The hunger and thirst mechanics seem out of place for a Witcher game, but I've long felt note taking should have been implemented since TW1. I regret modern RPGs forgo this feature. Given the huge map, complex plots and such, I would very much appreciate a section in the journal for notes.
edit - actually, I recall we could place markers in TW1 and I think we could label them as well? Been so long...
The option to record our musings on alchemy, landmarks, plot twists and characters might add a lot to the overall experience. I suppose it could be modded in later as well.
edit - actually, I recall we could place markers in TW1 and I think we could label them as well? Been so long...
The option to record our musings on alchemy, landmarks, plot twists and characters might add a lot to the overall experience. I suppose it could be modded in later as well.
Last edited:
A couple of posts have been deleted.
And a reminder.
People are welcome to post about features they want. They are also welcome to post about features they do NOT want to see in the game. Both are also welcome to post why they disagree with the other viewpoint.
But arguing by throwing out insults against the poster is NOT welcome, and any further incidents may result in the loss of the ability to say anything at all.
And a reminder.
People are welcome to post about features they want. They are also welcome to post about features they do NOT want to see in the game. Both are also welcome to post why they disagree with the other viewpoint.
But arguing by throwing out insults against the poster is NOT welcome, and any further incidents may result in the loss of the ability to say anything at all.
that's why if they did add a mode like this it could be optional, like fallout new vegas's hardcore mode. I mean its like playing skyrim without mods there's all these drinks and food laying around everywhere and you never really use any of it.
Why only when reading this forum I have a feeling that the whole game should be optional. Mechanics like these are waste of money and time. If modding community will exist, possibly there will appear something like this. You're right that items like bread, cheese, apples don't have much use. But in Witcher 1 there were many quests with these items and it was amazing.
I do like the idea a lot and I also understand the reasoning for those against it. I d like to see the option implement in the insane or hard difficulty, as long as it is not too much work for the devs. I would choose CDPR's wizard custom hands over even the most talented moddlers anyday 
I can only assume the people so adamantly against this option chose to overlook the fact it was stated that it would be an OPTION that the user could turn on/off, thus allowing them to play to their personal taste. But, as I have seen in countless other forums, people often take a personal offense to things which they do not agree, and will believe that the option was stated forcefully, against their will, even though this isn't the reality of the proposition.
Though an expense in finances and time would entail, the inclusion of this feature could not possibly negatively affect someone who chooses to not use it, since the game is strictly a singleplayer campaign, so the perks/handicaps of the feature would never be pitted against another. But I guess people will act in whatever manner they are accustomed to. I just wonder where all the aggression comes from. Heck, I even suggested that the feature would default to "off", so that a more traditional Witcher 3 experience would be the default playstyle.
I would love to hear from someone who does not like the feature, but feels their preference in play needs to be enforced on other people's iterations of play with the same product.
Though an expense in finances and time would entail, the inclusion of this feature could not possibly negatively affect someone who chooses to not use it, since the game is strictly a singleplayer campaign, so the perks/handicaps of the feature would never be pitted against another. But I guess people will act in whatever manner they are accustomed to. I just wonder where all the aggression comes from. Heck, I even suggested that the feature would default to "off", so that a more traditional Witcher 3 experience would be the default playstyle.
I would love to hear from someone who does not like the feature, but feels their preference in play needs to be enforced on other people's iterations of play with the same product.
That would be me, in this particular case.
Bringing this in as an option means
- two versions of the functionality in the game that controls the distribution of objects throughout the world, one with an adequate supply of food and drink, one without. That needs to be designed, coded, and tested throughout the entire playthrough to make sure that the distribution is well-balanced, enough to recover Geralt, but low enough to make it a challenge.
- two versions of the mechanics for controlling vitality/vigor recovery, one where food and drink isn't needed and one where it is. Again, each version requires design, coding and testing.
- Possibly, completely new mechanics for handling the scenario where Geralt DOESN'T consume the needed food and drink, or sleep, and therefore dies. Again, design, coding, testing.
- An exponential increase in the amount of additional testing for every other feature that fans think should be added as an option just because THEY want it. Different ways of handling potions? Testing x 4. Hunting with the crossbow for food? Testing x 8.
- The game is almost complete. That means that any new feature brought in now will result in a lot of rework and regression testing, a conscientious developer can't just assume that the new feature won't affect everything already done, because it ALWAYS affects something.
Extra features brought in at this stage means a LOT of extra work. There's a standard response for anyone creating a product where the customer brings in late requests - do you want it on time? or working correctly? or within budget? Because you can't have all three. Pick the one that you're willing to do without. So which of the three am I, as someone who doesn't want this feature, supposed to consider OK? If they introduce it with full testing but without extra resources (cost) it would delay the game. If they save cost by not testing adequately, there's a high probability that it would introduce bugs. If they throw in the extra resources, the money has to come from some other budget which may affect me. And if they do this because some fans want it, fans who want some other optional feature would also expect to have their desires met, so we get feature creep.
So yes, bringing in this feature WOULD affect me, even if I never turn it on. And, with regards to this thread, it would be a distorted view presented if only those who want the feature speak.
Last edited:
I'm not sure you can argue the development cost or design concerns of implementing a feature such as this as a valid counterpoint. The fact that any mechanic added to a game requires design, coding and testing does not deter it from being added and, as proffered, defaulted to off.
Nor do I think the merits of this suggested need to be tied into suggestions from other persons about their own personal wishes of the game. The nature of this request is not in the logistics of what it would take to bring the feature into the game; all suggestions have an inherent pro/con to them. It was merely meant to provide common large-scale RPG game mechanics to those who'd wish to partake of them; and have no effect on those who would choose not to use them.
