Concerns about too many distractions from main storyline

[Garrison72]

Since markers and any help of that kind can be turned off, i don't see the fuss. I do not agree with the idea of "It shouldn't even exist". The person next to you might want to play with markers on, why should anyone forbid him to do that?

I was mistaken about the markers, I thought they were a separate thing from the questions marks, but it's almost certain they're the same - a specific symbol replaces the question mark once you have discovered it. I fully support having the option to disable of course. Some people will just want to cruise through that stuff and tick off the numbers. Whether it amounts to filler or not remains to be seen, but with the devs saying the main story alone is 50 hours, I suppose that's not likely. I didn't mean to start a fuss over this.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Let me get this straight - do you want for there to not even be an option to turn icons on? A feature that absolutely does not affect your personal experience, since you can toggle it off and ignore its existence? Something that others might enjoy? The mere existence of this option, for others, bothers you?

Yes, indeed and that probably doesn't come as a suprise for you, does it?

Different to you I think game design isn't something that consists of a whole lot of seperate parts that just work together. To me game design begins at the core as a whole package and everything you decide has influences on the other parts.

So I ask you a question in return: how do you think is the whole world and all of its content and narrrative bits and such designed? Which map do the developers have in mind? Which is the "default" map or world on which the rest of the game is built upon? Is it the "empty" map without icons? Or is it the "full" maps with everything indicated for the player?

Well, I don't have the answer since I'm not a developer but my personal guess is that it's the latter one. The whole game is very likely designed with the thought in mind that the players can always just go to the map and look for advice and look what to do next and look where to find stuff they need. It's not designed with the though in mind that players must be given different, absolutely sufficient means to everything withou even opening the map or without even activating one of the icons on it. Writing, quest design and world design would have to take that into account. Will it be that way? Maybe, but I fear not, simply because it's much easier and faster to design a game the other way, with hand holding in mind. And in that case you can just very easily say: "Hey, playing the game without icons is just for the old-school crowd, for the ones who want a real hardcore experience, being much harder with a lot of included backtracking and trial&error and such. I mean, if they want an easier experience they can always turn helping stuff on." In that scenario having icons on your map (besides other hand holding features) is the DEFAULT way to play the game (like e.g. normal difficulty is often the "default" way of playing a game) with every other option being just for some individuals but without really catering the game to them.

That's why I don't want too many options in game. Options often just give the illusion that a game is for everyone while it is in fact not. It's made for a specific audience with options to be attractive for even more people but without really (fully) catering to their wishes. That's basically what mainstream games are all about. The game I want to play is one that is made with ONE vision in mind, with ONE core audience in mind and with ONE clear design language. Turning off icons on the map is surely not the solution I'm looking for.

---------- Updated at 06:48 PM ----------

Since markers and any help of that kind can be turned off, i don't see the fuss. I do not agree with the idea of "It shouldn't even exist". The person next to you might want to play with markers on, why should anyone forbid him to do that?

Read above.

 

[Giovanni1983]

Yes, indeed and that probably doesn't come as a suprise for you, does it?

Different to you I think game design isn't something that consists of a whole lot of seperate parts that just work together. To me game design begins at the core as a whole package and everything you decide has influences on the other parts.

So I ask you a question in return: how do you think is the whole world and all of its content and narrrative bits and such designed? Which map do the developers have in mind? Which is the "default" map or world on which the rest of the game is built upon? Is it the "empty" map without icons? Or is it the "full" maps with everything indicated for the player?

Well, I don't have the answer since I'm not a developer but my personal guess is that it's the latter one. The whole game is very likely designed with the thought in mind that the players can always just go to the map and look for advice and look what to do next and look where to find stuff they need. It's not designed with the though in mind that players must be given different, absolutely sufficient means to everything withou even opening the map or without even activating one of the icons on it. Writing, quest design and world design would have to take that into account. Will it be that way? Maybe, but I fear not, simply because it's much easier and faster to design a game the other way, with hand holding in mind. And in that case you can just very easily say: "Hey, playing the game without icons is just for the old-school crowd, for the ones who want a real hardcore experience, being much harder with a lot of included backtracking and trial&error and such. I mean, if they want an easier experience they can always turn helping stuff on." In that scenario having icons on your map (besides other hand holding features) is the DEFAULT way to play the game (like e.g. normal difficulty is often the "default" way of playing a game) with every other option being just for some individuals but without really catering the game to them.

