Is it true open-world or psuedo open-world?

[EliHarel]

Whats overlooked is that there are also some advantages to an open world. In the previous games you would only get to see the wider effects of your decisions as a blurb in the epilogue since each act moved on to an entirely new location. With the open world they've talked a lot about being able to return to the places and see the effect of decisions/deeds first hand.

Yep, agreed.

Maybe I'm not recalling TW2 well enough, but I wonder sometimes if the consequences aspect is a bit over-romanticized here. I still don't see how TW2 has an advantage in main missions over the open world design. Because that's the thing here. The "freedom problem" is mostly about side quests, because them you can do at whatever order you want. Not so with the main storyline. Its progression is still linear. They don't need to calculate an infinite amount of world states based on what you took what mission, because the world state is affected by main storyline decisions - just as it was in TW2 - and those missions have a one-direction progress.

Furthermore, in TW2 you truly tasted the changes to the world you caused only for brief periods of time before moving on to the next chapter, to mostly forget about what you did. And I don't recall TW1 or TW2 having side quests with significant consequences. I just skimmed through this list of TW2 side quests, and I don't see how anything here might suffer, seriously suffer, from the transition to open world. I also can't recall how side-quests affected the main storyline in a serious, note-worthy manner. So this, again, is another way in which doing them at whatever order you want, in an open world game, shouldn't be an issue. Not one that I'm comprehending.

I'm not trying to be snarky, by the way. I'm honestly not understanding the issue.

 

[BlackWolf500.298]

Not at all. The game and its world stay exactly the same. And honestly, I understand it. Let's assume that Skyrim had 100 "major" or bigger quests with choices involved. And let's assume that you can do a lot of them at any given time, just as you like. You see the extremely high number of possible combinations and possible "world states"? It's illusional to think that a game developer could cover all that different world states in an "appropriate", believable manner. Even if you want to do so - the problem is probably just too big and would involve to many manhours.

Strange, because what you say here is exactly what some of the CDPR devs have said they achieved or at least attempted.

They talked about how you can do any quest at any given time and that all of that had to be taken into account during the design and that even based on which part of the main quests you do first the game will have a slightly different story. So they somehow seemed to (at least believe to) have achieved it. They said it was the biggest difference in terms of designing TW3 in comparison to what they did with previous Witcher game, but they seemed to be convinced to have managed it well while preserving the narrative depth.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Surely, there are some narrative pitfalls that they'll have to be careful of in the open world, but it sounds like they are totally aware of them. Some of it, like the Griffin thing mentioned, just can't be avoided and that really just falls down to the player anyway.

Of course it could be avoided. For example the Griffin could be goten away and maybe kill another citizen or animal in the meantime when Geralt isn't pursueing the quest anymore or needs too much time, recovering from its wounds. Then Geralt would have to begin from the start and people living in the region would react to that in the respective manner. But obviously that's not the case. And that has a reason. It's difficult to do something like that for almost every quest, given the many combinations of quests and progressing you could perform as player in an open world. That's exactly my point...

Whats overlooked is that there are also some advantages to an open world. In the previous games you would only get to see the wider effects of your decisions as a blurb in the epilogue since each act moved on to an entirely new location. With the open world they've talked a lot about being able to return to the places and see the effect of decisions/deeds first hand.

But only with a great IF. Of course that's possible but it's also incredibly difficult to implement due to the complexity and effort you need. I guess there will be some such visible consequences for "major" quests (like the one they presented in summer with the village and the fight against the Leshen) but surely not for everything. Like I've said, it will at least be better than Skyrim in that respect.

---------- Updated at 11:13 PM ----------

Strange, because what you say here is exactly what some of the CDPR devs have said they achieved or at least attempted.

They talked about how you can do any quest at any given time and that all of that had to be taken into account during the design and that even based on which part of the main quests you do first the game will have a slightly different story. So they somehow seemed to (at least believe to) have achieved it. They said it was the biggest difference in terms of designing TW3 in comparison to what they did with previous Witcher game, but they seemed to be convinced to have managed it well while preserving the narrative depth.

Of course they see the problems. They are good designers. Of course they want to deal with the issue. That's not the question and it's surely not strange.

And of course they're telling us that they managed to do it. What else shall they say? That it sucks? Yeah, great PR I guess.

And a "slightly" different story means nothing at all. "Slightly different" and "believable/immersive" can be two completely different things. In the end it comes down whether you believe them (and to what extend...) or not. Many of you seem to believe every single word they say, no matter if it's a pure marketing and PR statement or not. But I have my doubts based on the huge challenge and the almost impossible combination of freedom and direction. It's as simple as that.

 

[frivolousam]

But only with a great IF. Of course that's possible but it's also incredibly difficult to implement due to the complexity and effort you need. I guess there will be some such visible consequences for "major" quests (like the one they presented in summer with the village and the fight against the Leshen) but surely not for everything. Like I've said, it will at least be better than Skyrim in that respect.

In the end there'll be 36 different world states, plus minor states, this is somewhat concrete information and tells you there'll be major and minor changes in the world.

