psychological reason...

Who are these many people? What's the source? This happens often in the thread - participants try to attribute to their side this indefinite number of silent players. I'm not buying it. And "many" is relative. Are 300 people "many"? And if there were another 300 that used potions for easy battles, too?

Just change "many" to "some" or "few". The point wasn't to suggest a majority. Failure on my behalf.

I don't think they're a weapon of last resort. I'm replaying TW2 recently and occasionally I potion up before I leave Lobinden, just for safety's sake. That's not a last resort use.

Well, you just play it the wrong way, mate.

You know, that's the same thing people tell me when I complain about extensive ingredients gathering. People just tell me "if you don't like it don't do it". But I have to. It's a psychological failure, the constant thought of missing something. So I do that stupid stuff. I guess same is true for you here. You use potions in advance, just because you think you probalby miss something or "for safety's sake". But that isn't how everybody else plays the game. I never drank a potion before leaving town in TW2, not even on Dark mode...

My guess is that CDPR want to make the most out of a limited foundation. They want to make an RPG with various leveling-up mechanics - which makes sense once you go for an RPG system. That requires adding much more to alchemy. Once more, this is a matter of gameplay value. Offering three trees is more appealing than two. I think it's a worthy goal.

No, it's not. Offering three trees isn't more appealing than two if one tree doesn't offer the same amount of fun than the other two. In that case it's just playing with numbers. "It's an RPG so it must have mecnanics XYZ" is a terribly flawed design approach tbh. I agree that some people might find the alchemy system appealing, but the agumentation here isn't convincing at all. "RPG" is a description meant to describe elements of a game, categorizing it, but it doesn't work the other way round...

Once again, there isn't any "engagement" here between us. We're playing on different fields. I don't accept the premise that lore must come above all else here, and since I don't think TW1's or TW2's systems were perfect, I have no problem with changing them. Even if TW1 and TW2's systems were more lore friendly.

I don't have the premise that lore comes above everything else. Lore is just a crucial aspect for me. That doesn't mean gameplay is less important. As I've said before, lore and mechanics go hand in hand in my opinion. One cannot work without the other.

As in, TW2's system?

Mostly, yes. But perhaps with a few tweaks (e.g. potions with different durations but also different negative effects after the duration is over).

 

[Solid_Altair]

The point is that if you take something away you have to give at least as much. They took away from the lore but what do we get in TW3? I'm not convinced that the system in TW3 is better from a gameplay perspective. I think it's even weaker. So I've lost double time here.

This is subjective. The only way I see to further the debate is the not so cool authority argument (which isn't necessarily a falacy).

Although you're not convinced this is a better system, it is what RPGs are doing. Remember when shooters had different controls? The directional input forward made the character walk forward, but the one to the side made him turn, instead of strafe. Well, some games started doing something different, having one kind of directional input just for movement and the other just for turning/aiming. This became the new default. A few games kept the old scheme long after it was outdated, such as the Resident Evil franchise. But they sucked.

Dark Souls, Lightning Returns and Dragon Age: Inquisition all went with this new logic for potions. It could be that their respective devs are all just noobin' around. But don't you think it's more likely that they finally figured out a better way, like the shooter controls revolution?

 

[moonknightgog]

Another thing I dislike is that...now meditation is only a way to skip the time of day.
There is no more a meditation mode, you can craft your potion just entering in the menu.

 

[Solid_Altair]

Craft and drink?

 

[moonknightgog]

Craft and drink?

AFAIK, there's no "drink". You just equip your potion and you can magically activate it in combat.

 

[EliHarel]

Internal logic: you can't use potions during combat. You need to prepare and drink potions before going into combat. That very basic principle was apparent in both previous witcher games.

But in TW1 you can use potions during combat. You can drink while you're surrounded, you can run away 10 meters and drink while they're closing the distance, or you can just drink when they first appear on your screen and the aggro mechanic hasn't kicked in yet.

I agree. But I think something between TW1 and TW2 would have been perfect. And imo the negative effects should be much stronger once the duration is over. So you'd have to really think about using potions and whether it's worth it. That would make the system more tactical imo.

That can be interesting. But it also requires you to nerf the meditation ability, otherwise people can just sleep it off and continue playing regularly after a few seconds. Whether limiting the meditation is smart or not is a tough discussion.

How can Ciri's powers ruin your immersion? We don't even know which powers she will have in the game in much detail and we also don't know the context of the usage of any of her powers. Or do you know more than me about this topic her (although that is a bit off-topic)?

She took me to the future.

Rush in which way? You were fast and effective in killing? Well, that's how Geralt usually fights...

Or what do you mean here?

Fast and effective in killing refers to in-combat. What I meant is that I rushed outside of combat. There was this general urge to hurry things up before the potions run out.

But as I've said: a system like the in previous game requires a bigger amount of openess to role-playing. I just think that you've played TW2 the "wrong way" for whatever psychological reason...

Wrong in what way? I think it's weird to suggest someone is playing wrong. Especially when his gameplay results are good. And so far the gamer nerd in me is pretty proud of how effective I am in this playthrough. Maybe not efficient, but very effective (though there's such an abundance of herbs that efficiency doesn't really matter here, as far as resource management goes).

No, it's not. Offering three trees isn't more appealing than two if one tree doesn't offer the same amount of fun than the other two. In that case it's just playing with numbers. "It's an RPG so it must have mecnanics XYZ" is a terribly flawed design approach tbh. I agree that some people might find the alchemy system appealing, but the agumentation here isn't convincing at all. "RPG" is a description meant to describe elements of a game, categorizing it, but it doesn't work the other way round...

Whether it doesn't offer the same amount of fun is subjective. My first playthrough of TW2 was on Dark and I went heavily into Alchemy, and I had fun.

And I don't see why it's a terribly flawed design. Actually, I don't think design is the right word here, but rather approach. The design is offering more trees, right? I don't see how that's flawed. As for the approach of wanting to make something out of nothing - it's setting a goal (many gameplay options) and fleshing it out. While I don't know how things happened behind the scenes, I wouldn't be surprised if Signs developed under the same mentality. They are barely mentioned in the books. Suddenly, in the games, they're very prominent. CDPR took the liberty to add on to them more and more. By my understanding, in order to offer players more options and make the gameplay more enjoyable. Why does the same not apply for Alchemy?

(I also think they managed in TW2 to make Alchemy more powerful than the other two trees)

Mostly, yes. But perhaps with a few tweaks (e.g. potions with different durations but also different negative effects after the duration is over).

The duration might be the crux of the matter. Make it too long, and player input is diminished for a while. Make it too short and it either becomes something you only use once in a while (and I believe CDPR wants to encourage more use), or alternatively you use it often, but it makes you rush through the world since your buffs are on a timer. Since this is an open world, I feel that exploration is even more significant than in TW2, and it should be done at a pace the player can control Being able to activate potions in battle does not leave you with that over-powered state of having strong effects for hours, and it doesn't leave you in the hurried state due to the (understandable) desire to make use of your potions.

As for effects once they are over - it can be cool, but as I said above, it also requires discussion about meditation mechanics, and just in general how much does a developer want to burden on the player. If they want to make alchemy more appealing to use, to encourage players to experiment in battle (which is a good thing, I find), then significant post-use penalties will be counter to that goal.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

This is subjective. The only way I see to further the debate is the not so cool authority argument (which isn't necessarily a falacy).

Almost everything is somehow subjective. The point besides that is that we don't talk about "greenfield" innovation here. This game is based on an exisiting franchise with existing prerequisites. That's just a fact.

Take Star Wars. The force and light sabers are just part of the the world. They work in a specific way. No matter if it's a movie or a game or a book. In a game you just have to translate this stuff in fun systems and mechanics. So it's not "only" about the cool factor. It's a about a trade-off between a well working and fun system and staying true to the original idea of the game - which is besides often unique and that's a good thing. I don't support the latest trend in gaming that every game should have more or less the same systems and mechanics. Uniqueness and special ways to cope with systems is actually a good thing you should try to preserve. It adds variety to the gaming sphere and therefore more interesting way to play games.

Although you're not convinced this is a better system, it is what RPGs are doing. Remember when shooters had different controls? The directional input forward made the character walk forward, but the one to the side made him turn, instead of strafe. Well, some games started doing something different, having one kind of directional input just for movement and the other just for turning/aiming. This became the new default. A few games kept the old scheme long after it was outdated, such as the Resident Evil franchise. But they sucked.

You compare (analogue) control mechanics with a superficial system for potions? Apples and oranges very much imo.

