Witcher 3 might be getting a storage chest!

+
Dunno why they didn't include a storage option in the first place. Witcher 1 has storage that can be accessed from every inn, and inventory can be assorted, and every book or note you've read is marked as "you have already read this", so I can easily sort out my current inventory to avoid clutter. I find it very considerate.
 
Dunno why they didn't include a storage option in the first place. Witcher 1 has storage that can be accessed from every inn, and inventory can be assorted, and every book or note you've read is marked as "you have already read this", so I can easily sort out my current inventory to avoid clutter. I find it very considerate.

I guess they thought the upgradable inventory would be enough... not they only thing they didn't really think through. ;)
 
I guess they thought the upgradable inventory would be enough... not they only thing they didn't really think through. ;)

You it never dawned on them that people wouldn't understand that simple concept. I guess they over estimated the comprehension of many players to know that you don't need to store all this junk and you can easily upgrade or remake it at little to no cost if you really wanted it.

---------- Updated at 02:54 PM ----------

You do realise we're talking about a game, yes? Anyone who hordes stuff in games usually does so through past experience of having not held onto stuff in previous games, only to discover they'd missed out on something pretty damn cool that they could've had otherwise.

But its not necessary in this game. The ONLY repeat ONLY thing you can't buy and must keep are monster parts. Everything else can be bought or made. I know this is a new concept but it really is easy once you accept it.

Now the icing on the cake would be that it's a DLC and costs $5. LOL Horse armor anyone?
 
Last edited:
I guess they thought the upgradable inventory would be enough... not they only thing they didn't really think through. ;)

I think they thought making all ingredients extremely light would suffice.
Which is not only a kick in the face of realism, but it doesn't actually help either.
The storage option is much nicer.

---------- Updated at 04:10 PM ----------

But its not necessary in this game. The ONLY repeat ONLY thing you can't buy and must keep are monster parts. Everything else can be bought or made. I know this is a new concept but it really is easy once you accept it.

Now the icing on the cake would be that it's a DLC and costs $5. LOL Horse armor anyone?

Nonsense, that's not an argument. Tossing away armors and swords just to possibly reforge them /rebuy them later is outright demential, if they have the possibility of storing them somewhere. You can argue Gerald would not hoard, and generally not care about such things, but then it makes your opening argument itself moot, as he would never bother to rebuy/forge stuff either.

Plus, if we're going for lore/character realism, the idea itself of new armor, weapons with better stats is stupid in itself. G would just stick to his KM armor and initial swords. But since this is a Rpg, and those options are included, a storage mechanism should too, and those are not legit argument.
Lore/char realism cannot apply in a limited case only.
 
Last edited:
The fact that storage it was in 1 & 2 and is a common feature in most modern RPGs* points very heavily to the absence of storage being an intentional design choice. Why? Well, it doesn't really matter; I would suppose it has something to do with adding another layer of strategy, choice and consequence to the gameplay but that's neither here nor there. If it is the case though I think it's a shame that it looks like are going to cave here.

Yeah, storage will come in, people who want to horde can horde and people who want to play the game as the designers intended can ignore it. I just hope it's bundled up with quest DLC entitled "Have your cake and eat it.".

* As if we somehow want The Witcher 3 to be doing things that every other, lowest common denominator RPG has, eh?
 
The fact that storage it was in 1 & 2 and is a common feature in most modern RPGs* points very heavily to the absence of storage being an intentional design choice. Why? Well, it doesn't really matter; I would suppose it has something to do with adding another layer of strategy, choice and consequence to the gameplay but that's neither here nor there. If it is the case though I think it's a shame that it looks like are going to cave here.

Yeah, storage will come in, people who want to horde can horde and people who want to play the game as the designers intended can ignore it. I just hope it's bundled up with quest DLC entitled "Have your cake and eat it.".

* As if we somehow want The Witcher 3 to be doing things that every other, lowest common denominator RPG has, eh?

If said things make sense, yea... besides, CDPR has lost quite a few "rebel-points" with TW3 already... the missing storage and the bare bones alchemy system don't really make them "non-mainstream" now.

If it was deliberately taken out to be put in as free DLC later, however... yea, no comment on that.
 