That's why I don't want too many options in game. Options often just give the illusion that a game is for everyone while it is in fact not. It's made for a specific audience with options to be attractive for even more people but without really (fully) catering to their wishes. That's basically what mainstream games are all about. The game I want to play is one that is made with ONE vision in mind, with ONE core audience in mind and with ONE clear design language. Turning off icons on the map is surely not the solution I'm looking for.

---------- Updated at 06:48 PM ----------


Read above.

I don't disagree that most companies want to cater for as big an audience as possible. That's a normal tactic for a developer to follow since making a game with one vision as you say, can easily alienate a huge amount of gamers out there, which is never good.

The whole game is very likely designed with...

As much as i would love a game with just a plain map without any kind of markers or help, i just can't judge how the map in the game was made based on speculation. I will know when i get my hands on it and i will be happy if i can just turn them off. For me personally that is enough since the devs do at least provide this option.

 

[EliHarel]

@Scholdarr.452 I agree with a lot of that in theory. And I also hope that the game will offer you enough to go by in order to navigate without the icons turned on. Whether through the conversation, journal entries or in-game books. Otherwise turning icons off doesn't result in much beyond aimless wandering with the hope of stumbling upon something by chance.

Thing is, you're still doing a big logical leap here that the core design doesn't have that in mind, just based on the option to toggle on icons. And here's a confession: My gut tells me that it'll be, sadly, difficult to navigate without icons and that this might be neglected. But I don't yet presume that this is the case, based solely on the option to toggle icons on or off.

Considering players who want more challenge in navigation can still have it thanks to other information the game gives you in more natural means, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with offering the option for others to turn the icons on and broadening the game's audience.

Edit: I realize there's a chance that in two months your concerns will be proven right, and you'll be able to tell me that the signs were there and I refused to see them due to dodgy dislike of speculation. I still rather not speculate. If just because there's no point.

 

[Sardukhar]

Yes, indeed and that probably doesn't come as a suprise for you, does it?The game I want to play is one that is made with ONE vision in mind, with ONE core audience in mind and with ONE clear design language. Turning off icons on the map is surely not the solution I'm looking for.

Oh, I think CDPR would agree. They are making a game, using their vision with a core audience of Role-Players in mind, ( their definition, not yours) and the CDPR design language they've chosen.

I'd say Witcher 1 and 2 and no doubt three reflect this vision, being strongly flavoured and very particular.

Perhaps you've just parted ways with CDPR's vision. In fact, it does seem that way. Can you let go and turn away if that's the case?

From a freedom of play standpoint, from a growth standpoint, more options are better. That's growth. I'm happy to not still be playing Bard's Tale. For every new set of choices and game variables, someone comes out to decry them. Text to 8 bit graphics, 8 bit to isometrics, isometrics to everything else, there have always been people who preferred yesterday.

But great games come from innovation and lead the way to other great games. And great games try to expand what you can do in the genre.

 

[OliverDK]

And in your map the icons are just disabled. Point is they shouldn't be there in the first place.

IIRC a RED has already stated everything on the map can be disabled in the option menu. So before you start the game disable anything regarding this issue. Isn't the problem solved then? You won't ever see anything on the map before you have actually stumbled upon it by yourself.

Edit: I see I was late to the party!

Whether there is in fact collectibles is whole other matter. I really hope CDPR don't pull a UBISOFT under our noses and haven put that menace in the game.

 

[Vigilance.492]

Whether there is in fact collectibles is whole other matter. I really hope CDPR don't pull a UBISOFT under our noses and haven put that menace in the game.

