Please cut crafting out or at least severly limit it in W3

[Blothulfur]

yeah, but sometimes removing a feature can be a good thing if it worsens the game. I don't think anyone here misses the sex cards (I hope not anyway).

Afraid I have to disagree, you don't throw something out because it has problems, (as eventually you'd be left with no game at all,) you improve it and learn from your mistakes. A lot of people complained about the combat in the first Witcher, the answer was obviously to improve it, not strip out that feature. Unfortunately a few things were stripped out, but considering the circumstances of Assassins of Kings production, i'm willing to forgive that as the devs had their balls to the wall.

More importantly they created a great game that was internally consistent, respected its background in the first game and built upon that, which is nice to see in a genre where consistency and basic logic are often discarded in favour of accessibility.

 

[HeelPower]

It seems I was away for too long from this forum.
Tons more crafting options plz CDP!

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Witcher 1 system was perfect, emulate that. Don't strip features arbitrarily, that leads to the degeneration we have seen for the last twenty years in rpgs, where MMO mechanics are now seen as a good thing in a single player game, instead of being ridiculed as pointless busywork and soulless grinding.

Edit: And to be honest if a developer is stripping features and removing content for a sequel then they are doing it wrong, you should build on your success, not undermine it.

That makes little sense since extensive crafting comes from MMOs. I actually criticize this trend here...

The old SP RPGs of good didn't feature a lot of crafting (only in a very limited and thoughful way if at all). Instead they featured hand-crafted lore-related items that were well designed and balanced.

Reducing crafting is the opposite of dumbing SP RPGs down here for me. Instead it'd give them back heart and soul and personality. Stripping or tuning down everything that is even remotely generic is the golden path imo to make a unique, focused game that builds on its strengths instead of offering just a bit of everything without having identity.

And why should a developer not allowed to strip features from previous games? Nobody is perfect and maybe some stuff from previous games were not perfect at all. Identifying own weaknesses and acting accordingly is the best way to make a better sequel. Sticking to every feature for whatever it takes is imo pointless. Of course improving something to make it fun and unique is obviously the better way. But sometimes that's not that easy or even possible.

 

[Blothulfur]

That makes little sense since extensive crafting comes from MMOs. I actually criticize this trend here...

The old SP RPGs of good didn't feature a lot of crafting (only in a very limited and thoughful way if at all). Instead they featured hand-crafted lore-related items that were well designed and balanced.

Reducing crafting is the opposite of dumbing SP RPGs down here for me. Instead it'd give them back heart and soul and personality. Stripping or tuning down everything that is even remotely generic is the golden path imo to make a unique, focused game that builds on its strengths instead of offering just a bit of everything without having identity.

And why should a developer not allowed to strip features from previous games? Nobody is perfect and maybe some stuff from previous games were not perfect at all. Identifying own weaknesses and acting accordingly is the best way to make a better sequel. Sticking to every feature for whatever it takes is imo pointless. Of course improving something to make it fun and unique is obviously the better way. But sometimes that's not that easy or even possible.

No i'm afraid that makes no sense, the great rpgs of old had plenty of crafting before multiplayer was even a thing, look at everything you could do and interact with in the old Ultima and Underworld games. But then the gradual degeneration of rpgs began, with features and content being stripped systematically until we get to the point where they are just alternate combat and conversation in corridors. All because people accepted everything being streamlined and dumbed down. Now you mention the npc schedules of the Black Gate, where each character lived and had a role and a task in the world, and people scoff and say that can't be done in a modern game, but itr could be done twenty years ago. Clear degeneration and pretty bloody saddening.

You can still have unique and distinctive features and items in a big game, they don't have to be all soulless Bioware or Bethesda offline MMOs where you grind and grind interminably for identikit loot, this is a lie that has become accepted and goes unchellenged, and it is hurting the genre with this constant urge to dumb down and streamline for a "core" experience. It's truly tragic when decades ago we were adding to games rather than demanding that content be stripped, for arbitrary reasons.