Dark Souls, Lightning Returns and Dragon Age: Inquisition all went with this new logic for potions.

There is absolutely nothing new here. That's how potions work in RPGs since decades...

---------- Updated at 03:09 AM ----------

But in TW1 you can use potions during combat. You can drink while you're surrounded, you can run away 10 meters and drink while they're closing the distance, or you can just drink when they first appear on your screen and the aggro mechanic hasn't kicked in yet.

Hm, then I seem to have a wrong memory about TW1... :/

That can be interesting. But it also requires you to nerf the meditation ability, otherwise people can just sleep it off and continue playing regularly after a few seconds. Whether limiting the meditation is smart or not is a tough discussion.

Typical Vancian system problem, I agree. But the same problem actually applies to the current system as well. You probably mediate every 10 minutes when you used up your three potions for combat. It would be quite interesting though to have negative effects if resting/meditating too often. But I guess that's something that would go to the core of the game and its systems and therefore won't ever happen.

She took me to the future.

I don't understand what you mean.

Fast and effective in killing refers to in-combat. What I meant is that I rushed outside of combat. There was this general urge to hurry things up before the potions run out.

Wrong in what way? I think it's weird to suggest someone is playing wrong. Especially when his gameplay results are good. And so far the gamer nerd in me is pretty proud of how effective I am in this playthrough. Maybe not efficient, but very effective (though there's such an abundance of herbs that efficiency doesn't really matter here, as far as resource management goes).

You should know what I've meant with "playing wrong". I explained it. How you play a game depends on you. But there is a certain way game developers design their game. They have a certain behaviour in mind when desinged systems. If you don't behave in that way you play the game in a wrong way. That doesn't necessarily have to make your experience worse, not at all. But the risk is there. it's a quite usual phenomenon in gaming when people complain about certain issues and other people and even designers can't even understand on first sight, just because they play games in a very different way. It's the same here. You obviously took a potion whenever you leave a city in TW2. I didn't do that. Never. So we obviously experienced the alchemy/potion system in a very different way and that shows in our assessment of it.

Whether it doesn't offer the same amount of fun is subjective. My first playthrough of TW2 was on Dark and I went heavily into Alchemy, and I had fun.

Everything is subjective. That applies to my statement as it applies to yours That doesn't change the simple fact that your "It's an RPG. It has to contain sytem XYZ" argument is flawed and downright wrong.

And I don't see why it's a terribly flawed design. Actually, I don't think design is the right word here, but rather approach. The design is offering more trees, right? I don't see how that's flawed. As for the approach of wanting to make something out of nothing - it's setting a goal (many gameplay options) and fleshing it out. While I don't know how things happened behind the scenes, I wouldn't be surprised if Signs developed under the same mentality. They are barely mentioned in the books. Suddenly, in the games, they're very prominent. CDPR took the liberty to add on to them more and more. By my understanding, in order to offer players more options and make the gameplay more enjoyable. Why does the same not apply for Alchemy?

I think you misunderstood me here. I never said that offering another tree can't be fun. I just said that offering another tree just because it's an RPG is bollocks. More isn't automatically better.

(I also think they managed in TW2 to make Alchemy more powerful than the other two trees)

Possible. I never really cared about that.

The duration might be the crux of the matter. Make it too long, and player input is diminished for a while. Make it too short and it either becomes something you only use once in a while (and I believe CDPR wants to encourage more use)

Encouraging us to use it more often for what specific reason?

, or alternatively you use it often, but it makes you rush through the world since your buffs are on a timer.

That just applies to you, mate. It doesn't apply to me at all.

Since this is an open world, I feel that exploration is even more significant than in TW2, and it should be done at a pace the player can control Being able to activate potions in battle does not leave you with that over-powered state of having strong effects for hours, and it doesn't leave you in the hurried state due to the (understandable) desire to make use of your potions.

Again, you write her as if your playstyle would be the style everybody else plays the game. That's not true. I feel no hurried state at all when having short durations times. I don't even think that potions have any influence at all at which pace I explore the world. I guess we two see alchemy and potions in two completly different ways...

As for effects once they are over - it can be cool, but as I said above, it also requires discussion about meditation mechanics, and just in general how much does a developer want to burden on the player. If they want to make alchemy more appealing to use, to encourage players to experiment in battle (which is a good thing, I find), then significant post-use penalties will be counter to that goal.