Since we're talking about future DLC here, does anyone know something about a possible upcoming second beard and hairstyle DLC? Maybe someone of you found something in the game files. According to this unofficial list http://f-picture.net/lfp/s017.radikal.ru/i443/1506/53/8114731c53b8t.jpg/htm there's another one coming. Can anyone support that claim? I'm dying to get a full ponytail hairstyle like in TW2

Since that list started to fail last week, I wouldn't bet on it yet.
 
Since we're talking about future DLC here, does anyone know something about a possible upcoming second beard and hairstyle DLC? Maybe someone of you found something in the game files. According to this unofficial list http://f-picture.net/lfp/s017.radikal.ru/i443/1506/53/8114731c53b8t.jpg/htm there's another one coming. Can anyone support that claim? I'm dying to get a full ponytail hairstyle like in TW2
The only one I know with some certainty is Ciri's alternate appearance. So that means 5 dlc left. A good rule of thumb is at least 2 of them being quests.
So that'd leave 3. Maybe a Viper school set, since it's the only one with weapons only in the game atm.
So those 2... who knows.
 
The only one I know with some certainty is Ciri's alternate appearance. So that means 5 dlc left. A good rule of thumb is at least 2 of them being quests.
So that'd leave 3. Maybe a Viper school set, since it's the only one with weapons only in the game atm.
So those 2... who knows.

One could very well be the New Game+ option (probably the last one), so that leaves one... next week will be interesting. ;)
 
Nonsense, that's not an argument. Tossing away armors and swords just to possibly reforge them /rebuy them later is outright demential, if they have the possibility of storing them somewhere. You can argue Gerald would not hoard, and generally not care about such things, but then it makes your opening argument itself moot, as he would never bother to rebuy/forge stuff either.

Geralt (NOT Gerald, or does your game have your moniker?) is not a hoarder. He would not keep the other swords or armors. He would use a better one when it came along (in the books he went with a better sword) but that is it. Now if he did decide to switch from fast swords to signs he would be forced to reforge his armor. But he would keep it laying around. He would simply have it made for him. The old stuff he would sell to pay for the new stuff.

Why in the world would Geralt keep an outdated rusty old sword? That is the real nonsense. So the books prove you wrong. Geralt is not a hoarder but has remade swords that he lost and even changed swords to a better one.

For my Geralt I'm going to make the Wolf gear and just use that.
 
I knew you would use that very argument. You're just so predictable with all the strawmen, forced out of context examples and duplicitous stubborness.
 
Don't need it as much tbh. Most heavy items are gear loot that I sell because none of them are stronger than my current witcher gear so there's no point in storing what I won't use
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • scarecrow.jpg
    scarecrow.jpg
    8 KB · Views: 40
It's not Geralt who plays the game, its the player.

Indeed, and rationalizing the existence of certain story choices in the game, that the "book Geralt" would never take, but arguing against things like item storage, because it isn't befitting his personality either, is a bit inconsistent.

Players like choice, whether it be the option to hoard items or ie. leave Yennefer for Triss. TW3 is, first and foremost a game.
 
Indeed, and rationalizing the existence of certain story choices in the game, that the "book Geralt" would never take, but arguing against things like item storage, because it isn't befitting his personality either, is a bit inconsistent.

Players like choice, whether it be the option to hoard items or ie. leave Yennefer for Triss. TW3 is, first and foremost a game.

Even from that angle, of WWGD (in the books) as I said, the rpgish gameish mechanic of ditching armour + weapons possibly a dozen times (if not more) doesn't fly.
First off, the swords and armors would not have such differences in "stats".
Geralt would not even wear medium or heavy armor at all!
And his Witcher sword would be fine as is to bring the story to conclusion, no matter if at one point in a book he tossed a rusty sword away in favour of a better one (?).
No Goodmongo, in the books witchers don't start out with swords worse than a random bandit's.

This argument is especially nonsensical since the first two games did have a chest storage system.
 
IMHO a storage chest isn't necessary, we just need some tweaking to the current mechanics:
1) greater capacity to the saddlebags.
2) worn equipment should weigh less than if carried or nothing at all.
Anyway I'm not contrary to a storage chest if it's introduced.

But it's also and outright necessary a complete overhaul of the inventory because it's a mess.
 
Top Bottom