It's about time we started appreciating games with a little ambition like the first Witcher, that tried to move the genre forward again, rather than joining in with the steady march of degeneration.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

No i'm afraid that makes no sense, the great rpgs of old had plenty of crafting before multiplayer was even a thing, look at everything you could do and interact with in the old Ultima and Underworld games. But then the gradual degeneration of rpgs began, with features and content being stripped systematically until we get to the point where they are just alternate combat and conversation in corridors. All because people accepted everything being streamlined and dumbed down. Now you mention the npc schedules of the Black Gate, where each character lived and had a role and a task in the world, and people scoff and say that can't be done in a modern game, but itr could be done twenty years ago. Clear degeneration and pretty bloody saddening.

You can still have unique and distinctive features and items in a big game, they don't have to be all soulless Bioware or Bethesda offline MMOs where you grind and grind interminably for identikit loot, this is a lie that has become accepted and goes unchellenged, and it is hurting the genre with this constant urge to dumb down and streamline for a "core" experience. It's truly tragic when decades ago we were adding to games rather than demanding that content be stripped, for arbitrary reasons.

It's about time we started appreciating games with a little ambition like the first Witcher, that tried to move the genre forward again, rather than joining in with the steady march of degeneration.

Well, it certainly depends on what you expect from an RPG. Stuff like crafting and NPC-schedules and stuff is fine for the sandbox type of RPG (like Ultima or Skyrim for the modern generation of gamers). But for a story-driven RPG that's all more or less side stuff not important for the core experience (old Infinity Engine games or Witcher 1/2). The difference between the two is basically that in the former you tell your own story, becoming the character in the world yourself, while in the latter you play as a quite predefined character following a certain strong and focused narrative.

Of course there can be cross-overs and hybrids (like the newer Bioware games) but in my experience cross-overs are in most cases mediocre due to their way too wide focus. And that's actually the problem at hand here.

About crafting: Crafting adds nothing to the core vision of the Witcher games if you ask me. It's imo one of the basic failures of game design to just add something because it's cool or innovative or trendy in general. Ambition or innovation just for the sake of it is pointless and usually does more harm than good. A feature should only be implemented if it enhances and strengthens the core vision of the game without threatening parts of that core vision. And rarely a feature comes without compromises and threats for different features. That is sadly but definitely true for crafting. I've described a lot of the dangers arising from crafting and especially extensive crafting systems in my previous posts already. And that has nothing to do with "dumbing the game down", at least not on such a general level. Just adding something doesn't make a game more complex or sophisticated, no matter if a similar system was part of other games or not. Each new game is (or at least should be) different and needs a new assessment on the various forms of crafting and their implications for the vision and planned feature-set of the game.

So I don't like this "dumbing down" or "streamlined" discussion here. It's just a broad generalization without arguments. It's just a truism if it's not backed up by more than "Everything was better in the old days" statements. If you want to discuss the topic on a more serious level tell me why you think Witcher 3 should offer crafting and in which forms and how that should improve the game and enhance its vision and how you want to minimize or even avoid the dangers and failures of the respective crafting systems...

 

[Blothulfur]

Why should it not? There are craftsmen in the world whom Geralt will realistically use, there are the potions and bombs that Geralt will make himself. Crafting fits perfectly into the world, it was fun and valuable in the first Witcher, degenerated in the second and so I say simply improve on it for the third. Don't throw away arbitrarily for no good reasion when if implemented well it adds customisation, challenge, complexity, experimentation, reward and depth. It also adds to the depth and realism of the gameworld, a "core" feature of the Witcher games.

As for Ultima being like Skyrim, that's blatantly false as anybody who has played both can tell you, it had far more of an in depth storyline, characterisation and well developed themes like the Witcher. Obviously the IE games were a clear degeneration from that point, with their lifeless worlds, static npcs and unreactive environments. Something that the Witchers stepped away from thankfully.

