Crossbows. Yay or nay?

[Tarathelion]

... You guys do realise you're using the fact that the combat system in The Witcher 2 could be exploited (i.e. it was somewhat broken already) as a way to prove your point of the balance in the combat system being unaffected by introducing even more options that encourage the player to stay away from melee even further, right?

You do realise that we don't know anything about this crossbow apart from the fact that Geralt has one on his back while walking though some small village in Skellige. Who knows how it will be used. Maybe it will be exclusive to hunting. How would it change the gameplay then? Why do you assume it will be a viable option in combat (I am not saying it won't but the bottom line is we don't know)? Lets wait and see more info first.

 

[ReptilePZ]

You do realise that we don't know anything about this crossbow apart from the fact that Geralt has one on his back while walking though some small village in Skellige. Who knows how it will be used. Maybe it will be exclusive to hunting. How would it change the gameplay then? Why do you assume it will be a viable option in combat (I am not saying it won't but the bottom line is we don't know)? Lets wait and see more info first.

Well, I've been asked about reacting early before, so here goes:

I prefer raising concerns early so that the developers can receive an outside look on their ideas. From my experience with The Witcher, the combat system is the weakest point in the series. So when the developer tries to add mid-long range weapons to a game where the main protagonist is a master swordsman, I can't help but feel worried. I mean, come on, guys. This is literally the kind of stuff we were arguing against a few months ago, when the Skyrim comparisons as well as people unfamiliar with the franchise, who were asking for this exact thing, were coming in.

My view on the matter has not changed since then, and the developer deciding to embrace these wishes does not make me feel any better about it. We have a Geralt who can be a thief using a crossbow. I mean, seriously now.

 

[gregski]

You do realise that we don't know anything about this crossbow apart from the fact that Geralt has one on his back while walking though some small village in Skellige. Who knows how it will be used. Maybe it will be exclusive to hunting. How would it change the gameplay then? Why do you assume it will be a viable option in combat (I am not saying it won't but the bottom line is we don't know)? Lets wait and see more info first.

Why should the crossbow be only exclusive for hunting, while you can shoot it at everything? Animals, humans, monsters even.

 

[Pedrolago]

What if we could buy saddles in the game? And those saddles would be sort of like your survival kit ? let me explain:

You go to a merchant who sells horses, and there are two stalls, one is for purchasing horses and the other one for buying or upgrading your saddle(if you tamed a horse in the wild you would only have to get a saddle), on your saddle you would have Saddlebag(storage), camp kit, crossbow (for hunting),and maybe the fishing pole we all want so much(well at least me),all upgradable with money and pelts, claws, etc so the crossbow would be a part of the saddle kit and would be upgraded along with the rest of your saddle tools, and you would have to pick it up from and drop it off on roach, if roach got killed you would go to a horse merchant and he would sell you a saddle with the same upgrades you had for the price of a normal saddle, so the money would be the punishment for letting roach die.If they did something like this all they would have left to solve would be to discourage use in combat, here are some ideas that would work imo: by making Geralt slower or clumsier or maybe even lowering his damage when carrying the crossbow, or by making him have only two slots on his back, so when you pick up the crossbow from roach you would have to leave one of the swords with her, so if you go hunting you will always be vulnerable to one half of the enemies of the game(this would even add a tactical element imo), plus if they did this they could add cooler types of hunting crossbows (like the big rifle ones) without sacrificing lore.

Just an Idea, I hope it helps to bring us closer to the middle ground of mutual satisfaction in this debate.:cheers:

 

[shasiu]

Why should the crossbow be only exclusive for hunting, while you can shoot it at everything? Animals, humans, monsters even.

You can, but yoy don't must, it's one of many choise how are in the game...

 

[Cipher-Six]

To be fair, I haven't played a single RPG that I couldn't exploit through min/maxing. Every system can be gamed or exploited or min/maxed. I don't think that is a big deal, it is just the nature of balancing systems. With that said, I have no problem with crossbows existing, I just don't want to be forced to equip it. or required to use it to finish any quests. As long as it is optional, then I'm sure I will find more than one way to play TW3 on the hardest difficulty without using any bows. There are tons of items/armor/weapons in other RPGs that I never use because I dislike their look or function, but as long as they are optional, they don't impede my ability to enjoy playing the way I want to.

