@Garrison72 hit the nail on the head for me in 4 aspects:
The game has too much repetitive padding. But the open world aspect itsef doesn't hurt the game - it's perfect for an RPG if the world is filled accordingly and not just by copy-pasted ? marks which are those monster dens, bandit camps, smuggler's caches etc.
P.S. When in spring of 2014 I found out that TW3 was in development I was also reading the books then and I needed a world map to better understand the geography of the Witcher universe so I downloaded this one and being so naive I actually thought that you'd get to explore ALL of that. FACEPALM moment. I guess we're like 20-30 years from such a huge open world game if it EVER materialises.
The game has too much repetitive padding. But the open world aspect itsef doesn't hurt the game - it's perfect for an RPG if the world is filled accordingly and not just by copy-pasted ? marks which are those monster dens, bandit camps, smuggler's caches etc.
P.S. When in spring of 2014 I found out that TW3 was in development I was also reading the books then and I needed a world map to better understand the geography of the Witcher universe so I downloaded this one and being so naive I actually thought that you'd get to explore ALL of that. FACEPALM moment. I guess we're like 20-30 years from such a huge open world game if it EVER materialises.
Last edited:
If I truly delved into my thoughts about open worlds, and how TW3 stacks up, I'd probably be in pages and pages deep. The article makes some interesting points, but also some I don't agree with, so I'm just going to give a general thoughts post:
Open Worlds are simply not the place to tell a great story.
Great stories can't just rely on good characters, great plot, intriguing antagonist/s etc, they also need solid pacing, structure & flow. Open Worlds make the former 3 possible, but the latter 3 impossible, or at least it seems impossible as it hasn't yet been achieved.
Open Worlds are however the best place to create engaging, varied, emergent gameplay.
Good gameplay is necessary for every game, but if you want to focus on huge amounts of variety, and offer up a "Sandbox" like gameplay experience, open world is the way to go.
The Witcher 3, being a primarily story driven game, hits the first point hard, and then lacks both the variety and technical prowess to achieve the second (Similar to what the article implies). That said, if you ignore Story/Gameplay it actually pulled off an open world superbly, however all those positive aspects outside of the Story/Gameplay could easily have been dropped into a hub based experience (W1/W2) and still been perfect. So I just honestly don't think The Witcher really gained all that much from going open world, at least not anything significant enough to make it worth what had to be sacrificed. I very much believe the game would have been all-around a superior experience if it had just stuck to the same structure as the previous titles, at least for me personally.
Open Worlds are simply not the place to tell a great story.
Great stories can't just rely on good characters, great plot, intriguing antagonist/s etc, they also need solid pacing, structure & flow. Open Worlds make the former 3 possible, but the latter 3 impossible, or at least it seems impossible as it hasn't yet been achieved.
Open Worlds are however the best place to create engaging, varied, emergent gameplay.
Good gameplay is necessary for every game, but if you want to focus on huge amounts of variety, and offer up a "Sandbox" like gameplay experience, open world is the way to go.
The Witcher 3, being a primarily story driven game, hits the first point hard, and then lacks both the variety and technical prowess to achieve the second (Similar to what the article implies). That said, if you ignore Story/Gameplay it actually pulled off an open world superbly, however all those positive aspects outside of the Story/Gameplay could easily have been dropped into a hub based experience (W1/W2) and still been perfect. So I just honestly don't think The Witcher really gained all that much from going open world, at least not anything significant enough to make it worth what had to be sacrificed. I very much believe the game would have been all-around a superior experience if it had just stuck to the same structure as the previous titles, at least for me personally.
Last edited:
Do you mean Skellge? My experience of skellege was 'oh no not vikings' -> got over it -> then ended on 'was that it'? There's hardly anything to do here.