Its not a failure in design to be ambitious. Its not a failure to concentrate on something other than the "core" experience, which is arbitrary and debatable. It's called being innovative and moving the genre forward, rather than carrying on with the clear degeneration that has been lauded and championed for the past twenty years at the players expense. Rather than throw out the baby with the bathwater simply improve and add to the game, rather than stripping away for no reason other than a rampant urge to dumb down, and make smaller and simpler games.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Why should it not? There are craftsmen in the world whom Geralt will realistically use, there are the potions and bombs that Geralt will make himself. Crafting fits perfectly into the world, it was fun and valuable in the first Witcher, degenerated in the second and so I say simply improve on it for the third. Don't throw away arbitrarily for no good reasion when if implemented well it adds customisation, challenge, complexity, experimentation, reward and depth. It also adds to the depth and realism of the gameworld, a "core" feature of the Witcher games.

Crafting doesn't add depth to anything just by implementing it. And either way, depth for itself isn't worth anything. Same is true fro complexity. I don't see how crafting involves any challenge. And while it rewards you for some actions (like finding recipies it also takes away from other forms of rewards. Of course you could come up with a crafting system that respects the lore of the Witcher world. That's what this thread is about. Talking about crafting systems and how different solutions could solve problems that arise from their implementation. That's way beyond your quite bland generalization of "Crafting is good. Period." I fear...

As for Ultima being like Skyrim, that's blatantly false as anybody who has played both can tell you, it had far more of an in depth storyline, characterisation and well developed themes like the Witcher. Obviously the IE games were a clear degeneration from that point, with their lifeless worlds, static npcs and unreactive environments. Something that the Witchers stepped away from thankfully.

I never said Skyrim or Ultima were exactly the same. I only talked about the general direction of games, not about their execution in detail. Also it was never the point of anything I've said to compare the two. You might be very right that Skyrim offers less of these features than Ultima. But the other games I've mentioned don't offer them at all - since they have a completely different idea and vision and not because they are "degenerated". It's a very limited point of view if you apply a certain feature-set on a every game, no matter of its vision and its general idea (and no, RPG is in no way sufficient to describe a game).

But yes, imho Ultima is more like Skyrim than like Witcher on a general level, although the big difference in time of their release makes the comparison a bit difficult. Of course that doesn't apply on each and every feature and that means in no way that any of these games are the very same.

But I got it that in your opinion every RPG/game that doesn't offer NPC schedules and reactive environments and stuff are dumbed down modern crap. I just don't agree. While NPC schedules and stuff are important for some forms of games they aren't that important for other forms of games. I'm still wondering myself though how NPC schedules and crafting were connected. Are they basically on the same level for you because they must be part of every RPG for you and every game that doesn't feature them is dumbed down or degenerated? If that's the case why do we even talk?

Its not a failure in design to be ambitious. Its not a failure to concentrate on something other than the "core" experience, which is arbitrary and debatable.

Ambition for the sake of ambition and innovation for the sake of innovation is completely pointless. It's wasted money, wasted resources, wasted potential. And yes, it's indeed very bad game design if it doesn't follow a core vision and fits the rest of the game.

(On a side note: I find it quite irritating that while you seem to insist on that many RPGs were dumbed down so much nowadays you also seem to embrace side activities and stuff that isn't directly connected to the core experience. Imho these side activities are one of the biggest plagues of modern game design and one of the reasons why almost every major AAA game is almost the same today, no matter of its genre. If anything is really mainstream it's stuff like that. But of course that's just my opinion...)

It's called being innovative and moving the genre forward, rather than carrying on with the clear degeneration that has been lauded and championed for the past twenty years at the players expense.

Could you please stop with these bland generalizations for once? I already told you that it doesn't make sense for me to talk on that level. If you have no interest in reading my posts and discussing crafting systems in detail I don't see how we can progress in any way, sorry. In that case I think it's better to stop our conversation right now.

Rather than throw out the baby with the bathwater simply improve and add to the game, rather than stripping away for no reason other than a rampant urge to dumb down, and make smaller and simpler games.