Experimenting with different buffs in battle doesn't sound like much fun for me, personally, at least not in the medium term. But then again I seem to want to play the game for very different reasons than you do (at least in terms of preference ratios)...

 

[Rawls]

Watching you two argue about potions makes me feel so utterly like a noob.

 

[Geralt_of_bsas]

This is subjective. The only way I see to further the debate is the not so cool authority argument (which isn't necessarily a falacy).

Although you're not convinced this is a better system, it is what RPGs are doing. Remember when shooters had different controls? The directional input forward made the character walk forward, but the one to the side made him turn, instead of strafe. Well, some games started doing something different, having one kind of directional input just for movement and the other just for turning/aiming. This became the new default. A few games kept the old scheme long after it was outdated, such as the Resident Evil franchise. But they sucked.

Dark Souls, Lightning Returns and Dragon Age: Inquisition all went with this new logic for potions. It could be that their respective devs are all just noobin' around. But don't you think it's more likely that they finally figured out a better way, like the shooter controls revolution?

I could write endless walls of text explaining logically and from a design point of view why 3D controls were far superior to 2D controls in many games such as Resident Evil, lets not go there.

In my experience, more often than not, what gamers universally tend to consider evolutions of the genres or mechanics and things like that, are little more than emotional re-assurances supporting that because its more modern and more adopted, it must be better. In game design that is very different from how things work, and once again more often than not, player are like brain washed hypnotized people dancing around the plans of the devs, trained to think what the devs want them to think, and many times simply confusing what thing causes what in the model of a simulation.

However I do agree that when many games do something, its totally important to trust them as professionals first, considering what are their reasons, and that everything has a purpose, but whats better to some, is usually not better to others, and that just a part of the evolution of society and the gaming landscape.

"don't you think it's more likely that they finally figured out a better way" thats a truly humble and great question to ask, and interestingly, the answer tends to be "yes, they figured a better way, but for how to please today's gamers, or a particular group of them, and in a very specific way"

I think CDPR are most definitely offering something in exchange for whatever one could feel they took away, it'd be illogical to think the opposite, but we can only guess, imagine, and speculate; and lets not forget that a very common thing are solutions that work but may not even be needed if another thing would've been correct in the first place.

For example, the whole refill potions because players dont use them much in TW1 and TW2, which as I said, in my opinion is a problem that raises from the base that potions are not important or useful enough, rather than them being "too costly" or not so accesible. The system will remain largely the same of course, because in previous games we had pretty much unlimited potions too, except we had to do a few more clicks to get them, but that the thing, they change and add something and I don't think it will solve what they want to solve.

 

[Solid_Altair]

Almost everything is somehow subjective. The point besides that is that we don't talk about "greenfield" innovation here. This game is based on an exisiting franchise with existing prerequisites. That's just a fact.

I meant the discussion has reached a particularly subjective point. Each side has already explained why it's better.

As for the existing franchise thingy, the games that adopted the new potion system were franchises that had the old system on them.

You compare (analogue) control mechanics with a superficial system for potions? Apples and oranges very much imo.

They are both trends. That is what they have in common and makes them comparable. They're not the same thing, obviously. And the point that the new system is superficial is not undisputed.

There is absolutely nothing new here. That's how potions work in RPGs since decades...

We must be focusing on different aspects of the new system. I gues you're focusing on using them in combat. I'm focusing on easy refill and limited slots. These two aspect are very new to RPGs and have already proved to reach the devs' goals (in other games that adopted them).

---------- Updated at 03:22 AM ----------

I could write endless walls of text explaining logically and from a design point of view why 3D controls were far superior to 2D controls in many games such as Resident Evil, lets not go there.

In my experience, more often than not, what gamers universally tend to consider evolutions of the genres or mechanics and things like that, are little more than emotional re-assurances supporting that because its more modern and more adopted, it must be better. In game design that is very different from how things work, and once again more often than not, player are like brain washed hypnotized people dancing around the plans of the devs, trained to think what the devs want them to think, and many times simply confusing what thing causes what in the model of a simulation.

You do realise the same can be said about the "stuborn oldschoolers that reject anything new", right?