If you mean the story.. well, i think i had a particular view on it that made it much better than it objectively was.. as far as having a star wars battle tale with a darth vader like villan it completely failed, but i though it was the best expression yet of the next episode in a month of the life of geralt and friends. From just continuing the characters the story was spot on, and even extremely indulgent. Yeah okay its probably a fair assessment if anyone thinks they should have spent those same hours of cutscenes with geralt and friends instead exploring the point of the wild hunt.. See i didn't even care about the wild hunt (there was nothing to care about..)
.... I think there's also some point about the world that perhaps only the graphics nuts see more easily... I reckon there must have been a vast intent when developing cdpr to make the world a point of its own.. Without someone deciding the world itself was special just for the sake of being the world.. theres no way anyone would have spent the manhours exquisitely placing all those rocks/shrubs/trees.. ive been trotting around it just looking around for hours.. its largely flawless.. and handcrafted... Definitely a good point of discussion whether that effort was misplaced or not.. but i certainly appreciated it. Until something better comes out w3 is going to be my screensaver while listening to audiobooks.. its just so good. Oh yeah gameplay, forgot. hehehheheeh.
... They werent thinking about gameplay first, they would have made enemies scale to level then, at least to the extent skyrim did it.
yes but game genre & theme is most important thing in my opinion. Even if you going to make Witcher game in 2050 its not possible for you to add that Geralt is riding on bike rather than horse as its a 2050 & even if they made then its not going to give you that feel which you are expecting from game witcher. As I said earlier I am not against open world or Latest tech but it should be used & developed by keeping that story/theme/genre feel.
Now talk about wither 3 we are in 2015 & game is having vey nice graphics & music but what about UI? is it really up to the mark ? Almost all UI windows are badly designed, Geralt many armor having bad looks as well many other things are not implemented properly so what's the use of latest tech if you are not using it for proper things ??
Its ok that witcher 3 is open world but did you find any quest with puzzle solving ? or you have to do it in certain time ? or any trill during any quest ? Current I am on lvl 25 & due to Ugly baby quest bug I have stop my gameplay but till now I don't play any single quest which surprise me or ask for my intelligence, Its just a plain bandit/monster killing so what's the use of latest tech you tell me ?
Priamry Quest - Find ciri b4 wild hunt, Kill wild Hunt & his allies.
Secondary quests - Find something for someone, Get rid of some monster, Do some favor for someone
Monster Contacts - Take a contact & kill big monster
Treasure Hunt - Fine diagrams by killing bandits / monsters
That's it.. everything is about killing & killing over & over again which is fine but where is the puzzles, mystery, brain kicking, thriller, shocking results, unexpected things, unique gear & many other things which makes game interesting & you don't want to quit the game till you going to solve this things.
Just want to share this - When I started W3 & In white orchard I got mission to talk to NG commander for Yen location but to reach there you have to go through swamps [ I mean its there ] so I was like no I have to be more powerful before going through swaps as I that time I am thinking about W1 swamps which are really horrible but when I reach swamps in W3 hahaha its a joke with some drawners & wolfs. I mean common where are those spiders, flesh eating plants & other horrible creatures living in swamps man ??
Look at this how interesting swamp is in W1 as well that mysterious creepy old character living in swamp....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgzVuwSe4Js
I am talking about this kind of quests... [ check 5:05 for wild hunt reference & his intention in video below
]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NE6NuCfx98A
Last edited:
Does the game gain a lot by going open world? No, not in the places where the series' strengths are, anyway.
Is it better for its popularity? Hell yes. Witcher 2 is as good as HUB-based RPGs get, nobody really cared about it, whereas Witcher 3 is selling like hotcakes.
That said, they did a damn good job going open world - some unfortunate sacrifices had to be made, but it's still an excellent RPG, even if you take the open world out of the picture. So, was it worth the effort? For me personally, no. Looking at the sales? Definitely.
Is it better for its popularity? Hell yes. Witcher 2 is as good as HUB-based RPGs get, nobody really cared about it, whereas Witcher 3 is selling like hotcakes.
