- Status
Filling the gap?
Hmm... No, I think not.
Yes, Witchers do not use bows/crossbows. Why? Let me show you my explenation. Swords are both offensive and defensive tools, you can block, you can hook, you can half-sword, you can slash, you can bash. Keep in mind that you can control the swing, you can control the attack, your reflexses are what makes you fast.
Swords are weapons of limited range, sure. But most monsters fight at this very range.
Bows - you need to aim, you need to have arrows... and the taget is moving. Yes, a skilled acher can do "a".
But can this archer hit a supernatural monster that moves faster than a normal eye can catch? Can you hit it right between the chitin plates?
Crossbow - aim, etc. etc. etc., however it packs a bigger punch... but takes more than twice the time of a bow to reload - depending on the power.
The signs supplement the gap that Geralt needs. Does he fight at long range or something? No. It's the range at which the best archer would have been able to pull out maximum of two aimed arrows.
Also there is a matter of bolts and arrows. Maybe even moreso arrows than bolts. These are carefully prepared and relatively expensive devices and considering that they would need to be silver too... wouldn't it be in a long run cheaper just to run around with a sword?
That is my explenation, and my theory. It's a fantasy universe with magics and hooke... witches.
Maybe I am trying to make sense out of nothing, but the entirely other thing is that CDPR make a decision when they made WItcher 1 - do they make a game set in Witcher's universe or do they make a game with Geralt as a main character.
Keep in mind that while CDPR can make changes Geralt is a pretty damn defined character. They made a marvelous job of keeping the choices you have to make in a grey area, keeping Geralt's character very much in there.
The alternative weapons should serve a support role. Throwing knifes? Fine. Boms? Fine!
I wouldn't mind a little on-hand crossbow ( like the one Professor has in Witcher 1 ). But the full sized crossbow would be just silly.
That's what I think about the matter anyhow.
Hmm... No, I think not.
Yes, Witchers do not use bows/crossbows. Why? Let me show you my explenation. Swords are both offensive and defensive tools, you can block, you can hook, you can half-sword, you can slash, you can bash. Keep in mind that you can control the swing, you can control the attack, your reflexses are what makes you fast.
Swords are weapons of limited range, sure. But most monsters fight at this very range.
Bows - you need to aim, you need to have arrows... and the taget is moving. Yes, a skilled acher can do "a".
But can this archer hit a supernatural monster that moves faster than a normal eye can catch? Can you hit it right between the chitin plates?
Crossbow - aim, etc. etc. etc., however it packs a bigger punch... but takes more than twice the time of a bow to reload - depending on the power.
The signs supplement the gap that Geralt needs. Does he fight at long range or something? No. It's the range at which the best archer would have been able to pull out maximum of two aimed arrows.
Also there is a matter of bolts and arrows. Maybe even moreso arrows than bolts. These are carefully prepared and relatively expensive devices and considering that they would need to be silver too... wouldn't it be in a long run cheaper just to run around with a sword?
That is my explenation, and my theory. It's a fantasy universe with magics and hooke... witches.
Maybe I am trying to make sense out of nothing, but the entirely other thing is that CDPR make a decision when they made WItcher 1 - do they make a game set in Witcher's universe or do they make a game with Geralt as a main character.
Keep in mind that while CDPR can make changes Geralt is a pretty damn defined character. They made a marvelous job of keeping the choices you have to make in a grey area, keeping Geralt's character very much in there.
The alternative weapons should serve a support role. Throwing knifes? Fine. Boms? Fine!
I wouldn't mind a little on-hand crossbow ( like the one Professor has in Witcher 1 ). But the full sized crossbow would be just silly.
That's what I think about the matter anyhow.
Let me quote myself from another thread...
I think I hit the mark with this one.
Seriously a full sized crossbow doesn't have place in WItcher's hands, unless he doesn't have a luxury of choice.
We do not have details, sure.
If it's a support weapon as I mentioned - sure, a little one wouldn't hurt ( me ).
But if it's full on crossbow, with silly reload time just to actually make in an effective close combat weapon...
I wouldn't... like it... very... much.
I would be more than OK with them in a game set in Witcher universe but not about Geralt or any witcher as main character.
Which is something I am hoping to see after W3, actually.
I think I hit the mark with this one.
Seriously a full sized crossbow doesn't have place in WItcher's hands, unless he doesn't have a luxury of choice.
We do not have details, sure.
If it's a support weapon as I mentioned - sure, a little one wouldn't hurt ( me ).
But if it's full on crossbow, with silly reload time just to actually make in an effective close combat weapon...
I wouldn't... like it... very... much.
I would be more than OK with them in a game set in Witcher universe but not about Geralt or any witcher as main character.
Which is something I am hoping to see after W3, actually.
Yes, but even taht, how can CDPR sacrifice months of stun-swordmen-mocap's work, (hard work trying to get the Geralt's dancing style) and replace it with a bored and simply target-click-dead-YOU-WIN!? Where's the immersion in the Witcher's environment? His swear? his fight? his life in danger?