However I do agree that when many games do something, its totally important to trust them as professionals first, considering what are their reasons, and that everything has a purpose, but whats better to some, is usually not better to others, and that just a part of the evolution of society and the gaming landscape.

I actually don't agree with that Sometimes they actually just do stuff to make the game noob friendly and neglect players who want some challenge (cough... AC... cough). So yeah... everything has a purpose, but some purposes are evil. It breaks my heart when people perceive a change as noob-friendly, when the change really isn't that. It's like I hurt for the devs for being so misunderstood. I just wanna reach out to them and say: "I understand you. Some people do."

"don't you think it's more likely that they finally figured out a better way" thats a truly humble and great question to ask, and interestingly, the answer tends to be "yes, they figured a better way, but for how to pleasetoday's gamers, or a particular group of them, and in a very specific way"

You're sounding like an oldschooler.

On a more serious note, sometimes they do try to make a game more appealing to "today's" gamers as in "casual" gamers. As long as the same game offer (difficulty) options that can work for players who want challenge, I applaud the adaptation to the casuals, like auto-aim for easy mode on shooters and stuff like this. But when the adaptation to the casuals hurt the other players' experience, I think they suck (unless it's for a clearly casual franchise, like GoW).

So my point here is that I don't give devs a free pass because they're proffessionals. And I also don't think the alchemy changes were a matter of appealing to casuals. They want broaden the use of potions and improve the game's pace. Nothing inherently casual about that. In fact, these changes are much more likely to affect the non-casual players, than the casual ones.

I think CDPR are most definitely offering something in exchange for whatever one could feel they took away, it'd be illogical to think the opposite, but we can only guess, imagine, and speculate; and lets not forget that a very common thing are solutions that work but may not even be needed if another thing would've been correct in the first place.

For example, the whole refill potions because players dont use them much in TW1 and TW2, which as I said, in my opinion is a problem that raises from the base that potions are not important or useful enough, rather than them being "too costly" or not so accesible. The system will remain largely the same of course, because in previous games we had pretty much unlimited potions too, except we had to do a few more clicks to get them, but that the thing, they change and add something and I don't think it will solve what they want to solve.

I think it will solve it. It totally worked for Inquisition.

 

[Geralt_of_bsas]

The duration might be the crux of the matter. Make it too long, and player input is diminished for a while. Make it too short and it either becomes something you only use once in a while (and I believe CDPR wants to encourage more use), or alternatively you use it often, but it makes you rush through the world since your buffs are on a timer.

This is actually one of the first things I'd consider and try in a pen and paper prototype if I was to design a witcher game:

Why do we have to generalize stuff, why to obey some doubtful consistency concept that ends up grouping stuff under a common denominator? lets make potion durations, effects, costs, drinkable during meditation or combat, totally custom for each as we need it while designing the potions.

Many problems end up result of not enough complexity and accurate tuning, having most potions or all of them short or long is definitely going to cause problems, one's almost asking for it.

Typical Vancian system problem, I agree. But the same problem actually applies to the current system as well. You probably mediate every 10 minutes when you used up your three potions for combat. It would be quite interesting though to have negative effects if resting/meditating too often. But I guess that's something that would go to the core of the game and its systems and therefore won't ever happen.

As some sort of a guilty pleasure, I always thought it could be amazing that potions in a witcher game would literally diminish your maximum health capacity or stamina or toxicity or whatever, each time you drink them, like Geralt's health truly deteriorates in the long term, and permanently (you can still compensate with health improvements but you never recuperate whats lost). Or alternatively the potion effects benefit you less and less the more you drink that particular potion. Millions would hate it I'm sure :devil:

You should know what I've meant with "playing wrong". I explained it. How you play a game depends on you. But there is a certain way game developers design their game. They have a certain behaviour in mind when desinged systems. If you don't behave in that way you play the game in a wrong way.

I agree but TW games have TONS of herbs at pretty much no cost, in TW2 alchemy is by far the most powerful tree, and its a cakewalk with no challenge to use it properly, you just read stats and stuff, how is that a design that doesnt encourage EliHarel to drink potions not just out of towns, but all the goddamn time? To me it can be interpreted all the other way around, he is playing in the "right" (which is whatever way the mechanics allow best to win and consciously), and you are playing it more like the lore described potions, yet TW2 functions against that concept.

offering another tree just because it's an RPG is bollocks. More isn't automatically better.