You don't make any game simpler by cutting side features. It's possible but it depends. In some cases you only strengthen the core vision of your game or you just improve other features. As I've said before, not everything works together fine and just adding features on a list is the best way to make bad games. In most cases adding or implementing a feature has direct implication - good or bad - on other features and the complete game. If you don't think about that you don't do a good job as game developer. Leaving a feature in just because it enhances the feature list is bad. Leaving a feature in that does more harm than good is bad, no matter how ambitious or innovative it is (and crafting is neither)...

But you're right: cutting is only the last, ultimate way if you run out of good options. There might be solutions for a well done crafting system that limits its issues or even solve them. Problem is that you obviously don't want to talk about them in detail...

. Geralt should have to find rare components like dragon scales or other rare pieces.

Geralt doesn't kill dragons. And he would definitely never skin them.

 

[Garrison72]

You don't remove features on the premise they failed the last time out. You improve them. This is CDPR, not Bioware or Bethesda. These guys know how to take criticism.

 

[Degs29]

In almost every case this crafting is connected with extreme busy work aka the constant and neverending collection of herbs, metals and animal hides.

They don't need to cut crafting...they need to cut collection of materials. Bioware had the perfect opportunity to do this with their war table in DA:I, but squandered it IMO. The quantities you receive are so low, that just going to the table to send an advisor out in search of those materials is almost as tedious as collecting them yourself!

I'd like to see someway for TW3 to avoid the tedious collecting of crafting materials, while still maintaining the actual crafting.

 

[Blothulfur]

@Scholdarr: Yes I agree it's pointless arguing as we are diametrically opposed. I will always champion improvement rather than streamlining, as well as content and feature rich bigger games, that are more value for money for the customer and push the boundaries, rather than smaller, sparser and simpler games that only cater to a non existent "core" experience.

Edit: Have to add once again that Ultima is nothing like Skyrim, the Elder Scrolls were based off the Underworlds, not Ultima. They're miles apart.

 

[Jimbob_2.1]

Afraid I have to disagree, you don't throw something out because it has problems, (as eventually you'd be left with no game at all,) you improve it and learn from your mistakes. A lot of people complained about the combat in the first Witcher, the answer was obviously to improve it, not strip out that feature. Unfortunately a few things were stripped out, but considering the circumstances of Assassins of Kings production, i'm willing to forgive that as the devs had their balls to the wall.

More importantly they created a great game that was internally consistent, respected its background in the first game and built upon that, which is nice to see in a genre where consistency and basic logic are often discarded in favor of accessibility.

I wasn't saying everything that is criticized should be cut. I was just saying sometimes It can be for the better of the game. For example, many people are of the opinion that removing quest markers from the game would increase their enjoyment of it. Yes, obviously It's usually best to improve systems instead of removing them I was simply saying that It's not always bad to cut something. I worry whenever a game I'm looking forward to is described as being more assessable but sometimes even if something could be improved it may still not be important or fun or whatever so it might get cut to save time for something better. The Dev's have probably cut loads of features that we will never no about it's no big deal.

To be honest i was being pedantic with my original comment it's just that often people see a feature being removed or, in most cases streamlined as an automatically bad thing without thinking about what it might mean for the game. On the subject of crafting, I don't want it to be cut or even streamlined really just improved in the ways I've described before or some other way that CDPR have come up with.

 

[kissybyc]

That's an interesting idea. I think it's definitely preferable to the kind of system in DA:I. However i still like the idea of getting rare materials from doing a quest or something as i like legendary gear that has it's own name like the raven Armour in W1 but it feel kinda cheap if you could just buy it. So maybe you could have a system like this where you could save money by finding the materials yourself but for the better gear, especially the stuff that would be unique for a Witcher, you would need something special such as a part from a monster.

That's actually what I wanted to arrive at. So how about this: a unique piece of armor revolves around a unique piece (such as Kayran skin), and once the player places that piece into the crafting chart, the rest, common materials like cloths and leathers will be streamlined and added to the final cost.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

@Scholdarr: Yes I agree it's pointless arguing as we are diametrically opposed. I will always champion improvement rather than streamlining, as well as content and feature rich bigger games, that are more value for money for the customer and push the boundaries, rather than smaller, sparser and simpler games that only cater to a non existent "core" experience.