I reapeat, all my characters in RPG's and Action and Aventure fight witth bows if it affordable to him in thegame, because I'm a lover of sneaking but I cannot feel Geralt handle one. No. I cannot. Sorry. He is a warrior trained to hunting monsters, not hunting food. This is a basic survival tool, not necessary to explain Geralt's character. If monters were easy to kill with bolts and arrows why are the witchers training in the art of swords and risk uselessly their priceless lives? Swords and signs are Geralt. The Geralt I knew in TW1 and discover later in books.
I'd like not find such kind of experiments in the last chapter of the saga.
PS. Am i really the one who see The Witcher Geralt this way? :unsure:
Last edited:
Worry not my friend.. You're not alone. For now, we don't know shit about that crossbow on Geralts back, but i do hope so that CDPR has a very good reason for that being there. I like to believe that Geralt is doing this simple quest, but with an interesting storyline, where he needs to delivery this crossbow to someone, so for this short period in the game, he carries it on his back, for more immersion and all that. (Very unlikely though... well, one can dream).
Last edited:
I strongly support the crossbow. However, the best option, would be if CDPR made it 100 percent optional to use in combat, and optional to use on hunting as well. It should not even be able to be used in combat excessively, maybe on certain creatures IF YOU WANT. But mostly for the hunting aspect of the game, IF YOU WANT. Can we all agree so CDPR can have a cohesive idea of the fact that we are okay with the crossbow mainly for hunting and 100 percent optional, maybe unequipabble too, so you can pretend its not there if you are against it? After all no sense ruining this for players(like me)who want to use the crossbow for hunting specifically. Can we all agree on this, so CDPR can keep the crossbow in?
I would say we can't all agree to this.
Why, excatly would anyone want to run around the forest trying to hunt down a deer with a crossbow? ( a legit question, I just do not bloody get it )
You know, there are like, monsters? That are actually around 10 times more interesting than a bloody deer?
This kinda talk seriously starts to make me regret that CDPR went the open world way. In W1 and W2, you played a witcher, a classic deal, two swords, both for monsters ( contrary to popular belief ), you were not a sneaky hunter, you were not a poacher, not the explorer.
-"Hey, there are ghouls in the crypt, witcher"
-"Where and how much?"
On the other hand, if the small handy crossbow will be in the game and won't be a one-button-press-to-win weapon like in Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, people gonna complain that it's not useful - well, no shite, you have a little crappy crossbow that doesn't pack a lot of punch behind it, what do you expect?
I am seriosly censoring myself on this post, just want to say that, the bad wolf inside me goes all about how people expect all RPGs to be the same and how some people should really get off the skyrim's mindset.
So, I suppose I will end it here, and hope that CDPR does something reasonable with the issue. Not the most healthy attitude but whatever.
Why, excatly would anyone want to run around the forest trying to hunt down a deer with a crossbow? ( a legit question, I just do not bloody get it )
You know, there are like, monsters? That are actually around 10 times more interesting than a bloody deer?
This kinda talk seriously starts to make me regret that CDPR went the open world way. In W1 and W2, you played a witcher, a classic deal, two swords, both for monsters ( contrary to popular belief ), you were not a sneaky hunter, you were not a poacher, not the explorer.
-"Hey, there are ghouls in the crypt, witcher"
-"Where and how much?"
On the other hand, if the small handy crossbow will be in the game and won't be a one-button-press-to-win weapon like in Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, people gonna complain that it's not useful - well, no shite, you have a little crappy crossbow that doesn't pack a lot of punch behind it, what do you expect?
I am seriosly censoring myself on this post, just want to say that, the bad wolf inside me goes all about how people expect all RPGs to be the same and how some people should really get off the skyrim's mindset.
So, I suppose I will end it here, and hope that CDPR does something reasonable with the issue. Not the most healthy attitude but whatever.
I understand the concern that going open world means introducing trivial mechanics. The distinction I trust CDPR to make is that hunting is essentially a minigame, there to embellish but not be a core feature. Food, gambling and boxing fall under this heading and all those did indeed enhance the previous games. Or at least none were reviled so far as I know. So let's say we're in the woods looking for nekkers, and bambi pops into view. We put a bolt through bambi which gives as some meat to boost vigor and a hide to sell for a few extra orens. In this context, I don't see how the crossbow or hunting will keep the game from being a die hard Witcher experience.
I wouldn't mid a small crossbow thingy on a forearm ( like professor had in W1 ), it looks useful, a nice addon/gadget to have.
Keep in mind that crossbows need bolts. I dunno how expensive they would be but in case of war? I'd say pretty damn expensive, maybe not as much as arrows, but still. So unless you gonna carry the entire bambi with you to sell it, I hardly see the point of that. Plus, I've always had a mindset "I am here for object/person/monster X, unless somebody/sth stands in my way, it lives/it stays where it is, this is not for what i came here for".
The business-like approach, makes things faster, you get the monsters, you get the coin, and let the bambi live to see the other day.
I am not the hunter, and actually lore Geralt also is not one. Not his profession, not his issue or job.