I cautiously agree but keep in mind always, that more, is the first needed step for things like variety, customization, choice, complexity, accuracy and detail, etc. Things that in an RPG can easily be thought important to some.

You do realise the same can be said about the "stuborn oldschoolers that reject anything new", right?

Hehe yes, but the problem with those old people often is not that something new is better for them, but rather that they think its also not better for others. The reality is that things are just truly extremely different to a point you can never be sure if something is completely and objectively better no matter what at all in the world. We gotta give some chance to those poor old schoolers because of that universal truth dont we?

I actually don't agree with that Sometimes they actually just do stuff to make the game noob friendly and neglect players who want some challenge (cough... AC... cough). So yeah... everything has a purpose, but some purposes are evil. It breaks my heart when people perceive a change as noob-friendly, when the change really isn't that. It's like I hurt for the devs for being so misunderstood. I just wanna reach out to them and say: "I understand you. Some people do."

Lol but you do agree with me then, like i said, they often do make the games better, as professionals they are, but only for some. The matter that should generally be questioned about developers imo then, isnt their skills, but their intentions and objectives. Worry more about who are they trying to make the game better for, rather than if they are capable to improve it in any way at all, thats my take.

I've been one of the most outspoken "defenders" of CDPR for the new alchemy, when we first heard of it it was a freaking war, and I did see their ideas possibly being good, also because we didnt know too much at the time. And now im not against it entirely, but its just kind of useless, thats more or less my opinion, wont solve or break anything, so its lost effort.

You're sounding like an oldschooler.

On a more serious note, sometimes they do try to make a game more appealing to "today's" gamers as in "casual" gamers. As long as the same game offer (difficulty) options that can work for players who want challenge, I applaud the adaptation to the casuals, like auto-aim for easy mode on shooters and stuff like this. But when the adaptation to the casuals hurt the other players' experience, I think they suck (unless it's for a clearly casual franchise, like GoW).

So my point here is that I don't give devs a free pass because they're proffessionals. And I also don't think the alchemy changes were a matter of appealing to casuals. They want broaden the use of potions and improve the game's pace. Nothing inherently casual about that. In fact, these changes are much more likely to affect the non-casual players, than the casual ones

Yeah I understand. Problem is that players who want challenge a lot of times end up being more or less just those old schoolers, and that often makes devs put the game's challenge as the "superficial" addition on the accessible base, rather than the other way. Just like games should be developed for PC first because its the most powerful thing, and then adapt it to consoles, not the other way around imo.

The new alchemy isnt for the casuals and I trust that for CDPR, but I'm still not seeing it doing anything worth. You could say im only now starting to doubt of their capabilities as designers.

I think it will solve it. It totally worked for Inquisition.

Well im not so sure man, Inquisition is extremely stat based, and potions are stat buffs, they fit the general system of that game. TW3 has a very thick layer of action gameplay fighting for protagonism and interest with potions, and I think potions need to up their game because of it.

 

[Solid_Altair]

TW3 really is more action than RPG, in comparison to Inquisition. However, Inquisition is a lot more based on real time than it might seem. It's focus on real time stuff is almost as big as TW3, I'd say. You can go through a bunch of fights taking no damage at all, or get mauled in these fights, depending on how carefully you play. In most RPGs this isn't the case.

So I really think they're similar enough to make a good guess.

 

[EliHarel]

Hm, then I seem to have a wrong memory about TW1... :/

Afraid so. So if that internal logic you're after is that Geralt can't use potions during combat, then the darling child TW1 wasn't "loyal" to it.

Typical Vancian system problem, I agree. But the same problem actually applies to the current system as well. You probably mediate every 10 minutes when you used up your three potions for combat. It would be quite interesting though to have negative effects if resting/meditating too often. But I guess that's something that would go to the core of the game and its systems and therefore won't ever happen.

I'm curious myself to see how often I'll feel I should meditate.

You should know what I've meant with "playing wrong". I explained it. How you play a game depends on you. But there is a certain way game developers design their game. They have a certain behaviour in mind when desinged systems. If you don't behave in that way you play the game in a wrong way. That doesn't necessarily have to make your experience worse, not at all. But the risk is there. it's a quite usual phenomenon in gaming when people complain about certain issues and other people and even designers can't even understand on first sight, just because they play games in a very different way. It's the same here. You obviously took a potion whenever you leave a city in TW2. I didn't do that. Never. So we obviously experienced the alchemy/potion system in a very different way and that shows in our assessment of it.