Edit: Have to add once again that Ultima is nothing like Skyrim, the Elder Scrolls were based off the Underworlds, not Ultima. They're miles apart.

After reading through the whole thingI honestly think that we just misunderstood each other, at least in parts, but anyway, doesn't matter...

Paul Tassi from Forbes recently wrote a great article about Far Cry 4 and how too much side activities and just too much stuff to do could really harm the overall experience of playing a game and enjoying it's story and progress-Of course it depends how you implement side activities and how you balance them against the main or "core" stuff but undeniably all of these elements are in danger of destroying pacing and staging of the narrative. The very same thing recently happened to every Ubisoft open world game (AC 4+5, Watch_Dogs, Far Cry 4,...) and to Dragon Age Inquisition, all games that suffer from too much "unimportant" but at least partly "important" content. Let's just say I don't hope the very same thing will happen with Witcher 3. That's not a matter of dumbing anything down or streamlining anything, it's about setting priorities. If one of your core priorities is telling a consistent narrative with tension and good pacing involved you have to limit your side activities like crafting or other side stuff. That's just a design requirement. Because as I've said before every game is something created with a specific and limited set of features and only very few features could be cut OR added without changing the whole experience or at least other features and parts of the game in a significant way. If you add a certain amount of side features to your game you very likely increase its size - which isn't too much of a surprise I guess - but you don't really improve its quality and not necessarily the experience for the player. It seems that you give him more hours for money but not of the core experience. In games like Far Cry 4, Assassin's Creed Unity or Dragon Age Inquisition only a small fraction of the time you play the game is directly connected or tied to the main storyline. On the opposite, a huge chunk of time you invest into these games is used to follow side activities - like crafting besides a lot of other stuff. It's even possible in these games that you play the main narrative for less than 10% or 20% of your overall game time or don't follow the main narrative at all in your first few hours into the game. On a general level, there is nothing wrong with that. Skyrim (as mentioned in Tassi's article) builds on that formula. But different than the usually story-driven game Skyrim is much more of a sandbox experience on purpose. It's a game that builds on its side quests and side activities while these other games build on their main narrative while side activities are mostly used to just enable you to continue with it (or giving you certain skills/advantages).

You know, there is nothing wrong with having a clever crafting system if it's implemented well and doesn't distract from the core experience of the game too much. There is no need to cut it in that case. But recent games - games that are seen as "modern" and "trendy" - significantly proved that these side activities are completely off limits and in no good balance with the main narrative anymore. In Assassin's Creed 2 for example you followed the main storyline of Ezio for about 30 hours and do 10 hours of side stuff - but only if you liked because you didn't need to do anything of that to enjoy the main narrative. In Assassin's Creed Unity instead the main storyine is finished after about 12 hours with at least more than double the time being side missions and repetitive and simple side activities like opening chests and looting enemies. Similar things could be said about Far Cry 4 or even Dragon Age Inquisition. I don't say Witcher 3 will necessarily be the same, not at all. But there is the danger and the possiblitly that it will at least implemented parts of that modern formula. Its open world approach is usually the first step into that direction, CDPR's 50/50 statement about main missions and side activities and side missions another one. You know, I fear about the narrative and its pacing in Witcher 3 because I think it was the strongest part of its predecessors by far. It's the core reason why I love and play these games.The combat is ok but nothing spectacular. It's all about the world and its atmosphere and the stories it tells, short: the immersion. It's so very easy to destroy that immersion by leaning too much on side activities and stuff like extensive crafting (and collection materials for it all the time). So no, I don't want Witcher 3 being dumbed down. On the opposite, I want a game that is especially built on the core strengths of its predecessors. If that involves some streamlining I'm fine with that. Streamlining is not a negative term in itself, it just says that you sometimes have to adjust or even cut things to make some other elements even more promenint and therefore stronger. If you don't see that possibility streamlining makes no sense of course.

I guess nobody would be happier than me if CDPR succeeded in making all those side-activities and side missions meaningful, involving them deeply into the lore of the world, giving the player actual motivation to do so from a narrative point of view instead of just a "gamey" point of view. Side activities and side missions should enhance the lore of the world and having impact on how the story and your own state in the world plays out. They shouldn't be just content fillers or points on a feature list to make the game more meaty like we see it so often these days. It's like eating a good piece of meat with too much side dishes. If there are too many of them your steak just likely gets cold if you eat too much of them between. If they don't really fit the taste of the steak they likely diminish your overal experience you have with your meal.

Remember, I don't criticize here, I warn. At least that was my initial motivation to start this topic. My biggest wish for Witcher 3 is that not a single percent of the narrative strength and its proper pacing is sacrificed for modern gaming trends and side activities and the open world approach in general.

Here is Tassi's arcticle on Forbes if you're intersted in that. It's also a kind of response to or continuation of Erik Kain's article (also from Forbes) about crafting and stuff like that which was linked on the first page of this thread: http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/12/02/far-cry-4-and-the-problem-of-too-much-to-do/

 

[Senteria]

Personally I really dislike it when I want to craft something, only to find I 'missed' the ingredient due to some choice. It's penalizing me and makes me want to load an old save and do it differently so I get the ingredient. I think choices on crafting should never involve: Kill this thing to get ingredients for a nice sword or armor. I know, TW did this numerous times. I forgive them. I think a crafting system is alright and if done right, you invest a bit more of your time to get a piece of equipment that is better than a store bought one. But finding equipment from a rare/big monster should have something that sets it apart from crafted equipment. On the other hand, what would be the point of a store if they only sell stuff that's worse than what you could find or make? Well the store should sell things that are nice if you want to upgrade your gear in case you don't want to deal with sidequests or any other extracurriculum activities. More like a time saver. Though perhaps selling something for a very steep price so ou will have to save money for it.

 

[dragonbird]

Personally I really dislike it when I want to craft something, only to find I 'missed' the ingredient due to some choice. It's penalizing me and makes me want to load an old save and do it differently so I get the ingredient.

No, going to disagree with you there. It would be bad design if there was a scenario where to get past a certain point you MUST have certain equipment, and you could have missed an ingredient, but as long as there's plenty of equipment choices, and alternative ways of proceeding, I don't think it's a problem if you missed one. That's what multiple playthroughs are for

 

[Senteria]

No, going to disagree with you there. It would be bad design if there was a scenario where to get past a certain point you MUST have certain equipment, and you could have missed an ingredient, but as long as there's plenty of equipment choices, and alternative ways of proceeding, I don't think it's a problem if you missed one. That's what multiple playthroughs are for

Those playthroughs are in my opinion for choices in role playing. Not in loot gathering. It's just poor if you are given the choice to kill this person/creature just for some loot.

Then again, unless it's in a true role playing game where you can choose if you want to be evil or good. Not with a predefined main character like Geralt. I suppose that choice is something the OP is referring to. In MMO's you are focussed on loot gathering. Not so much with games that have the focus on story.

Using mechanics to bait people in playing another playthrough because they missed some loot is just poor imo.

 

[post.80]

Those playthroughs are in my opinion for choices in role playing. Not in loot gathering. It's just poor if you are given the choice to kill this person/creature just for some loot.

Then again, unless it's in a true role playing game where you can choose if you want to be evil or good. Not with a predefined main character like Geralt. I suppose that choice is something the OP is referring to. In MMO's you are focussed on loot gathering. Not so much with games that have the focus on story.

Using mechanics to bait people in playing another playthrough because they missed some loot is just poor imo.