 

[gregski]

You can, but yoy don't must, it's one of many choise how are in the game...

If it's a choice, why are people using "crossbow being exclusive for hunting" as a pro-crossbow argument? Exclusive is not choice.

 

[Tarathelion]

Why should the crossbow be only exclusive for hunting, while you can shoot it at everything? Animals, humans, monsters even.

I can only speculate to what reason was there for inclusion of crossbows in the first place. First thing that comes to mind is hunting. While we can argue whether it is necessary or not, we do now that hunting will be an option. In my opinion, hunting make sense in open world (world without animals would feel empty, you can get away with it in small areas but not in a massive world, if you have animals it makes sense to allow players some ability to hunt them). I assume that developers had an issue to resolve - how Geralt would hunt.? I guess you can use traps for smaller animals like rabbits but for bigger ones like elk its not the greatest way to hunt. Since previously Geralt haven't used any long range weapons (in games) devs had to implement something that is more suitable to hunting. I guess they decided on crossbows. That does not answer your question but i does say what may have been the goal behind that choice. If thats the case, then you could assume that devs never wanted crossbow as a weapon of choice in usual witcher fights. So, devs may diminish crossbows usability by making sure using one is pointless (small damage on monsters, long reloads) and that what i meant by saying, crossbows may be exclusive to hunting (not by artificially preventing players from using one but by making sure its useless in fight against monsters and humans).

Of course, this is just speculation and it is just one of many possibilities of why we seem to have crossbows. Why should it be exclusive to hunting? One could say that Geralt does not use bows and crossbows in monster fights. The focus should be on swords, signs and alchemy. Rest is just an interesting addition (I don't mind using crossbows in some limited capacity in a fight against monster).

 

[gregski]

I can only speculate to what reason was there for inclusion of crossbows in the first place. First thing that comes to mind is hunting. While we can argue whether it is necessary or not, we do now that hunting will be an option. In my opinion, hunting make sense in open world (world without animals would feel empty, you can get away with it in small areas but not in a massive world, if you have animals it makes sense to allow players some ability to hunt them). I assume that developers had an issue to resolve - how Geralt would hunt.? I guess you can use traps for smaller animals like rabbits but for bigger ones like elk its not the greatest way to hunt. Since previously Geralt haven't used any long range weapons (in games) devs had to implement something that is more suitable to hunting. I guess they decided on crossbows. That does not answer your question but i does say what may have been the goal behind that choice. If thats the case, then you could assume that devs never wanted crossbow as a weapon of choice in usual witcher fights. So, devs may diminish crossbows usability by making sure using one is pointless (small damage on monsters, long reloads) and that what i meant by saying, crossbows may be exclusive to hunting (not by artificially preventing players from using one but by making sure its useless in fight against monsters and humans).

Of course, this is just speculation and it is just one of many possibilities of why we seem to have crossbows. Why should it be exclusive to hunting? One could say that Geralt does not use bows and crossbows in monster fights. The focus should be on swords, signs and alchemy. Rest is just an interesting addition (I don't mind using crossbows in some limited capacity in a fight against monster).

Sure, they can nerf the crossbow the way you describe it, but...if the crossbow has long reload times, how does it make sense in hunting? Wild animals would either be already gone or attacking you before you manage to reload then.

 

[Tarathelion]

Well, I've been asked about reacting early before, so here goes:

I prefer raising concerns early so that the developers can receive an outside look on their ideas. From my experience with The Witcher, the combat system is the weakest point in the series. So when the developer tries to add mid-long range weapons to a game where the main protagonist is a master swordsman, I can't help but feel worried. I mean, come on, guys. This is literally the kind of stuff we were arguing against a few months ago, when the Skyrim comparisons as well as people unfamiliar with the franchise, who were asking for this exact thing, were coming in.

My view on the matter has not changed since then, and the developer deciding to embrace these wishes does not make me feel any better about it. We have a Geralt who can be a thief using a crossbow. I mean, seriously now.