It seems all your points have to do with the coordination of the complexities and detailed scope of implementing the feature, rather than the simple fact of assuming the code was there, and a feature were set to allow the user to enable/disable it at will; why THEN would a person be against an OPTION? Why would they choose to remove the feature that others enjoy, especially when the scope of their gaming experience with the product would never intersect with another player.
It's almost as if me telling you what car to buy. I like manual tranmissions, but you like automatics. Well, you should buy a car with manual, simply because I have some entitled opinion that somehow transcends your own personal car buying rights and experiences. I mean... is that not the core problem here?
If someone said "I want a mode where Geralt can do backflips and loopty loops", I may not agree with it, but as long as the option by default is to have that turned off, what would it matter to me? Would it not be better to have a product that catered to as many people as possible? (With the understanding there is a budget and CDPR has a vision for their game).
well I think everyone knows that this stuff wont be included for release... kinda pointless to discuss smth that is never going to happen... its totally controversial ... like wanting to have minesweeper inside counterstrike.... those kind of stuff shouldnt be asked in the first place... this is why ppl get upset... since it feels out of place... well to me at least.. well but they are also ppl who prefer having flying turtles as dragons or laser swords in skyrim
I think you get my point...
I think you get my point...
Last edited:
They are not making a game for anyone... they are making their vision of their game... implementing optional stuff not only takes time but does stray from what they want to accomplish ..
Ofc they want to sell "the" game... but they want to sell "their" game... not one that includes every rpg mechanic possible which fans demanded... thats not their game...
Last edited:
Problem is that answers nothing. Most of what you just stated has already been said in the thread. This isn't about people demanding anything. No fan has that right. It's the dev's game, their vision, we merely provide feedback and input.
I don't doubt that some people don't like the idea. But the question here is "Why, when a feature that can be disabled and have 0 bearing on your own personal enjoyment of the game, are people so adamant about removing something, or imposing their will to alter the game in a manner that would make it less enjoyable for others." There has to be some logical, or psychological reasoning behind it. But so far, no one has really broke that ice.
Because we'd rather they spent time on things that make sense within the context of past games. I'd be willing to bet if you ask Marcin he'd confirm there will be no hunger or sleep mechanics. It's well beyond their focus of making a Witcher game, and not a simulator or highly realistic RPG.
No, what you've said is that nobody has convinced you of the validity of their argument, which is fair enough - why SHOULD you change your views?
But some of us do have our reasons for not wanting it implemented, even as an option, just because some want it. Those reasons are valid, logical and rational to us, and that's all that really matters. Because we're not asking for it to be removed, we're asking for it not to be added.
If it was confirmed present and people WERE asking for it to be removed, I'd be using the exact same argument as justification for it to stay. I don't care if the mechanic is there or not, I care about the addition (or removal) of features late in a development cycle as a result of requests by those who probably aren't going to be the ones paying the cost .
as dragonbird said we are talking about adding this stuff & even if thats optional ~cdproject would need to develop those options ~ ofc if this idea is good it can be added to the core experience ...... now if we argue about that "if I can disable it, why do you care thing" ~ its not a matter of if I care or not ... its smth which was not planned to be in the game core experience in the first place...
its not a viable option ... its like adding subtitles in a cinema movie .. even though ppl can hear... add subtitles just because someone may not ...which disturbs most of the audience ,but 1-2% are happy ... the small percentages have to deal with that.... even though its sucks for them ...
now ofc in the game you could possibly turn on & off those things , but this was just an example to show that you just dont do this kind of stuff....
there are no subtitles in cinema movies , so in that sense there arent those options in the game ...
its does not belong there, even though it would be a nioce thing to have for "a minority of people"
I hope you get my point
Last edited:
Hm, I think you guys are discussing the matter from completely opposite corners, correct me if I'm wrong.
@Aegis_Kleais simply says, that the theoretical implementation of such feature, should not harm any gamer who does not want it, simply because the feature would be optional. That to me, is obvious. More options, do not hurt anybody, if they are already there. He did not refer to the "cost" of such options being implemented. By cost I mean, financial, time and work quality costs. Under the assumption of the feature being already there, it should not hurt gamers who do not want the option.
However, the practical implementation of such feature is another matter. Said feature, is not already in the game, so there will be additional cost, for CDPR to put it there. That is what @Dragonbird Co. are saying. From a practical point of view, it hurts gamers who do not want a feature like that, because it will force additional costs on CDPR, and gamers will end up with a delayed or bugged game. Which is also true.
In our situation though, 8 months before release, CDPR will have to focus on the practical standpoint of the matter. Us gamers though can discuss all we want theoretically. We can't expect from CDPR to change their plans however. Hell, for all we know such feature might already be in game. Nobody has ever denied it. But that is just speculation.
@Aegis_Kleais simply says, that the theoretical implementation of such feature, should not harm any gamer who does not want it, simply because the feature would be optional. That to me, is obvious. More options, do not hurt anybody, if they are already there. He did not refer to the "cost" of such options being implemented. By cost I mean, financial, time and work quality costs. Under the assumption of the feature being already there, it should not hurt gamers who do not want the option.
However, the practical implementation of such feature is another matter. Said feature, is not already in the game, so there will be additional cost, for CDPR to put it there. That is what @Dragonbird Co. are saying. From a practical point of view, it hurts gamers who do not want a feature like that, because it will force additional costs on CDPR, and gamers will end up with a delayed or bugged game. Which is also true.
In our situation though, 8 months before release, CDPR will have to focus on the practical standpoint of the matter. Us gamers though can discuss all we want theoretically. We can't expect from CDPR to change their plans however. Hell, for all we know such feature might already be in game. Nobody has ever denied it. But that is just speculation.