I agree mostly with you, but...
If you have a good memory, that you could remember than how it was well done in the Witcher 2 with quests with trolls.
In act I you could kill a troll, which he dont want to repair a bridge and your award was some orens from people( they wanted to get rid of problem with useless monster-worker) and an equal engredient and trophy, or you could make an investigation and solve a problem in other way without killing anybody.
In act II you have a secound oportunity to posses an equal ingredient from troll and you could kill male troll quareled with his female wife, or you could also make an investigation and end that quest without a fight. Your reward was new friends, and they have helped you during vergen batlle
But if you were a good in exploration, you had a third occasion to gain the ingredent needed to craft. One troll was always hostile to you (in fact without any good reason) and you have to kill him.


Anyway, You had 3 different ways to gain an ingredient to craft, and it was OK to me, and I hope in Wicher 3 will be dane in similiar way.
You could make a "good" choises and you could gain equal ingredient. This is how to eat a cake, and have a cake.

Unfortunately, in Witcher 2 the crafting was annoying to me, becouse of MMO elements like collecting 20 pieces of wood, 100 pieces of (different) metals, 50 leather strips and other materials, which were also needed to make a superior piece of armor. Anyway, theese collectable elements were far too much to me (could be more limited), and made my playstyle became too long without any reason. But if I wanted to make any sets or better sword, I had to collect theese parts of junk. Of course I could buy them from merchents, but it was unprofitable to me, becouse I never had enuogh money. Economy system was really bad to me.
If these materials are really needed for crafting system, should be available only to buy from a blacksmith for lower prices, or better to me, skipped away from the whole game, and I would be really happy. That part of crafting is unnecessary and cost too many time from a player, well, even can disturb in well-written story.

 

[Aes Sídhe]

Well, actually the title says it all.
......
In almost every case this crafting is connected with extreme busy work aka the constant and neverending collection of herbs, metals and animal hides.
.......
I can hardly believe that many people find a crafting and collecting system like that enjoyable in a story-driven SP RPG. There is something fundamentally wrong with your game design if the player is (even forced to be) more concerned with collection pointless junk to make more pointless junk than with following the story and "real" exploration.
.....
Imho the "modern" way of extensive crafting and collecting ingredients is a direct result from MMORPGs. The problem is that they make much more sense in online games. One core element of online games is making yourself "individual".
......
That doesn't mean that crafing has to be cut for good. There are still ways of implementing crafting in a meaningful way. For example there could be really well hidden special pieces you could find in the world or collect from dangerous enemies that you could give to a specialist to craft special items for you. That way crafting and collecting ingredients is meaningful and not something you are kind of forced to do literally all the time.

Finally caught up with this thread and I reckon most of its been covered from all our wide ranging personal gamer PoV's, interesting how we all wish for something slightly different from eachother eh, but let me draw attention to the fact that most peoples perceived downside of crafting in RPGs is the collecting side of things, and the apparent need for a warehouse full of a material to make the smallest item (yes TW2 was guilty of this, and a valid argument could be made that aspect arises from MMO's, though less for individualism and more for the inherent time-sinking & the effort spent -> reward equation).

Tw2 though also had moments like suggested above where a particular item needs brought to a specialist maker (Kayran Trap) so such history assures me the REDs have been considering this sort of thing longer & deeper than most of us. Geralt making armours seems a tad curious but not out of the realms of possibility since armour affects fighting style and no one fights like Witchers so conceivably no one could be trusted to make armour right for them.

I was happy with the system in TW2, like most I sometimes got frustrated collecting but not always, since I would play the game differently each time - something I couldn't do to anywhere near the same degree if things like this were removed - but I certainly don't support this thread titles rather extreme position. I recognise that we don't all play the same or want the same thing from a game like this, sure I don't want the same thing everytime I play myself, RPGs should not be one size fits all and I for one will stand up and applaud the addition of systems others enjoy that don't particularly interest me, because everything like that adds breadth to the gameplay.

There are other issues involved in the professional field of game design that someone without learning or experience in said field should be cautious about criticising or dismissing, I know I'd be careful of making absolutist claims based on my limited knowledge of say aeronautical engineering. But surely we are all aware, for instance, that loot can be used to draw the player to locations, as an occasional alternative to direct quest direction. I know there are various theories of game design, I know they can be mixed & matched, ignored, or replaced by new ideas. Personally I want more of these things in my RPGs, leave the on rails same experience for everyone for the mainstream crowd pleaser games.