I highly disagree that there's some certain way here that I'm not in line with. Reviewing the game's loot and difficulty, that's baseless. In fact, considering the immense amount of herbs, I argue that they wanted you to use potions not just for rare occasions. If they were intended as a last resort tool, I think CDPR would make herbs much more scarce in order to encourage resource management. Otherwise why flood you with them? Also, how is potioning up before you leave a safe zone - in a game where you can't drink while fighting enemies - is wrong? If anything, this design seems to me to encourage you to prepare when you can (i.e. inside Flotsam \ Henselt's camp), because you never know when you will be ambushed once outside. And when you are ambushed, you can't buff yourself anymore.

But I still think that stating someone is playing it wrong is an odd thing to say. If the game offers me different mechanical options, and I make use of them in a very effective manner, what is wrong here?

So in short - If CDPR envisioned a certain way to use a mechanic, I think my current playthrough is line with it, considering the loot as well as the lack of ability to drink while caught in an ambush. And more generally speaking, as long as someone doesn't use cheats, I don't see how he's playing anything wrong. The only situation I can think of to say someone is "playing it wrong" is purely when someone is not being effective. Otherwise, go and make use of what the game offers. And if you make good use of it, all the power to you.

That's a very unusual statement, and the burden of proof is on you.

Everything is subjective. That applies to my statement as it applies to yours That doesn't change the simple fact that your "It's an RPG. It has to contain sytem XYZ" argument is flawed and downright wrong.

[...]

I think you misunderstood me here. I never said that offering another tree can't be fun. I just said that offering another tree just because it's an RPG is bollocks. More isn't automatically better.

Yep, gameplay preferences are subjective. You voiced yours. I balanced with mine.

Now let's review this. I didn't say it has to contain this and that (and I think the wording here is important). There isn't a quota it has to fill. I still think it should aspire to offering more options, due to the type of game it is. This series of quotes began with you asking why alchemy must be on the same level of swordfighting. It doesn't have to be, no more than Signs have to be, or leveling-up has to be present. It's a matter of offering more mechanical options for a player to toy with. I do not see that as a terrible approach in any way. The more options, the merrier. To this day I enjoy toying around with different builds in Neverwinter Nights and its expansions due to how many there are and what sort of different combinations you can create. That is an important part in the game's longevity. The more (good) options you have, the more fun it becomes toying around with different combinations.

I'm replaying TW1 now, and in no playthrough of mine did I see any appeal in leveling up Quen, Yrden and Axii (they, by the way, can be a good example for your case of how aspiring to more, just because, can result in something lackluster). It did and does two things to me: it made the original playthrough a bit less interesting because I found there's just one viable route of leveling up, and it makes future playthroughs (and in a game with multiple choices and three epilogues, future playthroughs are something to take into consideration) gradually less interesting, because the experience - in regards to mechanics - is very much the same.

That is (part) of why Alchemy should be on par with the other trees. Taking the Witcher franchise, CDPR can't maneuver too much, and I appreciate how much they improved the importance of Alchemy in TW2. I appreciate that they're trying to make it even more viable of a route this time around. I noticed by chance in one of Gopher's videos an ability in the Alchemy tree that I already know I want. It seems great.

There is nothing wrong with an approach of offering more options. I'm surprised this is even being argued.

Now, there might be a question of whether the other options are actually good (e.g. the three Signs in TW1). But I think that's taking our discussion into a different direction altogether. And it's deep into the realm of speculation. We can't know if the Alchemy tree will be any good, not purely by the activation mechanic or the auto-refill. More isn't automatically better, you say. Nor is it automatically worse. And we've nothing to determine by whether or not the Alchemy tree will be worse. We do have the franchise's history, and we do know that in TW2 it was arguably the strongest tree once fleshed out (by far, I believe) - if you knew how to use it well. So if anything, we're safe to assume that this additional tree has the potential to become appealing.

So in short - the ideal, I believe, is offering as many (good) options as possible. I find nothing "bollocks" about that approach, and I think it makes both your original playthrough much more interesting (TW is about choices, and I'm glad that it extends to mechanics as well), as well as subsequent ones. I see nothing wrong with aiming for more options. Whether they'll be appealing or not, we'll have to wait and see - but we do know based on history that they have the potential to be.