The problem with that thinking is that you assume the worst. You have picked the one possibility that is most intrusive on lore. On top of that, you have assumed thats its a wider audience factor that caused that decision to be made. For me it never gonna be a yes or no question. It depends how it really works.

 

[Tarathelion]

Sure, they can nerf the crossbow the way you describe it, but...if the crossbow has long reload times, how does it make sense in hunting? Wild animals would either be already gone or attacking you before you manage to reload then.

Look at Gothic, you could easily one-shot deers and stuff like that

 

[GuyNwah]

Sure, they can nerf the crossbow the way you describe it, but...if the crossbow has long reload times, how does it make sense in hunting? Wild animals would either be already gone or attacking you before you manage to reload then.

Hunters have ever had the task of tracking or battling wounded game; if Geralt is to be able to hunt animals that flee when wounded, like deer, he should have tracking skills. If he is to be able to defend himself against animals that are likely to attack, like boar or bear, he should have a backup weapon.

A hunter tracking wounded quarry has ample opportunity to reload. But when fighting dangerous game or a monster that attacks, the crossbow should be a single-shot weapon; he would get mauled if he tried to reload.

 

[ReptilePZ]

The problem with that thinking is that you assume the worst. You have picked the one possibility that is most intrusive on lore. On top of that, you have assumed thats its a wider audience factor that caused that decision to be made. For me it never gonna be a yes or no question. It depends how it really works.

Either way it's assumptions. I don't think that one assumption is any less valid than another. So, I believe it's fair that I let you assume the decision's been made to... make hunting a better expereince. Hunting, which was added because the game is now open world. Open world, which is supposed to be a tool, not a goal... And you let me assume it's there by popular demand, following the bow trend we've seen in most recent games. Anyway, I have been arguing against one particular line of thought - the crossbow as a weapon used in combat.

 

[SMiki55]

Well if it's true then I lost my faith in CD PROJEKT. In books it was clearly stated that Geralt never used crossbows and any ranged weapons. Even if it is only for hunting it would still destroy my immersion.

...

Geralt using crossbow destroy a lore? Don't ****. In "Blood of Elves", during chapters in Kaer Morhen, he took the bow and went on the hunt.

Oh, I can found many examples of more serious mistakes. Only three lilies on Temeria coat of arms, for example. Only eight rays on Nilfgaardian Empire coat of arms, for example. Igni functioning as flamethrower. Heliotrop working as bullet-timer. Quen working as... electric... something. Yrden working as super glue or double-sided tape. Bald Adam Pangratt. Black-haired Rayla with two hands.

Witcher's crossbows have appeared in graphic-novel "Betrayal" and PnP RPG. So, are they still lorerape?

Geralt using a crossbow - oh, lorerape, and also too big change of entire combat approach!!!
Geralt using silver sword for all monsters, steel only for humans and animals, throwing bombs and preparing traps, using Igni as flamethrower and Heliotrop as bullet-timer - no problem, bro

**** logic

 

[EmperorZorn]

A crossbow isn't really Geralt's style of fighting.
It takes ciriously too long to reload it and Witchers use a fast and fluent combat style.

The only way I could see this work is Geralt using a crossbow-archer as a human shield and firing a single bolt from his crossbow, then slitting his throat.
In the books he relied on his swords but used other weapons when the window of opportunity admitted him to.

 

[ReptilePZ]

A crossbow isn't really Geralt's style of fighting.
It takes ciriously too long to reload it and Witchers use a fast and fluent combat style.

The only way I could see this work is Geralt using a crossbow-archer as a human shield and firing a single bolt from his crossbow.
In the books he relied on his swords but used other weapons when the window of opportunity admitted him to.

ciriously

...

 

[Tarathelion]

Either way it's assumptions. I don't think that one assumption is any less valid than another.

Thats true

So, I believe it's fair that I let you assume the decision's been made to... make hunting a better expereince.

I don't assume that exactly. All i am saying its one of possible scenarios.Thats why i said its just one of many possibilities/ My point is that we don't know so we shouldn't categorically say one way or the other. You make it sound like its a fact (using it in combat will have a heavy impact)

[

 

[gregski]

Hunters have ever had the task of tracking or battling wounded game; if Geralt is to be able to hunt animals that flee when wounded, like deer, he should have tracking skills. If he is to be able to defend himself against animals that are likely to attack, like boar or bear, he should have a backup weapon.