Loot chests and whatnot were always going to be a given, it's just how much which becomes the major issue.

Looking at the map in the recent trailer doesn't inspire confidence, as especially on the ocean there appears to be a lot of collectible crap. Hopefully within the scale of the world it's actually not that bad, but I can't say I'm overly confident right now.

As for POI's and proper Side-Quests though, I'm not concerned about those as distractions from the main story at all. Not only should they be really enjoyable if they are as quality as we're expecting, but I'm sure the story will be sufficiently gripping enough to keep people from straying away for too long, unless you're a really big explorer.

 

[jaguarsmiles]

Dragon age inquisition collectibles were fun to get because of lore and seeing them displayed in skyhold. Collectibles that add nothing bites.

 

[Cirivia]

Since when is having options a bad thing? They provide exactly what the word says, options- they're optional. Just because the game has a bunch of options doesn't mean it's trying to appeal to a larger audience. Some people like going around and collecting chests in Assassin's Creed and some like doing side missions. Having that option to toggle on and off those icons on the map allow the player to focus on what it is they want to do. Does it break immersion? Well, that's up to the player to decide.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Oh, I think CDPR would agree. They are making a game, using their vision with a core audience of Role-Players in mind, ( their definition, not yours) and the CDPR design language they've chosen.

It seems so, yes. You see, my problem isn't that I'm maybe not among their core audience. The problem is that others seem to think by just disabling some icons I magically BE among the core audience...

Perhaps you've just parted ways with CDPR's vision. In fact, it does seem that way. Can you let go and turn away if that's the case?

Why is always anything black and white? I criticize one aspect of the game or even many, yes. That doesn't mean that the game is the worst game ever. I just talk about the things I don't like and from which I fear that they will reduce the fun I'll probably have with the game. At the same time there are aspects I'm looking forward to so there is no reason "to turn away". I don't see why I always have to agree with everything CDPR does. I'm not their enemy. I just don't like some of their decisions for this game, while I higly agree with other decisions. This seems actually pretty natural to me and everyone who acts like everything CDPR does is 100% great looks rather suspicious to me (in order to avoid a certain word that isn't allowed here as I've learnt the hard way...)

From a freedom of play standpoint, from a growth standpoint, more options are better. That's growth. I'm happy to not still be playing Bard's Tale. For every new set of choices and game variables, someone comes out to decry them. Text to 8 bit graphics, 8 bit to isometrics, isometrics to everything else, there have always been people who preferred yesterday.

You mix two things up. More options or more freedom and "evolution" are two different things. I spoke about options in my last point and I still stand to the points I've raised there. Evolution on the other side is a tricky thing. I do think evolution exists in video game design. It obviously exists in mere technical aspects but technical evolutions can also enhance game design (like having seamless levels, more objects on screen, better AI and such things). I'm not against anything of that. But I indeed think that not everything that was made 5, 10 or 15 years ago is bad just because it's "old". There is an Italian restaurant down my street with probably the best pizza in town. The recipe of the pizza is dozens of years old, a family secret. It's better than anything somebody else invented in the meantime (at least that's what most people think in my town). It's old, but it's not bad because it's old. It worked in 1950 and it works now. It's just good. The same is true for some things in game design. Some elements of video game design are just good an there is no reason to change them. In most cases - if the design in such cases is changed - it's not a question of evolution or making something "better", it's just about addressing different customer and tastes. It's like the Italian down the street sells burgers instead of pizza, not because burger are better but because he can think he can sell more burger than pizza in this very town. You see the difference? That's not evolution, that's just a different design made for different people. And you can be sure that not everyone is happy with that, especially not those who prefer pizza. It's actually quite disrespectful to call them and their favorite food old and aniquated just because the majority likes burgers now...

But great games come from innovation and lead the way to other great games. And great games try to expand what you can do in the genre.