Encouraging us to use it more often for what specific reason?

I don't think there's anything too deep or philosophical in this regard. A game developer creates different systems. Hopefully, he puts a lot of effort into those systems. If he creates a system that is barely used, it's a shame.

Why does a developer want to encourage use of something? He wants to offer a player more options, I suppose. As for why options are important, I tried to explain above. They likely want that in a 100 hours of playing the game, you'll still have at your disposal enough tools to make combat interesting.

Again, you write her as if your playstyle would be the style everybody else plays the game. That's not true. I feel no hurried state at all when having short durations times. I don't even think that potions have any influence at all at which pace I explore the world. I guess we two see alchemy and potions in two completly different ways...

Seems so.

Experimenting with different buffs in battle doesn't sound like much fun for me, personally, at least not in the medium term. But then again I seem to want to play the game for very different reasons than you do (at least in terms of preference ratios)...

Experimenting in battle sounds really fun to me, considering I have enough tools to experiment with. Again, I'll take from my recent personal experience - in my TW2 playthrough lately, I tried to minimize Quen use as much as I can. Once, it was the first thing I did when I spotted enemies, and it resulted in combat always panning out the same way. Now, trying to fight without it, I found myself making much more liberal use of my other Signs, traps and bombs, as well as blocking and riposting (both since I had the vigor to spare, as well as being unable to rely on a semi-invulnerable state). I found my battlefield to be much more fun this time around with how varied the moves were. Personal taste, again.

And while I suspect there was something of a jab in that, I'll ask out of curiosity anyway - what are our different reasons (at least in terms of preference ratios) that you see?

 

[DBag]

Stop it, Eli! You're being too reasonable. I can't take it anymore! :thumbup:

 

[Scholdarr.452]

We must be focusing on different aspects of the new system. I gues you're focusing on using them in combat. I'm focusing on easy refill and limited slots. These two aspect are very new to RPGs and have already proved to reach the devs' goals (in other games that adopted them).

Nope. Auto-refill is just a slightly adjusted substitute for buying potions at a shop (probably the oldest way of handling potions refill in RPGs). Instead of collecting money for buying potions at shops you just have to collect ingredients here for automatically brewing potions in TW3 (only difference is the initial, first ever potion brewing but that was already in place in TW2).

And limiting the usage of potions in combat is as well a very old mechanism. Games like Diablo have been offering such mechanics for more than one and a half decade now (you had a belt there which only carried a limited amount of potions that you could use directly in combat).

So I'm sorry but nothing CDPR does here with this alchemy system is really new or "trend setting". It's just the usage of very old system with some slight adjustments. So they're just using old and rarely innovative systems while sacrificing the unique approach of potions in the classic witcher lore (and e.g. their usage in TW2 to some extend)...

 

[Solid_Altair]

Nope. Auto-refill is just a slightly adjusted and casualized substitute for buying potions at a shop (probably the oldest way of handling potions refill in RPGs). Instead of collecting money you have to collect ingredients here.
And limiting the usage of potions in combat is as well a very old mechanism. Games like Diablo have been offering such mechanics for more than one and a half decade now (you had a belt there which only carried a limited amount of potions that you could use directly in combat).

So I'm sorry but nothing CDPR does here with this alchemy system is really new or "trend setting". It's just the usage of very old system with some slight adjustments. So they're just using old and rarely innovative systems while sacrificing the unique approach of potions in the classic witcher lore (and e.g. their usage in TW2 to some extend)...

Does Diablo have healing spells?

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Does Diablo have healing spells?

No. At least not if you play a fighter class like the Barbarian.

 

[Solid_Altair]

Does some class have it?

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Does some class have it?

I honstely don't know for sure but I doubt it. What's the intention of the question though?

 

[Solid_Altair]

If anyone can use standard healing spells, than the overall system is very different, because you can heal for free. This changes the design entirely. I haven't been explicit enough when I talked about limited slots and easy refill. These are only "revolutionary" when there are no healing spells at all. That's the stuff I find recent. If Diablo has done it long ago. Hats off to it and shame on the other for not having picked it up sooner. But I'd be surprised if if did. My guess is it has healing spells. A shot in the dark, here, tough. I never really played Diablo.