Yeah you got my question wrong, you marked it with 5 red points but in fact it has 55. No need to check it just edit it in your list.At the moment I'm doing it manually. In the upcoming weeks I might need other solutions as it might get a bit hectic. I'll figure something out.
I believe they said that there are going to be segments like these in W3, but they are trying not to do it as much as in W2.
These questions were already asked, please read through the thread and upvote these questions if you really want them to be asked.
Oh my go.... :hmm: You people really have no clue about Dearg Ruadhri, do you? It just hit me, most if not all, of you haven't red the books! Those who think in those categories about the Wild Hunt are in for a shocker :troll: I REALLY cant wait for the comments and opinions after the game (has been?) release(d?).
Just wanted to say thanks to those who have endorsed my questions.
I tried to think of things that haven't been asked yet, restrained myself on the Ciri part (it was tough, yes)
and I'm happy to see that I haven't completely screwed up.
So thank you, my friends~
I tried to think of things that haven't been asked yet, restrained myself on the Ciri part (it was tough, yes)
and I'm happy to see that I haven't completely screwed up.
So thank you, my friends~
I absolutely hate that. Nothing more immersion breaking for me than switching from your permanent character to a NPC for a few minutes. I do hope these segments could be avoided.
In TW2 I almost rq'd the game when It put me in Henselt's shoes for no apparent reason. I didn't mind how they did the ghost possessions in the previous battle for Vergen. If they're gonna do that SHIT there better be a good narrative justification for it.
There was a narrative justification for it: to give you an overview of the political situation by putting you into the shoes of one of the major players, rather than have some character lecture Geralt after the fact.
Well, it depends on what characters' shoes they decide to put the player...
I would not mind to play as Ciri... Yennefer... Triss or even Jaskier... in some moments of the story.
Anyway this is the last part of Geralt's personal quest so this time they will focus on him for sure.
Me too.
In a recent video, Marcin Blacha admitted he doesn't like them either.
I found them a complete waste of time in TW2. I suppose you could argue they're like a palate cleanser but players would have been far better off with a chunk of exposition delivered via a cutscene. Gameplay wise, those segments had nothing to offer and, as you mentioned, they were immersion disruptive..
In fiction writing, authors are often advised against switching PoV mid scene or too often.
Maybe they will be able to pull it off in TW3, but going by TW2, I'm sceptic.
The character shifts were pulled off very clumsy in TW2.
Not only did the characters you controlled feel very stiff, they also added next to nothing in terms of perspective on the story.
I'm 100% sure that people would have been a lot more content if they got to play Letho instead and
see his view on the conflict, because it would have added to the whole "there is no true villain" plot
which culminated in the fight between Letho and Geralt.
Wouldn't it show too many spoilers for the big reveal in the ending though?
I actually did not mind the character shifts in TW2. After a couple or so playthroughs that is. But I agree with you that they were pulled off clumsily.
It is really a double edged sword.
On the one hand, the narrative value of such switches is immense. So many possibilities with it. The game can actually feel like a book or a movie.
On the other hand, we are talking about an RPG. The player is supposed to relate to his character, in our case Geralt. If lots of switches happen, or lengthy ones, so that it is ensured that they are in fact needed for the story to continue, the player loses immersion to the main character.
I liked what CDPR tried to do, but I think they should just stick to cutscenes. Their narrative value is pretty much the same, if not better. And people won't feel like their immersion is broken.
Mixed, I thought. The switch to Dandelion was OK, because it worked in the story and you knew it was coming. The Battlefield was OK because it was part of the story. The Iorveth/Roche fight was totally and utterly pointless (as well as being a plot-hole in some versions of the playthrough) and the one at the start of Act II would definitely have been better as exposition, as you had no influence on what happened, and it was really confusing the first time.
Then again it might be smart to use this mechanic to introduce a new protagonist in TW3,
one who we might control in upcoming Witcher games.
If CDPR is clever, they will at least think about a cameo by whoever this character is to
make the transition to a new protagonist in the next Witcher games more seamless.
one who we might control in upcoming Witcher games.
If CDPR is clever, they will at least think about a cameo by whoever this character is to
make the transition to a new protagonist in the next Witcher games more seamless.
And then again the switch to Auckes was pretty great I thought. It had an interesting feature too, if you fail on the gameplay, you lose some important information. I think it's the only switch that would be better than a cutscene. Hopefully CDPR can pull off something like that in TW3.
@EmperorZorn
I see what you did there. It's a great idea.
Is there anyone in the forum who didn't see what he did there?
And yes on Auckes. I'd forgotten that one.
Well, not everyone has the wisdom of either a dragon or ancient greek philosophers~
The Henselt sequence
It was left up to the player to decide the lines of dialog for characters we hadn't even met in the story yet. Could have been just an ingame cutscene without any player interaction required.
The Vernon - Iorveth fight was absolutely pointless as well. I'd have preferred to see my actions towards strengthening or weakening the positions of either of those characters show in a fight that's beyond my immediate influence.
Last edited: