Crime system

[dragoonlordz]

would have* reason: would have contracts to would've would of would contract to would'f which is weird

Should have

could have

I can't think of any more.

...Regardless. At this stage if they are indeed around the 50% mark in development and if they have added such systems it would be very time consuming and unlikely to remove them. If they have not developed such systems yet then would be very time consuming to begin implementing now.

In the end I guess we shall just have to wait and see which route they took but I would be surprised if they stopped doing it when both previous games allowed it.

 

[Demut]

Anyway, arguing against a "crime system" in a game where you "are not supposed to be a thief" is like arguing against being able to kill NPCs in a game where "you are not supposed to be a serial killer".

Oh? And could you give us an example for the latter? Because, you know, in the games I think you might have in mind you are actually not supposed to be anything. Or you’re supposed to be whatever you want. In any event, those are pretty much always not based on predefined characters who were fleshed out in more than half a dozen novels.

 

[username_2064020]

Oh? And could you give us an example for the latter? Because, you know, in the games I think you might have in mind you are actually not supposed to be anything. Or you’re supposed to be whatever you want. In any event, those are pretty much always not based on predefined characters who were fleshed out in more than half a dozen novels.

Not... sure what you are actually asking about, but let's try.
Take as an example a game like Ultima VII: you will hardly ever need (or even be encouraged to) to kill someone in urban areas, and yet there isn't a single NPC you aren't free to attack and eventually kill.
The game doesn't negate you that option, it simply penalizes you for doing it on several degrees.

The same thing happens in Fallout 1 and 2, or Gothic 1 and 2, or Risen, etc.

And let me stop you before you jump on your seat claiming "but in those games you are not a well defined character from the start!".
Yeah, you're not, but that's hardly relevant. They don't give you the option because you are supposed to do something and they even punish you for doing it.
These games simply give the option because they respect the player desire to interact with the world in a believable way, even if that means to do extremely wrong and -in extreme cases- screw your whole chances to succeed.
And keep in mind we aren't talking about the TES franchise, where you are encouraged to play as a characterless psychotic with virtually no downsides; those are games that in most cases offer plenty of consequences for your actions.

 

[Demut]

Yeah, you're not, but that's hardly relevant.

No no no, it is relevant. It’s the crux of the matter. You yourself said it: In these games “[t]hey don't give you the option because you are supposed to do something”. Exactly! Whereas in the Witcher you are supposed to behave in a certain way (or, conversely, not supposed to). Thus, giving you the option is pointless. Why enable goofy, lore-defying behavior?

 

[ReptilePZ]

And let me stop you before you jump on your seat claiming "but in those games you are not a well defined character from the start!".
Yeah, you're not, but that's hardly relevant.

Let me stop you before you jump on your seat claiming "But player freedom is more important"

Yeah, it's important, but in this franchise it's not important enough to sacrifice the main character's already established morality just so a guy can steal 5 gold, because it's a series built on story and strong characters, not the ability to do anything and everything in the world.

This game is neither Gothic nor Ultima. Your desire to sacrifice Geralt's personality for some more world reactivity is equivalent to me wanting those games to be more restricted so that they can support a more structured storyline, because that's what I believe makes a better game. But I'd be wrong t do that, because those are different kind of games that are all about player freedom and world reactivity, unlike The Witcher.

What *you* find important, is not what *everyone* finds important.

 

[username_2064020]

Let me stop you before you jump on your seat claiming "But player freedom is more important"

Because it is.

 

[ReptilePZ]

Because it is.

I could say the same about the main's character personality being more important than player freedom.

Saying "because it is" does not make it fact.

 

[username_2064020]

No no no, it is relevant. It’s the crux of the matter. You yourself said it: In these games “[t]hey don't give you the option because you are supposed to do something”. Exactly! Whereas in the Witcher you are supposed to behave in a certain way (or, conversely, not supposed to). Thus, giving you the option is pointless. Why enable goofy, lore-defying behavior?

Well no, you are completely wrong, I meant the exact opposite of what you are understanding of it.
When I said "they don't give you the option because you are supposed to that" it didn't mean "You are supposed to do whatever you want", it meant "You are supposed to act in some way but the game let you screw things gloriously because that's what makes "getting things right" more rewarding.

In Ultima VII you aren't supposed to do whatever you want and act whatever you like. You are supposed to be a model of good behavior, the incarnation of Virtues.
You are encouraged to be a positive figure even more than Geralt will ever be.
The game punishes you greatly for compulsive stealing or gratuitous murder... But it doesn't deny you the option to commit these acts because that's what makes the choice interesting. Not being denied any option from the start.

I could say the same about the main's character personality being more important than player freedom.

Yeah, but you would be wrong and you would became my sworn enemy that I would fight fiercely until death, in my glorious crusade to put gaming back in the hands of people who actually like to play games, instead of watching them or go through them passively.

 

[ReptilePZ]

Yeah, but you would be wrong and you would became my sworn enemy that I would fight fiercely until death, in my glorious crusade to put gaming back in the hands of people who actually like to play games, instead of watching them or go through them passively.

Who are you to tell people how they're supposed to play games?

I don't really care about being your enemy/friend/w/e. But let me tell you something. The Witcher started out as a franchise that was carried by 3 things: its atmosphere, story and characters. Those are the franchise's strengths. Any world reactivity put in is there to enhance the atmosphere of the game, not to let the player do what they want.

Another thing, there are many games on the market. The Witcher is just one of them. I enjoy playing games like The Witcher, because they focus on story and characters. It is my personal preferene and is something that the franchise has provided me with so far. Clearly, you want something entirely different, so perhaps this is not the franchise for you. Good thing is, the game market is pretty big, and there are many games that would like to focus on the things you find important. The Witcher never strived to be the game with most player freedom or world reactivity. It is not the game that you should be focusing on shaping according to your ideals.

I think we have enough Skyrims, Two Worlds, Divinities etc. that are less restricted in terms of main character and story that could use your advice. But I don't believe The Witcher needs to follow those games' philosophy, instead, it should try and improve on its own strong sides. And that does not include sacrificing the personality of its own main character in the final part of the game, where he actually has regained all of his memory and is supposed to be more like the Geralt from the books than he ever was in the previous games.

 

[Demut]

Oh boy, here we go with the hyperboles again. Just because you’re not able to do everything that you are able to do in real life that doesn’t mean you’re “watching a game” rather than playing it, Tuco. Exaggerate much? Besides, do you really not see how silly this argument is? In the same way I could bemoan that we weren’t able to set people’s houses on fire. Woe is me, for only by being able to do so NOT razing villages to the ground becomes virtuous. Or kicking puppies. That, too, should be an option, right ?

 

[username_2064020]

But let me tell you something. The Witcher started out as a franchise that was carried by 3 things: its atmosphere, story and characters.

And I'm not asking to give up on ANY of these things, so I don't see the issue.
Beside, what defined the franchise so far is also some average-to-terrible gameplay and severely limited interaction.
There's no harm in wishing for improvements in this sense.

I think we have enough Skyrims, Two Worlds, Divinities etc

It's funny how you keep mentioning games I don't even like, pretending that's what I'm asking The Witcher franchise to become. Well, it's not.

-

Well, as we are talking about silly arguments, what about to stop acting as if I was asking something impossible to achieve, then, when plenty of older games did exactly what I'm suggesting?
Just because standards in game design lowered a lot in the past years, with player agency often taking the backseat to presentation, that doesn't mean things couldn't (or should't) improve at some point.

 

[ReptilePZ]

And I'm not asking to give up on ANY of these things, so I don't see the issue.
Beside, what defined the franchise so far is also some average-to-terrible gameplay and severely limited interaction.
There's no harm in wishing for improvements in this sense.

That what defines the franchise for you, not for me. Nothing wrong in asking for improvements, as long as they don't sacrifice any of the strong points of the game.

A predefined main character with a strong personality is a strong point. Letting the player do whatever they want with that character, even if it goes against said character's morals is not something that is needed.

Also, please understand that I understand and respect your ideas and frustrations with some modern open world games, but The Witcher is different from those, the same ideas don't always work very well with it.

And I think I'm going to leave it at that, I think I've said more than enough on this topic.

 

[Demut]

Where did I suggest that this is a thing of impossibility? I’m all for “improving” games in that area ... unless there are reasons such as the lore the game is based on for avoiding that. Think of another example: The Lord of the Rings games. Would you want to have the option to butcher other hobbits when playing as Frodo? Do you really think that this would add to the game?
I don’t think I can make the ridiculousness of this reasoning any clearer than that. If you really don’t see it by now it can’t be helped, I’m afraid.

 

[Scryar]

Are there any new information how stealing will work in Witcher 3? One of the most importants things for me in a rpg is the atmosphere and immersion and it was atmosphere/immersion hurting in witcher 1/2 that we could just walk into a house and steal all of the stuff inside of it, without any consequences.
I hope this time this won't be possible. If we steal something in front of the person who owns it, there should be some kind of reaction. I would like if they call for the guards and they either kill us with their crossbows in a cutscene or put us into a prison.

 

[RedFire01]

Are there any new information how stealing will work in Witcher 3? One of the most importants things for me in a rpg is the atmosphere and immersion and it was atmosphere/immersion hurting in witcher 1/2 that we could just walk into a house and steal all of the stuff inside of it, without any consequences.
I hope this time this won't be possible. If we steal something in front of the person who owns it, there should be some kind of reaction. I would like if they call for the guards and they either kill us with their crossbows in a cutscene or put us into a prison.

...Or they could just not put loot in people's houses. That would solve all of these issues.

 

[wichat]

In RPGs I suffer of an acute Diogenes syndrome... The less they allow me to loot the best for my inventory order

 

[Ray76.64]

Because it is.

But it's not. :comeatmebro:

 

[BlackWolf500.298]

...Or they could just not put loot in people's houses. That would solve all of these issues.

Well they could really make the people react (in all kinds of ways, everyone reacts differently) so Geralt would have to go into a house at night or when it's empty to steal.

On the other hand, how do you get the orens then? You'd have to give Geralt more Orens for quests then or find a regular income for him (side activities like saving people from monsters or nilfgaardian soldiers or finding the orens somewhere (but where?)).

You need a certain income for Geralt to make him afford the scrolls, books and ingredients as well as the armor and weapons he needs.