I disagree. Innovation is an overused and often over-interpreted term in video games. Actually - besides near technical progress - there wasn't much innovation in the world of video game design in the past 10 or 15 years. Today's great games built on the innovations of yesterday and indeed enhancing their formula or just "making it better". A current trend in gaming is to just mixing up different elements of different genres, but that's hardly innovation. It's indeed a very easy way to avoid innovation: just trying to maximize appeal, not in quality but in quantity. That's the way the current mainstream gaming market is working. You want to make an action game? Don't forget that RPG fans could like that as well so include RPG elements. You want to make an RPG? Don't forget that action fans could like that as well so include action elements. That's of course just an example. The problem with this approach is that games begin to lose focus. Games begin to lose their special appeal. They become more and more generic, all made with the same elements of the same formula (like e.g. "open world" or "maps with icons for everything you can find in a world"). Games want to appeal to as many people as possible while losing some of their initial charme. You might call that a economical necessirty after a certain financial investment and I can hardly disagree. But it's a development I don't like and I can't support from a gamer's perspective.

The big game I want to play is a game that is made again for one core audience - a game that doesn't give a damn about everyone outside of that audience. TW3 isn't that game - that's sure enough. Shame though...

---------- Updated at 07:57 PM ----------

@Scholdarr.452 I agree with a lot of that in theory. And I also hope that the game will offer you enough to go by in order to navigate without the icons turned on. Whether through the conversation, journal entries or in-game books. Otherwise turning icons off doesn't result in much beyond aimless wandering with the hope of stumbling upon something by chance.

Thing is, you're still doing a big logical leap here that the core design doesn't have that in mind, just based on the option to toggle on icons. And here's a confession: My gut tells me that it'll be, sadly, difficult to navigate without icons and that this might be neglected. But I don't yet presume that this is the case, based solely on the option to toggle icons on or off.

Considering players who want more challenge in navigation can still have it thanks to other information the game gives you in more natural means, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with offering the option for others to turn the icons on and broadening the game's audience.

Edit: I realize there's a chance that in two months your concerns will be proven right, and you'll be able to tell me that the signs were there and I refused to see them due to dodgy dislike of speculation. I still rather not speculate. If just because there's no point.

Isn't the whole point of this forum to speculate about things at this point in developement? I guess nobody of us here played the game so far. So we can either be silent and wait til release or we talk about our thoughts, fears and opinions about what the game could be.

 

[Rudoli]

Yes, indeed and that probably doesn't come as a suprise for you, does it?

Different to you I think game design isn't something that consists of a whole lot of seperate parts that just work together. To me game design begins at the core as a whole package and everything you decide has influences on the other parts.

So I ask you a question in return: how do you think is the whole world and all of its content and narrrative bits and such designed? Which map do the developers have in mind? Which is the "default" map or world on which the rest of the game is built upon? Is it the "empty" map without icons? Or is it the "full" maps with everything indicated for the player?

Well, I don't have the answer since I'm not a developer but my personal guess is that it's the latter one. The whole game is very likely designed with the thought in mind that the players can always just go to the map and look for advice and look what to do next and look where to find stuff they need. It's not designed with the though in mind that players must be given different, absolutely sufficient means to everything withou even opening the map or without even activating one of the icons on it. Writing, quest design and world design would have to take that into account. Will it be that way? Maybe, but I fear not, simply because it's much easier and faster to design a game the other way, with hand holding in mind. And in that case you can just very easily say: "Hey, playing the game without icons is just for the old-school crowd, for the ones who want a real hardcore experience, being much harder with a lot of included backtracking and trial&error and such. I mean, if they want an easier experience they can always turn helping stuff on." In that scenario having icons on your map (besides other hand holding features) is the DEFAULT way to play the game (like e.g. normal difficulty is often the "default" way of playing a game) with every other option being just for some individuals but without really catering the game to them.

That's why I don't want too many options in game. Options often just give the illusion that a game is for everyone while it is in fact not. It's made for a specific audience with options to be attractive for even more people but without really (fully) catering to their wishes. That's basically what mainstream games are all about. The game I want to play is one that is made with ONE vision in mind, with ONE core audience in mind and with ONE clear design language. Turning off icons on the map is surely not the solution I'm looking for.

