In what mindset should I play TW3

[colibrie]

In what mindset should I play TW3

(This topic is not about changing TW3. This is about how a person should play the game and react to the situations.)

I've been playing games for years now and some habits have definitely rooted in my mind. And I think those can make the game less immersive. Here is what I'm talking about:

If there was a situation "your friend is being almost skinned alive in the next door", what I do? Yes, I feel I should run to the room and save the friend. But actually I first go thoroughly through the place I'm in.. looking for useful things and all... In Tomb Raider I also went to raid a secret tomb (short sidequest) despite the intensive situation.

If I come to a room and there was an injured man in the center... What I do? I interact the least important things at first.. and then lastly with the injured character. That's not how I'd do it IRL and that's why it's decreasing the immersivity.

--

Too many times games have made me go uneasy when interacting with the "most interesting character/situation" at first because that might let the story rolling and god knows where I'm automatically dragged. And if I could go check the less interesting things any time soon.

And as I know those important events are skripted - "there is no hurry". The injured man is not going to die even if I do a little search.. or who knows, maybe I should go craft some new weapon before activating the story?

--

Should I get rid of these traits or do you think they are natural part of gaming?
And how should I change my way of thinking? I need something concrete examples so I could adapt a new way.

Have you noticed more of these in your own way of gaming?

In TW3 there are sidequests naturally molded in the plot. So that's why I think I might need to reshape my mindset. Should I go after every interesting side-thing I notice or should I reassure myself that "I can do it some other time - let's declare this intensive situation first". Or do I, by thinking like that, just end up running the game through?

Any thoughts?

 

[Demut]

Too many times games have made me go uneasy when interacting with the "most interesting character/situation" at first because that might let the story rolling and god knows where I'm automatically dragged. And if I could go check the less interesting things any time soon.

So true. I suppose a way to fix this is to allow the player to revisit pretty much every location again so that you can indeed focus on what’s happening because you can rest assured that you’ll be able to return. And why not? It’s an open-world game and unless the place is destroyed why shouldn’t you be able to return?
The other option, to possibly LET that person in the next room die after a certain while, I don’t really want CDPR to explore :| Unless maybe in combination with the former.

 

[501105]

My choice would be to just go with the flow. In Skyrim I spent dozens of hours just running about, not even touching the main story and enjoying the world. In the end though, an open world means that you choose how you want to play.

The only questions I have is the dissapearing of side quests and reaching the ending. We do not know if sidequests are timed and can be failed that way and if you can continue playing after the ending.

 

[colibrie]

So true. I suppose a way to fix this is to allow the player to revisit pretty much every location again so that you can indeed focus on what’s happening because you can rest assured that you’ll be able to return. And why not? It’s an open-world game and unless the place is destroyed why shouldn’t you be able to return?
The other option, to possibly LET that person in the next room die after a certain while, I don’t really want CDPR to explore :| Unless maybe in combination with the former.

You're right. Well I'm not particularly asking how the game should be changed. I'd like to know how could I make myself enjoy the game most.

But it would be nice if it really was stated beforehand, wheter or not I can explore this place afterwards..
Open world sounds promising. But we don't know if it's cut in segments like in TW2 - just with muuuch bigger areas.

My choice would be to just go with the flow. In Skyrim I spent dozens of hours just running about, not even touching the main story and enjoying the world. In the end though, an open world means that you choose how you want to play.

The only questions I have is the dissapearing of side quests and reaching the ending. We do not know if sidequests are timed and can be failed that way and if you can continue playing after the ending.

Yeah, exploring is what I want to do if there wasn't intesive situations going on. So I hope the game actually has slower pace - giving much time that I can decide myself how to use it. It would definitely ease my problems.

It would be great if it was told somewhere wheter the quest is timed when accepting it etc. Knowing the rules helps creating the character you are. It would be unfare to just say afterwards "oh, that man died because you didn't help" as it's something that's not typical in gaming. So failing does not really indicate that one didn't care enough about the injured man...

And I've always loved that I can continue playing after the main plot. That we can ask from others when TW3 is out.

