RPGs have always been about choice. Some players like to really inhabit the characters and you know, role play. They may try to play their version of Geralt as close as possible to the character described in the books. They also may veer off from the canon and chart their own path while trying to remain consistent with their own version of Geralt. Other players really aren't interested in role playing. They may just want to play the game without thinking much about characters and roles. Maybe they just want to fight monsters or maybe they want to gather immense wealth.
There's nothing wrong with any of these play styles. CDPR have given us a vast digital playground where we can play as we choose. Are there ways to exploit the current system? Of course. Could they have locked all the doors and made it difficult or impossible to loot items? Of course. That wouldn't be about our choice though then would it? We couldn't choose to play the way we wanted to.
I don't know about you, but I like more choices as opposed to fewer. That's why I enjoy RPGs.
There's nothing wrong with any of these play styles. CDPR have given us a vast digital playground where we can play as we choose. Are there ways to exploit the current system? Of course. Could they have locked all the doors and made it difficult or impossible to loot items? Of course. That wouldn't be about our choice though then would it? We couldn't choose to play the way we wanted to.
I don't know about you, but I like more choices as opposed to fewer. That's why I enjoy RPGs.
Last edited:
A good point. But then...since there is an expansion about Touissant...you can allow the player to make a lot of money in that area. In this way you improve the characterization of Touissant, keeping the narrative coherence.
But in this way, it's not balanced. Because:
1) You want ot buy a lot of common diagrams, formulas etc...for cheap, but there is no challange for that, because you have a lot of money.
2) There is no point in playing gwent or horse races if what you win is...unnecessary, because you already have a lot of money.
3) The reparing cost is too low compared to the amount of money you can have. So...reparing becomes only an annoying travel to the blacksmith.
4) If you have a lot of money, the importance of monster contracts is devalued, because you earn money you don't need and very few XP.
---------- Updated at 02:20 PM ----------
The lore has alredy proved that a witcher is poor. Or better, that Geralt is. the only part in the books where he isn't poor is in Toussaint.
No the lore has proven that a Witcher can sometimes be poor and sometimes not be poor. Given that this is an RPG and not a Kenetic Novel that leaves it up to the player's choice in how they choose to role play Geralt
Except that it's not a choice, it is just an exploit.
While this is may be true, I don't think the lore angle is particularly meaningful.
I'm far more concerned about how this dull, trivialized itemization people are so desperately defending affects the core design of the game, being something that affects pacing and deprives world exploration of a proper identity, rather than the internal consistency with the lore.
I mean, how dull it is that you'll get essentially the same kind of generic, repeated, crafting-oriented garbage and equipment either stealing from closets in Novigrad and exploring ancient elven ruins?
And people are even advocating for it as a good thing, imagine that.
Last edited:
You aren't forced to become rich so it is a choice. I can choose to steal/loot everything not nailed down and sell it. I can also choose not to. Some things like breaking down shells for pearls could be called an exploit and should probably be adjusted but it's still a choice to abuse it or not
The most important part is that it is a choice and since this is a single player the fact someone else chooses to do it in absolutely no way affects you who can freely choose not to do it
Me becoming a millionaire thanks to my "Stealing peasants tableware" scheme in no way can affect you or your game
Last edited:
It would be choice (and mechanically interesting) if you could choose/find a way to steal stuff that is generally well guarded.
This is not choice, it's the game encouraging you to act as the cleaning crew.
And broken plows. Anyone should have a broken plow in the bedroom drawer.
Yeah, that is another point. Finding the same chandeliers, candles etc...both in Novigrad and in the elven or other ruins is just...inconsistent. It seems that the guy which has designed the loot didn't care about the level design, but he/she simply put some random garbage items in random chests, no matter the location.
That statement contradicts itself. If the game has to "encourage" you to do something it means you have a choice to do it or not thus it IS a choice. If it wasn't a choice you'd be forced to do it and wouldn't need encouragement
The game doesn't encourage you to do it either. You don't NEED that much money nor does the game point out specifically that you can do it or tell you to do it. The option is simply there and available as a CHOICE for those who figure out you can do it and choose to to it
I agree. I think it's fine as is. At least you have a choice on how you want to make your character. If you want riches, you can have them, if you don't, you don't have to. Don't close off the choices. That is what makes the game fun...and also a diversion from real life. Remember, at the end of the day it's about fun, and we should all be able to decide what exactly our "fun" is defined as.
How making money outside of Touissant is narrative incoherent?
Specially in war aftermath, when there are tons of work for witchers
Its not a MMO. If a player doesn't want challenge in that specific area, is ok to CDProjeck don't impose it.
"If you win" is key here. No every one are fast learner. Some people are just not skilled. If you don't have the money, the alternative is metagaming.
From the comments in this forum, there are people who ends this game with around of $2,000 and other that are over $50,000. It depends on how you play.
For some players yes, for other players don't.
Been an open world game, some players will have a lot of money no matter what. Some other players will not care about the money and will get satisfaction or dissatisfaction from the combat. And other players will only care about getting the green tick in the journal.
To make clear my position...
There are more loot that is need for a typical playthrough?
yes.
This means there is too much?
No. This means the extra loot open options for other play styles.
Should loot be "nerfed".
No. The "excess" of loot doesn't really hurts, but reducing the loot reduces the options.
Last edited:
Because there isn't a coherence in how the junk items are placed. In the same kind of bag, you can find a chandelier, a gold ring, some food you may need or even some schematics.
So, there is the risk to miss some schemes for crafting if you don't open all the bags you find. I find the schemes for the superior ursine armor in some random chest in a random cave, among all kind of junk items.
This is why the system is bad designed. There is no coherence and no care about the level design.
No, it doesn't. It's not a "choice" if you have nothing to lose doing it. You can just loot stuff or leave money on the table, there's no a trade off involved (like, say, in Gothic) where you have to gain your undisturbed access to guarded loot or pay the consequences with an angry owner of that loot.
I have no idea how you can manage to be without money, but even if that was true, what about this wild suggestion: what about loot that isn't worthless garbage but you don't have to pick in massive amounts, instead? Shockingly creative solution, don't you think?
Totally agreed with that, sorry for the OP. There are really bad implications from the excessive loot issue, one of them is breaking the pace of the game badly. Even if the designers really wanted to keep all that amount of loot (bad idea IMO), what's the f***g point of putting like 15 boxes and bags beside each other in every house, in every village? It's a pain!!!!
And entering a house and checking the bags of the people expecting to find food, just to end up stealing their useless junk doesn't help, sorry.
I'm the first one saying that it's great to see a mysterious tower in the background, look for a difficult access, killing lots of enemies and then being well rewarded with good loot, weapons, diagrams, etc. That's great.
And there are lots of examples of good loot in this game. Problem is, there are too many examples of useless loot as well, and you only discover that once you have spent 5 minutes checking all f****g bags scattered around a city.
Last edited:
No, consequence or lack of them does NOT change the fact it's still a choice to do or not
But you don't have to check every bag, it's a choice you have. If it's annoying, then don't do it!
What kind of choice? "hey gamer, you can choose to loot bags on the market or in houses without consequences and breaking the economic system, or you can choose to not do that".
Really?