A hunter tracking wounded quarry has ample opportunity to reload. But when fighting dangerous game or a monster that attacks, the crossbow should be a single-shot weapon; he would get mauled if he tried to reload.

I guess it depends on how hunting in the game works, i.e. how advanced the mechanics are. Personally I rather expect something simple, like in Red Dead Redemption, without nuances like tracking a wounded animal. Unless it's far more advanced as you describe, the concept of crossbow-for-hunting-but-only-one-shot sounds rather shaky to me.

 

[shawn_kh]

The problem with that thinking is that you assume the worst. You have picked the one possibility that is most intrusive on lore. On top of that, you have assumed thats its a wider audience factor that caused that decision to be made. For me it never gonna be a yes or no question. It depends how it really works.

Yeah. we assume the worst, because nothing good comes out of an undeveloped crossbow in the game with no archery skill tree. Archery is a skill just like swordsmanship and magic, so it should have it's own skill tree and play an important part in the gameplay if it's going to get implemented. If you implement it well where it's strategic, useful and fun, then you can't just RESTRICT the players to use it for hunting without pissing them off. If the crossbow isn't capable of being used in fighting because it's gonna take too long to reload, then how the hell is it going to bring down an elk or deer ? It takes several arrows to bring down an animal unless you are a SKILLED archer, but wait !!!! there are no SKILL trees for archery and Geralt has NOT trained in archery at Kaer Morhen; so how is he skilled enough to bring down an elk with one shot ? When an animal is shot, they either charge at you or run away. So while Geralt is reloading his crossbow, he is either going to get crushed by an elk or lose his target in the case of a deer.
Now to address those people who keep bringing up bombs and traps from Witcher 2 trying to justify a crossbow by saying that it has been done before: I tell you as some of our friends including yourselves said you could keep making bombs and traps and abuse them. Bombs and traps made the combat in Witcher 2 unbalanced and broken. Witcher 2's skill tree and combat was not exemplary at all, it actually was the weakest point of the game. You had to spend skill points to be able to block, and when you blocked it would take off vigor points for god's sake and you ended up rolling around and throwing bombs and signs like a freaking clown. Now you are suggesting to keep that broken system, and make it even worse by adding a crossbow to the equation with no skill tree and restrict players to only use it for hunting. How does that improve or help anything?!?!?!?!?!
How does that even make sense ?
Geralt is a SWORDSMAN, he is not a MAGE, he is not an ARCHER, or a NINJA. He uses swords, barely uses magic, and almost never uses ninja bombs or crossbows in combat. He uses magic a handful of times while fighting in the book, but in the game you had to roll, cast a sign, 1-2 sword blows, throw a bomb, roll again, cast a sign and so on. Now add a half ass crossbow bolt to the equation at the beginning of the fight, I guess since he can't reload it for a second shot.

 

[shasiu]

It takes several arrows to bring down an animal unless you are a SKILLED archer, but wait !!!! there are no SKILL trees for archery and Geralt has NOT trained in archery at Kaer Morhen; so how is he skilled enough to bring down an elk with one shot ?

Srsly?

It's me again Look what we found on polish forum:

Spoiler

It's a page comics "Betrayal" written By Sapkowski and Maciej Parowski...
We see there witchers when they training with a crossbow...

Fishing and hunting? Yes, in my opinion we should choose bow, or traps... Geralt can hunting google translator cyt:
"The walls and doors of their lodging Witchers decorated skins of slaughtered beasts while hunting - deer, lynx, wolves, wolverines even."
"Geralt, to the fury of the sorceress, gone somewhere and appeared only in the evening, carrying hunted goat."
blood of Elves
In polish original Geralt kill goat by a shot...

How does that improve or help anything?!?!?!?!?!
How does that even make sense ?
You can attack enemy if you want, but they kill you before reload... Crossbow tre is not good becouse we don't want the crossbow as INDEPENDENT weapon (as swords), but only to help sometimes in fight (as knives or bombs)...