 

[Ifrit30]

If there was a situation "your friend is being almost skinned alive in the next door", what I do? Yes, I feel I should run to the room and save the friend. But actually I first go thoroughly through the place I'm in.. looking for useful things and all... In Tomb Raider I also went to raid a secret tomb (short sidequest) despite the intensive situation.

Yeah that's the same for me too.

CDP Red said in one interview that some quests or events (like the ones you described) are timed, i.e. the rescuing of the elves in the burning house in the end of ACT 1 of Witcher 2 you had only a short time to rescue them if you wanted to. So there will be definitely some major events timed, dunno about the small quests etc.

 

[ironclaw]

If you're currently on a quest and something like that happens I would go and get on with it and save that person.

But if you're not currently on a main quest go and roam the lands. Although there are some timed quests so look out for those (usually involving the gradual deaths of people, the game might let you know).

 

[username_2064020]

"This is going to be AWESOME"?

 

[Aditya]

Without any mindset. That's the way to enjoy this or anything for that matter.

 

[colibrie]

Without any mindset. That's the way to enjoy this or anything for that matter.

Umm just how? Being more spontanious/mindless? But as I said those habits I'm having are quite deep in myself... if I do not do anything about it I'm just going to repeat them... :'(

"This is going to be AWESOME"?

Of course it's going to be awesome! Just don't want to lessen the greatness due to my old way of playing. Or at least I want to minimize that while I can.

 

[Rudlee]

All these sheep. Saddening...

 

[RSIK_4]

just play with brainless....okk...tw3 story and gameplay will be much more demanding

 

[tommy5761]

I would say to play it with an open mind might be the best solution . It has been said that some quests will be timed . But how much time has not been said . Also it has been reported that with multiple choices on how you complete a quest may also be a factor . For instance completing a quest that is good for Geralt could be bad for the village or person and vice versa what could be good for the village or person involved could be bad for Geralt and that we would be able to revisit those places to see what ramifications our decisions had upon the place in question .

 

[dragoonlordz]

I hate timed events, with few exceptions. I am the kind of player who wants to see and do everything, explore every corner of the world check every cupboard, under every bed, read every book in game.

I know that if an NPC in the next room is in trouble I should go help but if I feel the room I am in might become un-explorable later if I go through that door I will not go through it until checked the room out. Out of the two situations I would be more unhappy going through it without checking in order to keep tension high or possible immersion than I would if I put going through on hold for moment while I had quick look around. So it is the lesser of two evils for me to not have it as a timed event.

The sort of exception which I mentioned is okay earlier would be if I had entered a building or cave or whatever and on the way down I had all the time in the world to explore, the timed event like cave-in or house catching fire would not occur until I reached the very end and had seen and done everything I possibly could prior to reaching that point. At that stages a timed event of me making my escape is fine.

The other exception is if I feel or know that I can return to that place later to explore more thoroughly after the quest in which case having a timed event is fine at that location.

In the end it depends how they use timed events but I do not like their use more often than not. I certainly tend to avoid any games that stick some time limit on completion like next FF will.

 

[Mothra]

This is an awesome question.
In alot of games we somehow expect to get punished for "not" doing certain things or "not" doing them in a specific manner. The challenge for the devs is to present each situation as clearly as possible (from a mechanical standpoint, not a story standpoint). So if there is a timed event, e.g. saving the women in the burning tower in flotsam it should be clearly visible and understandable for the player, in that case (imo) CDPR did a good job. At other times you do NOT want to expose internal mechanics to the player because you will indirectly force him to play with a certain mindset - just like you said.
the challenge here is to completely hide it until a certain point in the game and then hit the player with the proverbial sledgehammer over the head, e.g. giving him a flashback explaining that a certain decision led up to this. This makes the player feel much more important, having more agency in the world and encourages replays where you want to explore the different possiblities the game will offer, e.g. the massacre in Flotsam occuring/not occuring.

The most important thing here is to NOT punish the player for his decisions, a thing TW2 did not right in some instances. Many ppl saved Aryan Lavalette at the start of the game in the dungeon bc they KNEW they will loose out on the carrying capacity perk, forcing them into this decision bc they would feel they gimped their character if they decide not to.

