Concerns about fast travel

[EmperorZorn]

If there is a fast-travel in the game, I simply won't use it.

It's far more immersive to travel from place to place on horseback and why shouldn't I enjoy the game ?
After all, TW4 won't be there for a long time...

 

[val.mitev]

If there is a fast-travel in the game, I simply won't use it.

It's far more immersive to travel from place to place on horseback and why shouldn't I enjoy the game ?
After all, TW4 won't be there for a long time...

If the world truly feels alive and dense with things to do and see, I agree with you, why not take a stroll and enjoy it to the fullest.
Especially when there are things to discover during the travels and those random quests that they talked about.

 

[ONLY_ONCE]

But why, I don't understand. If you can choose yourself, why shouldn't it be as an option in-game? So you're not tempted to use it?

OMG no shit you guys, have some will power would ya!! LOL..

 

[B_l_a_d_y]

If there is a fast-travel in the game, I simply won't use it.

It's far more immersive to travel from place to place on horseback and why shouldn't I enjoy the game ?
After all, TW4 won't be there for a long time...

If the game is designed in having fast travel this simply won't work. For example siple quest in Skyrim like killing single wolf requires going through whole map following quest marker back and forward, in Gothic you find big forest full of wolfes and hunters near campfire, which would purchase wolf fur.

 

[Ðarkstar]

If the game is designed in having fast travel this simply won't work. For example siple quest in Skyrim like killing single wolf requires going through whole map following quest marker back and forward, in Gothic you find big forest full of wolfes and hunters near campfire, which would purchase wolf fur.

It's simply for convenience since travelling across a very large map gets tedious after a while, especially if you're focused on doing something in particular. The world won't be static like Skyrim, that much is clear, so unless you can't control yourself when it comes to fast travelling - you shouldn't have a problem with this.

 

[braindancer12]

nothing wrong with fast travel, its optional so if you want it use it and if not then not....

 

[Senteria]

Wow who dug up this thread from the graveyard?

 

[Kinley]

Wow who dug up this thread from the graveyard?

It got merged with a thread that got made recently.

 

[Lieste]

But that's just it. Why would the quests be restricted geographically? Story wise, what would be the point of that? It seems such an artificial restriction, so extraneous to plot.

It makes perfect sense that they are 'drawn' around your current location, and after the progress of the main plotline ~ following the wild hunt southwards into Nilfgaard. While you could wander off into distant parts of the map the majority of "witcher's work" is dealing with local nuisances... and only the main plotlines of the delving into Geralt's past, and solving the search for Yennefer and The Hunt seem to *require* a 'moving on' type quest.

Open world can refer to 'complete, unplotted freedom' or the removal of artificial labyrinthine pathing to 'squash' additional 'length' into a necessarily small area of previous generation games.

Personally I preferred the ecology of FCR1 to the endless respawning of the vanilla game ~ exploring and some necessary combats over a limitless bloodbath... felt more in keeping with how Geralt's work is presented elsewhere (even though we still had a massively compressed and augmented experience).

 

[Villentretanmerth]

Wait, so I should have asked this in my last post, but is it confirmed what type of fast-travel will be the game?

I'm hoping for limited fast travel, and not the instant teleportation from your map menu where you can do it from any place and at any time.

 

[ReptilePZ]

Well, they were initally planning for Skyrim-like fast travel, but in some of the later interviews they seemed to suggest that you'd be limited to travelling from and to certain points (à la Witcher 1). So... we don't really know for sure.

 

[Goran.hr]

I hope that fast travel will be available only between certain locations, and/or that you'll have to pay a small amount for it.

I disagree with "If you don't like it, don't use it" argument, because certain restrictions in role-playing games have a purpose. Restrictions like - not being able to spam potions during combat, detailed quest descriptions instead of quest markers and balanced level design instead of level scaling. CDPR is aiming for wider audience this time and that's fine, but I think that it would be wise to consider how to implement fast travel in the best way possible, instead of just letting the player teleport all the time. This is just my opinion.

 

[daarkesorro]

I really hate it when people get so pissed off because of fast travel. Not everybody wants to spend so much time traversing the world and for fuck's sake, it's optional. Just don't use it if you hate it. Don't bring down other people's experiences because of what you think a game "needs".

 

[Mgec]

In Skyrim there were wagons or something for fast-travel right next to the cities. I never used them because you could always do fast-travel with the world map. In the Witcher 3 it would be very cool if they only let you do fast-travel with these horse-drawn vehicle, taxi style. For added immersion.

 

[darcler]

It all depends on how the quests will be implemented. If they'd be anything like in Skyrim, where you had to fetch some random junk from the other side of the map, then lack of FT would be a big problem. Players would spend most of their time in game traveling instead of, well - playing the game. Plus I can imagine how detrimental that would be to the story (which, as any good story, requires certain pace).

 

[Ðarkstar]

It all depends on how the quests will be implemented. If they'd be anything like in Skyrim, where you had to fetch some random junk from the other side of the map, then lack of FT would be a big problem. Players would spend most of their time in game traveling instead of, well - playing the game. Plus I can imagine how detrimental that would be to the story (which, as any good story, requires certain pace).

Skyrim having randomly generated quests that mirror the mundane "hand-crafted" side and main quests. TW2 having side quests that are all unique in their own right. TW3 will either be Skyrim 2.0 or The Witcher 3.0, I'd go with the latter But seriously, zigzagging through TW2's map for the 20th playthrough gets tedious. It's better to have FT and not need it than to not have FT and need it. If I did all the walking Geralt does in TW2, my legs would've gave out ages ago.

 

[braindancer12]

In Skyrim there were wagons or something for fast-travel right next to the cities. I never used them because you could always do fast-travel with the world map. In the Witcher 3 it would be very cool if they only let you do fast-travel with these horse-drawn vehicle, taxi style. For added immersion.

a system like in Red Dead Redemption

 

[goopit]

Transitional Animations with Fast Travel

so most games often have just a loading screen with their fast travel or going from one level to another. What I'm suggesting is some transitional of shots of Geralt riding/walking to the distance and him arriving. There are several possible benefits to this..

-it hides loading screens
-CDPR can show off some cool landscape with all the camera angles you can do
-it doesn't feel instantaneous and cheap (eg. Skyrim)
-it's immersive

CDPR should also add Geralt walking in the middle of you getting control of him (MGS4 did this well with their cutscenes) so it doesn't look like he teleported and actually walked all the way to the location. If Geralt has some companions with him they could be mid conversation upon arriving.

 

[B_l_a_d_y]

simple animation would quickly become repetitive. like witcher 2 potion drinking.

gameplay section would make loadding much longer and would have massive performance hit unless it is only simple protagonist model and void like in ac

 

[MkTama]

I really hate it when people get so pissed off because of fast travel. Not everybody wants to spend so much time traversing the world and for fuck's sake, it's optional. Just don't use it if you hate it. Don't bring down other people's experiences because of what you think a game "needs".

I know that the forum is meant for discussion and whatever and it's therefore right to discuss, but this is my man. Let's remember that @Marcin Momot, so as interviews, said everyone will find his way to travel the open-world. If a more casual gamer (or even a hardcore one) wants to use fast travel because he likes it, or simply doesn't have enough time (you know, work and stuff) to travel the whole world by foot because it "adds to the immersion" leave him be. Leave him to enjoy the game as well. There is not a "good way" of implementing or not fast travel, it simply comes from technical/programming needs AND what the developers wants to accomplish, bearing in mind that thay have the full vision of what the game effectively is, which we don't have.