Actually a GREAT story!
It's the perfect example how an Open World game can be built around a wonderful story full of twist, feelings and emotions. I can't wait to play the Geralt version!
Last edited:
I still disagree with the opinion that Skyrim was a large contributing factor to making TW3 open world. The reason why being that Skyrim is hardly the first open-world Elder Scrolls game. It is the 5th in a series of open-world games and it was the same size as the 3rd and 4th games. Skyrim wasn't innovative because of its open-world. In fact, many fans of the series consider Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind to be the peak of the series.
IMO the reason why they decided to make TW3 open-world is because next-gen technology was finally powerful enough for them to make an open-world game while maintaining the same level of narrative quality they expect from themselves. I also think they felt they had mastered the narrative aspects of the series in TW2 and it was time to innovate the franchise is other directions.
It happens to all of us sometimes
. Speaking from my personal experience though, it does make a difference taking the time to calm down before writing something.
Last edited:
As pointed out before, RDR has a pretty much linear story, just like for example AC. Witcher 3 offers small or big decisions in every single quest. The problem with open world is not storytelling in general but immserive choice and consequence.Actually a GREAT story!
So while RDR is a good example for immersive world design it cannot really be used to answer the question if open world and storytelling in an RPG (with decisions and choice&consequence on various levels) can work together well...
An RPG open world is not only about C&C system, but it's a matter of quest design. How the quest design allow a multiple resolution system, and how the dialogues tree works.
The Witcher 3 will deliever, I believe CDPR will do it justice.
Last edited:
I am going to respectfully call baloney on that.
In fact, devs themselves - you know, the only people who've played the game inside out - made extensive comparisons, both to contrast but also to equate with.
For example:
[video=youtube;hqk-9FKcuZ4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqk-9FKcuZ4[/video]
All the talk about refraining from using Skyrim, Fallout or AC as examples for comparison sake is not only nonsensical but also the exact opposite of what lead REDs have done aplenty and at length.
TW3 is not going to reinvent the wheel. It might be the best wheel ever though.
Fair enough, my point was that people (not the Devs) expect the game to be too much like another such as Skyrim rather than appreciating it's own unique qualities. I know there will always be comparisons to other games and I appreciate the Devs comparing the game to others in the manner of which they do. What I don't like is for people who haven't played it, comparing it in unfair ways.
Last edited:
In those gameinformer interviews with writers Marcin and Borys: While Borys talks well and gives good information, I really didn't like that he always cut Marcin's sentences. Let the man talk FFS!
I agree on the technical issues (bugs, poor design choices) but I disagree on the storyline: it is well written and its only flaw is that was too short and the final was too rushed (maybe because they wasted a lot of time making useless areas and a multiplayer mode no one wanted?).
I liked DA:I but the story was very weak in my opinion I mean really how often do we have to go through saving the world again?
its just boring at this point and in this game they completely went overboard with it and basically declared you Jesus 2.0 or some Messiah
The Inquisitor was also very bland there were very few RP possibilities and the villian was cliche as hell
The companions and advisors are awesome though thats about it
The thing with Dragon Age(also Mass Effect), first game the story was as imported as characters, through second and third games characters became more important than the story which btw has become generic. Characters should be tools for the story, not the other way around.
On that I completely agree. But now stop talking about other games or we'll go off topic.
Whai I wanted to say is that a good story must be combined with interesting side quests, otherwise the world in which our characters is will seem boring and empty. As long as TW3 has interesting quests like the two previous games, I'll be a happy man.
Ahem, ther is more to meaningful C&C than just quest design and dialogues although quest design is of course of of crucial importance for an RPG (or any other story driven game). I don't know how this refutes my statement about RDR though (if you wanted to do so in the first place which I'm not quite sure of).
its certainly not an easy (since the open world is supposed to be very big) task but I have faith in CDPR
interesting side quests are very important I'm sick of fetch quests after playing DA:I but like you said off topic
Funny you should say that. I'm playing it now. It's wonderful. It still doesn't reflect player choice or ability correctly. The very core of the Witcher is consequences related to the story. That's an RPG.
Ultima, Gothic, Fallout (1 and 2), Arcanum... They were all games built on the premise that non-linearity and complete player agency are not mutually exclusive with a strong narrative and plenty of good pacing.
So yes, it's entirely possible as far as designers will stop taking The Elder Scrolls or shitty collect-a-thon like Assassin's Creed as models of how to build an open world game.
That said, the quality of a story in a RPG is a way overrated point in my opinion. What makes or breaks a RPG for me it's mostly how mechanically interesting I'll find it. Good narrative is an appreciated added value, but it's not what determines how much of a good experience I'll have playing the game.
Might & Magic VI isn't massively superior to Oblivion because the main plot is some outstanding novel-like story.
It's better because it has better balance, better dungeons, better puzzles, better pacing, etc.
I care about very specific things like the amount of unique content, unique characters with their own unique dialogue trees, quests which are mechanically differentiated, puzzles that don't assume I'm mentally challenged, a world that acknowledges my actions and reacts accordingly to them, fights that feel unique and/or challenging, itemization that rewards me occasionally when I meet some goals without pushing me to compulsively compare hundreds of very similar items (say no to Diablo-like loot in any decent RPG!), etc.
Last edited:
The recurring issue some people are reacting against, me included because I'm so tired of it, is Open World means Elder Scrolls. The basis of those peoples concerns about TW3 arises from their own experience of that other OW, which I assert is a narrow viewpoint based on limited experience, and respectfully, the ignoring of the REDs games vital differences, whish actually results in themselves not actually drawing valid comparison. When we compare we note similarities & differences, and the recognition of those existing differences that are the - dare I say - signature of CDPR is essential.
I've also played an awful lot of these games, been there over their series evolution... I get the impression i'm crustier than most of you, it provides me with a perspective that could be viewed as a gradual graph with peaks & troughs, whereas those relatively new to these things appear to me to view these things more as a flatland.
I've tried again to decide on a game that can be truly compared to TW2. I honestly can't think of one that doesn't have too many differences to make a useful subject of discussion.