That said, they did a damn good job going open world - some unfortunate sacrifices had to be made, but it's still an excellent RPG, even if you take the open world out of the picture. So, was it worth the effort? For me personally, no. Looking at the sales? Definitely.
Game is selling like hotcakes when its new & people really don't know about it. For me yes open word ad really works for witcher 3 sells as I think people expected something new from it.
If you ask player who just completed White Orchard part he is going to give game 9 or 10 out of 10 but who is in velen or skillage not going to give that much points due to the fact of repeated & boring gameplay of many quests. Specially those ? mark quests.
Hell no. Open world is the shit. I love to be able to just walk away and explore. The open world was one of the reasons I got this game.
?????????????????????
1st you are saying "Open world is the shit" & then "The open world was one of the reasons I got this game." so what exactly you want to say open world i good or shit ?
Last edited:
The difference I see is that Witcher 3 is a true "open-world" game. MGSV is in no way an "open-world" game.....It's marketed as such, but it's not true. The maps, whilst some are quite large, there are only set paths you can go....you just can't decide to charge off into the mountains of Afghanistan to get better views etc....there are set roads and paths for each mission which are very small areas designed to channel you to one place or another. It's not open world. The makers state it is open world as you can do one mission, then just wander away to the other side of the map (along pre-defined routes I must add) to other areas....this, to them qualifies as "open-world".
So, what's the difference? As a gamer of both games, The Witcher 3 FEELS like a proper open-world environment and i LIKE IT SO MUCH BETTER than MGSV. Repetition for me only appears in MGSV, and not in Witcher 3.....
TW3 Open world is not too big....what it's done (for me) is ensured that I keep my eye on CDPR for the future, as they've secured my respect and admiration for creating such a game....I won't be going back and buying the other games in the MGS franchise.....
Keep it up CDPR!
So, what's the difference? As a gamer of both games, The Witcher 3 FEELS like a proper open-world environment and i LIKE IT SO MUCH BETTER than MGSV. Repetition for me only appears in MGSV, and not in Witcher 3.....
TW3 Open world is not too big....what it's done (for me) is ensured that I keep my eye on CDPR for the future, as they've secured my respect and admiration for creating such a game....I won't be going back and buying the other games in the MGS franchise.....
Keep it up CDPR!
The phrase "the shit" means its good.
like "this is the shit right here!!" = "this is a prime example of a thing I like!!!"
Last edited:
Scaling open worlds more in line with 1.1 regarding size and content as well as applying logical progression of events would fix many problems with open world designs in RPGs. That means that areas can be large, but that you (if you wish) progress through them in a logical and rewarding way relative to the goals of the characters and that there is more consequence to your characters actions. The more interconnected quests and aspects of the game is the more complexity you can achieve, and thus you no longer need small generic villages and quests to fill the game and story with content. Sure, its a lot of work, but it should result in a superior rpg experience.
Shit = bad
The shit = good.
Google it
---------- Updated at 09:43 AM ----------
Now days? Been like that since the 70's
Well... not a bad read. Though I agree with some, I disagree heavily with other. Simple as that *shrugs*.
Has been so for decades
Yes. I gave it a 9 after I played through all of it. That is the second highest I have ever given to a game.
And... I am a "book elitist" that "complains" all the time ... so yeah...
STALKER mate...
One of the greatest shooters EVER made, but it was also the Crysis of 2001.
You probably dont remember it that well, but it was ... something more in terms of graphics, physics and animation at the time. Only Serious Sam could compare, and only due to scale.
Has been so for decades
Yes. I gave it a 9 after I played through all of it. That is the second highest I have ever given to a game.
And... I am a "book elitist" that "complains" all the time
... so yeah...STALKER mate...
One of the greatest shooters EVER made, but it was also the Crysis of 2001.
You probably dont remember it that well, but it was ... something more in terms of graphics, physics and animation at the time. Only Serious Sam could compare, and only due to scale.