I'd much rather have a nice fishing mechanic implemented. Nice, can be relaxing and isn't lorebreaking in a slightest.
Keep in mind that crossbows need bolts. I dunno how expensive they would be but in case of war? I'd say pretty damn expensive, maybe not as much as arrows, but still. So unless you gonna carry the entire bambi with you to sell it, I hardly see the point of that. Plus, I've always had a mindset "I am here for object/person/monster X, unless somebody/sth stands in my way, it lives/it stays where it is, this is not for what i came here for".
The business-like approach, makes things faster, you get the monsters, you get the coin, and let the bambi live to see the other day.
I am not the hunter, and actually lore Geralt also is not one. Not his profession, not his issue or job.
I'd much rather have a nice fishing mechanic implemented. Nice, can be relaxing and isn't lorebreaking in a slightest.
Regardless of @Juuuhan 's initial intention, the "Brooms" thread seems to have become a rehash of the existing Crossbow discussion, so the threads have been merged.
NO... You can't hunting, even it's optional, becouse many people don't hunting, and it's no necessary, you said, "it's optional I like it, many people like it", but You don't have right, if they don't hunting, You have problem, and can't do it, You have monster hunting, and it's enough...
Your Geralt is worse than their, becouse he hunting...
You want optional crossbow, NO, because it's not necessary, they don't use it, and You too, You say, "it's optional I like it, if You don't want, don't use",but You have problem, they don't need it, and You too, even it's optional, must fly out the game...
Your Geralt is worse than their, becouse he use crossbow...
I know it's idiotic, but they say "no it's not", and you must say "YOU ALL HAVE RIGHT", crossbow and hunting is no necessary, even many people like it, even it's optional, becouse someone dislike these things, and you must dislike it too...
When I read many people, I come to the conclusion that this game is not made for any Witcher fans, and RPG fans, but only for the chosen few, who don't accept that someone likes something else...
As long as I would have an option to un-equip it after getting it (story or something) I'm okay with crossbow, I personally hated this feature in AC: Brotherhood, where after getting the crossbow you coulnd't take it off and had to run with this wooden piece of garbage attached to your shoulder.
That's the risk CDPR have taken with an open world: gamers who mix up The Witcher and Skyrim. There where some thread about this discusion. Your need of crossbow's (hunting, eating, sneaking) choice is a shadow of Skyrim structrure. But as CDPR have said: TW3 will not be another Skyrim but a closer Geralt's story. So your taste or my own ones won't be important to CDPR creativity, they already made their game. Let's keep our madurity, the same we will need to enjoy the grey world of Geralt. Cheers.
Yes, I think the same, it's CDPR game, and if they want give us crossbow and hunting, it's mean the people want it, and saying "it's no necessary, fly out of game" is stupid.
No on wan't mix Skyrim and Witcher... Hunting isn't only in Skyrim, and give many people (for example me) more immersion, eating too, and when I must chose, hunting with sword, or crossbow, I chose crossbow. In W1 we can eat, drink, and many people want it to come back in W3.
Finaly, many people don't play W3, becouse it's a Witcher, but only becouse it's a open worlds.
It's large game, and must have a good sell, not only among fans... Fans must understand it.
No on wan't mix Skyrim and Witcher... Hunting isn't only in Skyrim, and give many people (for example me) more immersion, eating too, and when I must chose, hunting with sword, or crossbow, I chose crossbow. In W1 we can eat, drink, and many people want it to come back in W3.
Finaly, many people don't play W3, becouse it's a Witcher, but only becouse it's a open worlds.
It's large game, and must have a good sell, not only among fans... Fans must understand it.
az
My opinion is so respectable as yours is. Avoid to classify any opinion different to yours as stupid, please. With expressions like this you could esaily give a wrong information about you.
Last edited:
You hit the nail on the head with his one. I fully believe that the world needs to have life in it(animals) it would be stupid if said animals were unable to be hunted.this as a weapon to hunt with, since fans would outrage at bow(and geralt doesn't really use) crossbow makes the most sense. Also, for most, the immersion of killing your meal and eating it's good is wonderful, so I think that the crossbow was a very good choice by CDPR, even if it's just for the sake of us being to hunt.
I don't want say, these opinion is stupid, I want say, these game is CDPR, and if they want add someting, we must accept that, and the whole survey is stupid, necessary/not necessary is stupid, they know what they want, and we must trust, they do it well.
Edit:
For all who don't like hunting/crossbow/etc.
CDPR, said they give us hunting, I like hunting, but I understood people who don't like it, but why if you don't like it, you say "it's not necessary, fly out", why don't accept my chose and say: "I dont like it but if someone want these, he can do it, I dont have anything against"?
Edit:
For all who don't like hunting/crossbow/etc.
CDPR, said they give us hunting, I like hunting, but I understood people who don't like it, but why if you don't like it, you say "it's not necessary, fly out", why don't accept my chose and say: "I dont like it but if someone want these, he can do it, I dont have anything against"?
Last edited:
- Status