---------- Updated at 06:48 PM ----------


Read above.

And I ask you this, how do you know all of that is useless fluff? I mean if you compare it to Ubisoft or Bethesda where most of the side quests where a boring after thought and where Witcher 3 has (hopefully) much better side quests, unique locations but also a bit of collectibles thrown in will you consider it also bad open world fluff? Look at that map again, the only things that looks like it could be fluff are those chests and barrels, but the rest look like it could be more than just fluff.

So far there was no mention that that there would be boring side activities in the Witcher 3, so I really don't understand how you can compare it to Ubisoft with their boring side activities(tower and outposts).

Also no icons on the map doesn't sound good to me, if you have a open world the size of the Witcher 3 you can't honestly expect the player to remember where all the caves are or unique points of interest or to go back and read their journal to find the directions again. A system like that works with smaller open worlds, like the one you posted, but will get frustrating in an open world like this. However I agree with you in theory about the fact that a player can just turn it on and find exactly where they need to go in order to to complete the quest, I dearly hope that's not the case here, there still needs to be some thought or effort coming from the player to find things and figure stuff out. I just don't see how you can be so sure of it just looking at that map alone

 

[Scholdarr.452]

And I ask you this, how do you know all of that is useless fluff?

I don't think that.

I mean if you compare it to Ubisoft or Bethesda where most of the side quests where a boring after thought and where Witcher 3 has (hopefully) much better side quests, unique locations but also a bit of collectibles thrown in will you consider it also bad open world fluff?

I don't think it will be on the same level with Ubisoft's latest title, not at all. But I do think that too much openness and too much side content will do the game more harm than good (or at least my personal fun with it). Of course good side content is almost better than bad content, that's sure. But look at the map again. I can clearly see for example three hidden treasures in the small part of the ocean on the left. Now just think about how much of that stuff is spread over the huge world...

Look at that map again, the only things that looks like it could be fluff are those chests and barrels, but the rest look like it could be more than just fluff.

I agree. But it's not just about "fluff" for me, at least not if you use the word as a substitute for "collectibles and pointless content". For me, too much side content and too little guidance for a narrative-driven game is bad in general. Too much distraction (no matter if good or bad) let you lose focus and too little focus let you lose interest sooner or later (if there is a lot of good content it's probably more later). That's what happened to me many times before. It would be a real shame if that happened again with TW3...

So far there was no mention that that there would be boring side activities in the Witcher 3, so I really don't understand how you can compare it to Ubisoft with their boring side activities(tower and outposts).

I did compare TW3's side activities with those of Ubisoft games? Wow, I wasn't aware of that. But honestly, I didn't do that. I only compared the MAP DESIGN and the world and game design that is connected if you have such a map or possibly work on basis of such a map. That's a completely different topic and has nothing to do with boring side activities. So I think there might be a slight misunderstanding here...

Also no icons on the map doesn't sound good to me, if you have a open world the size of the Witcher 3 you can't honestly expect the player to remember where all the caves are or unique points of interest or to go back and read their journal to find the directions again. A system like that works with smaller open worlds, like the one you posted, but will get frustrating in an open world like this. However I agree with you in theory about the fact that a player can just turn it on and find exactly where they need to go in order to to complete the quest, I dearly hope that's not the case here, there still needs to be some thought or effort coming from the player to find things and figure stuff out. I just don't see how you can be so sure of it just looking at that map alone[/QUOTE]

 

[Rudoli]

Since when is having options a bad thing? They provide exactly what the word says, options- they're optional. Just because the game has a bunch of options doesn't mean it's trying to appeal to a larger audience. Some people like going around and collecting chests in Assassin's Creed and some like doing side missions. Having that option to toggle on and off those icons on the map allow the player to focus on what it is they want to do. Does it break immersion? Well, that's up to the player to decide.