You know that W2 at the start was only PC game and there is still no PS version and W3 is on all 3 platforms and get huge marketing and advertisement boost in USA. So I don't understand your claim about "nobody cared", you just can't compare this 2 games. Also W2 was a huge success for CDPR and sales of it made possible to do marketing for W3.
I've been considering a question similar to this for the past few weeks, and, someday, I may decide to finally post my completed meditations on the subject. However, until that time, I'll simply remark that the open world, while quite impressive and beautiful as an environment in which to pursue adventures, does not, by virtue of its vastness, provide an environment conducive to the forging of a strong, solid, narrative chain. If we liken the quests in this game to the links of a chain, a strong narrative would contain many tightly-bonded rings, each one interlocking with the other. The result would be a story with the strength and tension to pull great weight over a long distance, with the structure for a heavy, and striking climax at its end. However, with the free-roaming exploration, unrelated quests, and potentially random order of events, most links of The Witcher III are only loosely bound, incompletely closed, and thus are easily detached by a stout yank, or a good shake. Some links remain isolated from the main line, and lie scattered about, unconnected, and unused.
The creation of this game was a remarkably ambitious undertaking for CD Projekt RED, and they are to be commended for their valiant efforts in attempting to realise this spectacular vision on so grand a scale. However, the appeal of this series, as we've observed, has never lain in free-wandering adventures, but rather in strong story-telling, with memorable characters, and meaningful decisions. This game was fashioned from a rich lore, and was preceded by two titles with firm narrative chains, where the world was made to suit the action, rather than the action made to suit the world. The story, its intricacies, characters, choices, and consequences were the virtues which attracted many people to the games, and earned CD Projekt an often fiercely loyal following. As a result of their ambitious aspirations, however, we've seen their admirers rage, complain, bewail, and despair in disappointment at the incompleteness of The Wild Hunt's overarching story, and unfulfilling ending. What should have been the driving force of all adventures, became a collection of scattered links, a broken chain, which, while sound in some places, was not strong enough to pull the weight of the world.
The creation of this game was a remarkably ambitious undertaking for CD Projekt RED, and they are to be commended for their valiant efforts in attempting to realise this spectacular vision on so grand a scale. However, the appeal of this series, as we've observed, has never lain in free-wandering adventures, but rather in strong story-telling, with memorable characters, and meaningful decisions. This game was fashioned from a rich lore, and was preceded by two titles with firm narrative chains, where the world was made to suit the action, rather than the action made to suit the world. The story, its intricacies, characters, choices, and consequences were the virtues which attracted many people to the games, and earned CD Projekt an often fiercely loyal following. As a result of their ambitious aspirations, however, we've seen their admirers rage, complain, bewail, and despair in disappointment at the incompleteness of The Wild Hunt's overarching story, and unfulfilling ending. What should have been the driving force of all adventures, became a collection of scattered links, a broken chain, which, while sound in some places, was not strong enough to pull the weight of the world.
Last edited:
I love open worlds, but if its done right linear games can be really awesome. The last of us comes to mind.. And Im pretty sure the new uncharted game will be fun as well. But there's nothing like a really good and big open world.
It's getting out of hand...or it's already completely passed that point.
Skyrim is 50 miles larger than Oblivion!
GTA is 25% than Skyrim!
Witcher is twice the size of...oh, to hell with it.
Wild Hunt is probably the highest quality open world game we've seen ( considering content), but they could have easily scaled down the size of the world by a quarter without losing the "scope" of the game and placed more effort in dealing with technical issues, storyline, combat mechanics, more customization options, rebalancing equipment, UI etc...and the whole game would be far better for it.
Skyrim is 50 miles larger than Oblivion!
GTA is 25% than Skyrim!
Witcher is twice the size of...oh, to hell with it.
Wild Hunt is probably the highest quality open world game we've seen ( considering content), but they could have easily scaled down the size of the world by a quarter without losing the "scope" of the game and placed more effort in dealing with technical issues, storyline, combat mechanics, more customization options, rebalancing equipment, UI etc...and the whole game would be far better for it.