Alchemy, pots & la bombas however, absolutely should be the domain of Geralt, and the REDs can make it as complex as they wish as far as I'm concerned. But I'm sure we have had snippets of info regarding crafting now & then from which we can infer they are trying to strike a balance, a balance between the desires of a multitude of different gamers, who are thankfully not all the same, 'cos wouldn't that be effing tedious !

I think there may be a post from GingerEffect somewhere directly on this topic, but the following is a wise pronouncement and an applicable generalisation of the subject that those concerned - at this rather late date - should seriously ponder:

One thing that I can safely take away from my, now 25 years of RPG experience (holy damn, I am old -.-), is that roleplayers are just as varied in their likes and dislikes, preferences and quirks as any other group of people. There are roleplayers who prefer to be handheld through a story, they just want to have an interactive adventure where they choose the outcome in dialogs (I am not even talking CRPG here). There are roleplayers who don't want to make decisions, they just want to follow the DM's lead. There are roleplayers who want to be able to do everything perfectly and there are roleplayers who want to fail and hundreds and hundreds of types more.

So once again, a standardized approach to something like an RPG is, in my humble opinion, not the answer. When it comes to something as intriguing, complex and interwoven as the Witcher, we cannot apply a simple formula and use it at every given moment. Again, as I said before, we aim to create an experience that fits the world, fits the character and fits the community's expectations of The Witcher. To do that, we need to do more than apply a standard set of rules to any given situation we want to portray.

Plus I agree with the following comment and in Blos' analysis of the reductive trend in modern gaming, anyone who doesn't realise the contribution to the genre from Ultima really should check out this short retrospective. It'll add perspective, which is always good to have.

Have to add once again that Ultima is nothing like Skyrim, the Elder Scrolls were based off the Underworlds, not Ultima. They're miles apart.

TL ; DR : I kinda miss the romance cards... not for the reasons you might immediately jump to, rather I appreciate things that aren't like the others

 

[caruga]

I agree with OP.

I think it's a question of striking a balance, of crafting not obsoleting the pre-existing artifacts with backstory, but the game's content not making the crafting pointless either. One way is to make an artifact an ingredient itself, to make a more powerful version of itself.

I think collecting items is a case where the optimal and fun way to play might take separate paths. Ideally, they should be one and the same.

In the case of herbs, I think you could solve this by:
1. Not highlighting them when you touch the medallion or whatever.
2. Creating such an overabundance of them that you have to be looking for a specific flower or somesuch, after having done research on what they look like and where to find them, i.e. you collect with a purpose, not just vacuuming everything off of the map.

OF course another is to simply automate the process, have a button you hold down and he just starts walking to and looting everything within reach, or even teleport the items into your inventory like JRPG's do it. It's not as realistic, but realism isn't the main goal, fun is.

The trouble with being a serial collector of items (or refraining from doing so) is that until you become better acquainted with the game you don't know the real value of things. E.g. in Witcher 2 I hung onto every item I collected in the prologue, which meant trudging around over-encumbered, because I had no idea what use i'd find for it all or whether it'd pay off.

Personally I really dislike item highlighting, as it removes the possibility of overlooking things, and encourages compulsive looting of every object. It's for the same reason I dislike waypoints and such, you spend more time paying attention to them than taking in the details. It's like satellite navigation when driving a car, you don't remember the journey.

*EDIT

That's a different experience to the "generic item crafting" present in e.g. Dragon Age Inquisition in which you can craft tons of items if you found receipes. That takes away from the speciality of epic items. Nobody will talk about those generic weapons. Ever. They are just means to an end. In BG2 instead, epic weapons like Carsomyr or Lilarcor were part of the lore of the world and they even got some cult status with people still speaking about them a decade after the game's release.

This. Crafting risks making even the most 'epic' loot stat-wise seem vanilla.