I agree having options ins't a bad thing. But Assassins creed is one of the worst games ever made. Fuck that open world design, fuck it hard until it bleeds to death. I can't imagine, even on CDPR's worst day, that they will be even half as bad as Ubisoft in open world design. Open worlds should have side quest and a few mini games and side activities, as long as the side quests are interesting and varied, the side activities fun with an nice balance of them in the open world and shouldn't punish you for not doing them, mini games serve only as a fun little distraction that's over in a few minutes in cities, and lastly that collectibles kept to very bare minimum. If your open world resembles anything like Batman arkham city/origins, Assassins Creed, Far cry, Shadow of mordor and Dragon age inquisition then chances are that's a really boring and bland open world game.

The best open world games that manage to not feel bland boring and repetitive, are games like STALKER, Red Dead Redemption, Fallout: New Vegas, Even GTA 5. Hell I'd even through Oblivion in, event though it has really boring and repetitive dungeons it managed to have some of the most interesting side quests in any open world RPG yet.

---------- Updated at 07:38 PM ----------

I don't think that.


I don't think it will be on the same level with Ubisoft's latest title, not at all. But I do think that too much openness and too much side content will do the game more harm than good (or at least my personal fun with it). Of course good side content is almost better than bad content, that's sure. But look at the map again. I can clearly see for example three hidden treasures in the small part of the ocean on the left. Now just think about how much of that stuff is spread over the huge world...


I agree. But it's not just about "fluff" for me, at least not if you use the word as a substitute for "collectibles and pointless content". For me, too much side content and too little guidance for a narrative-driven game is bad in general. Too much distraction (no matter if good or bad) let you lose focus and too little focus let you lose interest sooner or later (if there is a lot of good content it's probably more later). That's what happened to me many times before. It would be a real shame if that happened again with TW3...


I did compare TW3's side activities with those of Ubisoft games? Wow, I wasn't aware of that. But honestly, I didn't do that. I only compared the MAP DESIGN and the world and game design that is connected if you have such a map or possibly work on basis of such a map. That's a completely different topic and has nothing to do with boring side activities. So I think there might be a slight misunderstanding here...

Also no icons on the map doesn't sound good to me, if you have a open world the size of the Witcher 3 you can't honestly expect the player to remember where all the caves are or unique points of interest or to go back and read their journal to find the directions again. A system like that works with smaller open worlds, like the one you posted, but will get frustrating in an open world like this. However I agree with you in theory about the fact that a player can just turn it on and find exactly where they need to go in order to to complete the quest, I dearly hope that's not the case here, there still needs to be some thought or effort coming from the player to find things and figure stuff out. I just don't see how you can be so sure of it just looking at that map alone

[/QUOTE]

Ah okay then I'm sorry I did misunderstand you. And I agree with you completely about too much side content but so far I think CDPR can pull it off, I mean so far the only things we know we can do is brawling, play cards, horse racing, do side quests that mostly involve monster hunting, and get drunk in taverns. That's a good balance of side content I would say and all of them fits rather well with the universe.

 

[EliHarel]

Why is always anything black and white? I criticize one aspect of the game or even many, yes. That doesn't mean that the game is the worst game ever. I just talk about the things I don't like and from which I fear that they will reduce the fun I'll probably have with the game. At the same time there are aspects I'm looking forward to so there is no reason "to turn away". I don't see why I always have to agree with everything CDPR does. I'm not their enemy. I just don't like some of their decisions for this game, while I higly agree with other decisions. This seems actually pretty natural to me and everyone who acts like everything CDPR does is 100% great looks rather suspicious to me (in order to avoid a certain word that isn't allowed here as I've learnt the hard way...)

Scholdarr, a moment of friendly honesty here in contrast to my recent tendency of being a schmuck, I think you get this reaction often not for the mere fact that you're criticizing, but because when you criticize something you tend to make it sound like a HUGE thing, often using CAPITAL LETTERS and emphasizing how if CDPR doesn't do this or that then it's a terrible DISAPPOINTMENT.