For me as a player this can lead to immersion breaking and/or frustration if I feel the dev has done specific things to prevent my enjoyment of playing as a certain type of character or with a certain mindset. This is what RPGs is all about for me. Giving the player tools and decisions and then present a reaction to it in the world - not matter how big or small - to reinforce that feeling of agency/having impact in a way that makes the player think: well, that is ok, that makes sense, oc that would happen.

Having said that, playing as a certain character - in this case the Witcher Geralt - can make things even more difficult because the story and repercussions must fit this character. You cannot allow certain things like killing civilians or making Geralt a farmer or some other stupid shit players could come up in an open world that does not care about what you do at all. While those can be fun you loose emotional connection and REaction.

TL;DR : I do not envy CDPR />

 

[Aditya]

Umm just how? Being more spontanious/mindless? But as I said those habits I'm having are quite deep in myself... if I do not do anything about it I'm just going to repeat them... :'(

When I say 'without a mindset' means just don't have any opinions, both 'it will be great' or 'will it be great or disappointing?' Just don't think, have an open mind and dive in. Of course many here like me who are totally in love with the witcher are going to have big hopes, plus all the newcomers too will have high expectations, but in the end, not restricting your head in a box makes things easier for it.

 

[Thothistox]

(This topic is not about changing TW3. This is about how a person should play the game and react to the situations.)

I've been playing games for years now and some habits have definitely rooted in my mind. And I think those can make the game less immersive. Here is what I'm talking about:

If there was a situation "your friend is being almost skinned alive in the next door", what I do? Yes, I feel I should run to the room and save the friend. But actually I first go thoroughly through the place I'm in.. looking for useful things and all... In Tomb Raider I also went to raid a secret tomb (short sidequest) despite the intensive situation.

If I come to a room and there was an injured man in the center... What I do? I interact the least important things at first.. and then lastly with the injured character. That's not how I'd do it IRL and that's why it's decreasing the immersivity.

--

Too many times games have made me go uneasy when interacting with the "most interesting character/situation" at first because that might let the story rolling and god knows where I'm automatically dragged. And if I could go check the less interesting things any time soon.

And as I know those important events are skripted - "there is no hurry". The injured man is not going to die even if I do a little search.. or who knows, maybe I should go craft some new weapon before activating the story?

--

Should I get rid of these traits or do you think they are natural part of gaming?
And how should I change my way of thinking? I need something concrete examples so I could adapt a new way.

Have you noticed more of these in your own way of gaming?

In TW3 there are sidequests naturally molded in the plot. So that's why I think I might need to reshape my mindset. Should I go after every interesting side-thing I notice or should I reassure myself that "I can do it some other time - let's declare this intensive situation first". Or do I, by thinking like that, just end up running the game through?

Any thoughts?

I sometimes play the way you've described. I would call it a bit disfunctional and an effect of poor level/quest design. The player should never be given the choice between an unimportant but limited-opportunity task and an important one. Even worse is if the unimportant option is actually really helpful in terms of gameplay. Using your example, you might find really useful weapons before rescuing your friend. Games should not encourage that sort of thing. Instead, the story should flow. The resulting story should seem plausible.

 

[vonjose]

An open world is always appreciated if it is well done, and I would like very much to go free once the main story. That said, most importantly a great story, and is the developer who must delight us with their work, and we enjoy it, without setting the standards. We are to enjoy their work.

 

[Blothulfur]

Geralts (well your interpretation of him anyway.)

 

[vivaxardas2015]

I am planning on being sober, well-rested, and on vacation, or on (pretend) sick leave (yeah, I am that dishonest). Other then this, I would just import my favorite save, and take it from there the way it seems intuitive. Nobody is going to take the game from me later anyway, so if I feel something did not come out as I wanted, I'll change it on my next run, and so on till I am perfectly satisfied with the outcome. Such a huge game as TW3 will be able to occupy me for years, no need to worry about messing up somehow.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

no need to worry about messing up somehow.

Basically this, for me, all throughout the game, any game for that matter. Even if you fail or mess up or whatever, take it in stride (c'est la vie d'un chien), or if you can't, just reload.