Maybe it's all a matter of a failure in internet communication and misunderstanding the cyber tone. But there's forum memory, and when so many posts tend to be uber critical and take so many different aspects and make them sound like a make-or-break issue, then I'm not surprised by Sardukhar's impression (and my own) that you just seemed to have completely parted with the game and CDPR's direction (which isn't a sin, mind you). It doesn't feel intuitive that a person can have huge disappointment after huge disappointment and still like something.

That's my perspective on it anyway, take it as you will. You can tell me to bugger off because who the hell am I to tell someone how to communicate, or maybe I just like to think I'm pro-criticism while in fact I'm not and I'm wrapping it up in nice words. But maybe you'll relate to my personal belief that it's not enough to be right about something, it's also important how you go about it. As I told you once (and actually in this very recent discussion itself about quest design), I often agree with many of your points. You have high standards and ultimately want a game that can still be very challenging and thought-provoking. But you just rarely encourage that agreement.

Isn't the whole point of this forum to speculate about things at this point in developement? I guess nobody of us here played the game so far. So we can either be silent and wait til release or we talk about our thoughts, fears and opinions about what the game could be.

A bit beyond me to say what the whole point of a forum is. To me it's not. At least, not speculating about the worst. Very biased, I know, but I'm not ashamed of that bias, since this is at the end of the day a recreational activity, and I think that too much energy spent on negativity in a game, and speculated negativity at that, is not beneficial to anyone. Or fuck it, maybe it's just my mood for the night. Right now I don't see the point of speculation about possible weaknesses, and I'm in the resigned stage. The game is how it is.

 

[Sardukhar]

seemed to have completely parted with the game and CDPR's direction (which isn't a sin, mind you)..

 

[DragomirG]

What you are doing is doubt CDPR - this is a sin, it's written in the Bible. What you are doing is called a speculation! Cut the crap and brace yourselves because your world is about to be rocked!

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Scholdarr, a moment of friendly honesty here in contrast to my recent tendency of being a schmuck, I think you get this reaction often not for the mere fact that you're criticizing, but because when you criticize something you tend to make it sound like a HUGE thing, often using CAPITAL LETTERS and emphasizing how if CDPR doesn't do this or that then it's a terrible DISAPPOINTMENT.

Maybe it's all a matter of a failure in internet communication and misunderstanding the cyber tone. But there's forum memory, and when so many posts tend to be uber critical and take so many different aspects and make them sound like a make-or-break issue, then I'm not surprised by Sardukhar's impression (and my own) that you just seemed to have completely parted with the game and CDPR's direction (which isn't a sin, mind you). It doesn't feel intuitive that a person can have huge disappointment after huge disappointment and still like something.

That's my perspective on it anyway, take it as you will. You can tell me to bugger off because who the hell am I to tell someone how to communicate, or maybe I just like to think I'm pro-criticism while in fact I'm not and I'm wrapping it up in nice words. But maybe you'll relate to my personal belief that it's not enough to be right about something, it's also important how you go about it. As I told you once (and actually in this very recent discussion itself about quest design), I often agree with many of your points. You have high standards and ultimately want a game that can still be very challenging and thought-provoking. But you just rarely encourage that agreement.

Well, you might be right on many things here. I think there are several reasons for the way I usually word criticism, both in negative and positive ways. The first reason is simple enthusiasm or passion. If you are passionate about something that really means something to you it's pretty easy to overreact a bit or at least it seems that you overreact. Another reason is that the internet and especially forums and social media is extremely fast moving and you often have just one shot to raise your voice. And if something is important to you you're pretty inclined to make sure that your voice is heard and not just a footnote somewhere. That might be a bit egoistic - and I apologize for it - but it's something hard to control and hard to avoid if you just feel the need to word your feedback and that your feedback is indeed heard and not just overlook. At the same time I've lost my "faith" in good and healthy discussions on the internet long ago. Maybe that's a mistake and sometimes it seems that I'm wrong but often I just get disappointed again when I try to stay calm and perfectly reasonable, making well though points and writing a lot. Too often people on the internet and also on this forum don't show much interest in such a discussion but rather in in short jokes and derailing. Too often that angers me because I feel that my points are not respected or even ridiculed which again often leads me to more passionate and less measured responses. I guess that's pretty much the reason why I often appear extreme, often in a way that let me appear like a complete pessimist who criticizes everything. Well, that isn't the case but I actually understand why people think that way and I'm often not too happy as well when I look how certain threads and discussions evolve. I'd really like to encourage discussion and present my points in well constructed posts, firing up a serious and respectful discussion in which all positions are accepted and considered but too often it seems to me that the result is just not worth the effort. When I've learnt one thing on the internet (and sadly about life as well) it's that you're often lost if you just stay calm and reasonable all the time. That way you might be respected by some, no question, but you also very likely will never get your opinion heard or considered on a broader scale.

A bit beyond me to say what the whole point of a forum is. To me it's not. At least, not speculating about the worst. Very biased, I know, but I'm not ashamed of that bias, since this is at the end of the day a recreational activity, and I think that too much energy spent on negativity in a game, and speculated negativity at that, is not beneficial to anyone. Or fuck it, maybe it's just my mood for the night. Right now I don't see the point of speculation about possible weaknesses, and I'm in the resigned stage. The game is how it is.

I wish I could enter that stage as well, at least to the full extend. I think it's already partially true for myself, it's just that the topic is still important to me, too important to stay completely calm and avoid discussion and speculation. And you're right that being optimistic is certainly better than being pessimistic, but that's something you can't change that easily. People make different experiences in life that forms their view and believings. I'm not proud being a bit of a pessimist but that's who and how I am. At least - if I don't expect too much I can at least only be positively surprised when the game turns out to be even better than I thought...

What you are doing is doubt CDPR - this is a sin, it's written in the Bible.

I'm atheist, sorry. Doesn't apply to me...

 

[Sardukhar]

And you're right that being optimistic is certainly better than being pessimistic, but that's something you can't change that easily. People make different experiences in life that forms their view and believings.

All of this is sadly very true.

 

[aozgolo]

I wouldn't worry too much about this, the issue with Assassin's Creed is that all side activities are deliberately pre-defined as specific types of activities. If you go on a race, an assassin bounty, a message delivery, try to catch a shanty, hunt down a ship, catch a courier, or just engage in the collect-a-thon of grabbing chests and fragments, each time you know exactly what you are getting into before you get into it.

I am reminded of an early quest in Chapter 1 of The Witcher 2 in which I assumed a simple fetch quest to get a recipe for an alchemist ended up with me fighting my way out of a bandit lair in a forest.

Since there won't be any upfront categorization of the side-quests in the game you don't really know what to expect, and you won't go in skipping story flavor or important mission prompts because you already know "go to map marker, kill the guy" is going to be the objective, what the mission is about is more important than it's execution.

 

[mecha_fish]

I am reminded of an early quest in Chapter 1 of The Witcher 2 in which I assumed a simple fetch quest to get a recipe for an alchemist ended up with me fighting my way out of a bandit lair in a forest.

Since there won't be any upfront categorization of the side-quests in the game you don't really know what to expect, and you won't go in skipping story flavor or important mission prompts because you already know "go to map marker, kill the guy" is going to be the objective, what the mission is about is more important than it's execution.

Thinking about this, we did have those "categorised quests" in the form of fist fighting in each area you visited, dice poker, arm wrestling and so on, which were fairly 'you know what's going to happen' for the most part. The difference is that they did have a degree of flavour more than the AC side quests already to some extent (the might Numa is a fraud, the fist fighting in flotsam leads to knowing something about loredo, the fist fighting in act 2 gets you an avenger in act 3...), so all i can think of this comparison is that yeah the Witcher 2 did have some categorised quests, but they still had a story and some nice little twists to them despite being upfront about what they were about. I imagine much would be the same for the Witcher 3 -- maybe to the same degree, maybe even more so.