In the end it comes down whether you believe them (and to what extend...) or not. Many of you seem to believe every single word they say, no matter if it's a pure marketing and PR statement or not

Not without reason. They earned it.
16 DLCs = mostly PR.
Talking about - how they are doing what - in the game, not so much.

 

[thislsmadness]

Of course it could be avoided. For example the Griffin could be goten away and maybe kill another citizen or animal in the meantime when Geralt isn't pursueing the quest anymore or needs too much time, recovering from its wounds. Then Geralt would have to begin from the start and people living in the region would react to that in the respective manner. But obviously that's not the case. And that has a reason. It's difficult to do something like that for almost every quest, given the many combinations of quests and progressing you could perform as player in an open world. That's exactly my point...

It could be avoided but the solution is not really feasible... which pretty much means it cant be avoided. And its not just because of the open world either, that is something that is extremely difficult to pull off for any game that isnt on rails and dictating every move the player makes. Pulling that off in either of the first two games would have been an incredible task. Youre talking about creating a world that has to dynamically react to every whim/quirk of the player, theres almost no games that do that without resorting to a simple "gameover".

But only with a great IF. Of course that's possible but it's also incredibly difficult to implement due to the complexity and effort you need. I guess there will be some such visible consequences for "major" quests (like the one they presented in summer with the village and the fight against the Leshen) but surely not for everything. Like I've said, it will at least be better than Skyrim in that respect.

Definitely, I wouldnt expect that to happen in every hub. Youre probably not even making decisions to that degree all of the time anyway.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

In the end there'll be 36 different world states, plus minor states, this is somewhat concrete information and tells you there'll be major and minor changes in the world.

These world states says absolutely nothing about the consequences in the game itself (as you progress). Everyone could write down a few endings or even make some slightly different ending videos. That's not a big deal imo and it's clearly not what I talk about here.

Not without reason. They earned it.
16 DLCs = mostly PR.
Talking about - how they are doing what - in the game, not so much.

They have earnt nothing imo since the game is not released yet. What you've done in the past sadly says little in the video game business.

---------- Updated at 12:42 AM ----------

It could be avoided but the solution is not really feasible... which pretty much means it cant be avoided. And its not just because of the open world either, that is something that is extremely difficult to pull off for any game that isnt on rails and dictating every move the player makes. Pulling that off in either of the first two games would have been an incredible task. Youre talking about creating a world that has to dynamically react to every whim/quirk of the player, theres almost no games that do that without resorting to a simple "gameover".

True. Everything I've said was that it got the more difficult the more complex the game is and the more freedom you give players. We're going in circles somehow I fear. I know that it's difficult and that even linear games have problems with it. It's just even harder to pull it off in an open world game.

 

[Geralt_of_bsas]

Yep, agreed.

Maybe I'm not recalling TW2 well enough, but I wonder sometimes if the consequences aspect is a bit over-romanticized here. I still don't see how TW2 has an advantage in main missions over the open world design. Because that's the thing here. The "freedom problem" is mostly about side quests, because them you can do at whatever order you want. Not so with the main storyline. Its progression is still linear. They don't need to calculate an infinite amount of world states based on what you took what mission, because the world state is affected by main storyline decisions - just as it was in TW2 - and those missions have a one-direction progress.

Furthermore, in TW2 you truly tasted the changes to the world you caused only for brief periods of time before moving on to the next chapter, to mostly forget about what you did. And I don't recall TW1 or TW2 having side quests with significant consequences. I just skimmed through this list of TW2 side quests, and I don't see how anything here might suffer, seriously suffer, from the transition to open world. I also can't recall how side-quests affected the main storyline in a serious, note-worthy manner. So this, again, is another way in which doing them at whatever order you want, in an open world game, shouldn't be an issue. Not one that I'm comprehending.

I'm not trying to be snarky, by the way. I'm honestly not understanding the issue.

Keep in mind though, TW3 is not as linear as TW2 in terms of main quests. There's an extra variable, very important, that for what I heard from some devs has been exploited to a considerable potential. In TW3 you can change the order of the main quests, and that means you can change at what point in time the events of these quests take place. And like I said, according to some devs, the story actually does change depending what order you take quests on, and so the state of the world is sort of a custom result each time, not just of what quests you completed, but of how the order in which you did them limited/opened different consequences.

 

[frivolousam]

They have earnt nothing imo since the game is not released yet.

How would "believing/trust" work then? They'll earn our trust after we play their newest game? We'll trust them for small a amount of time then for Cyberpunk 2077 what they achieved in Witcher 3 would mean nothing?

What you've done in the past sadly says little in the video game business.

This statement can't be more wrong.

 

[EliHarel]

Keep in mind though, TW3 is not as linear as TW2 in terms of main quests. There's an extra variable, very important, that for what I heard from some devs has been exploited to a considerable potential. In TW3 you can change the order of the main quests, and that means you can change at what point in time the events of these quests take place. And like I said, according to some devs, the story actually does change depending what order you take quests on, and so the state of the world is sort of a custom result each time, not just of what quests you completed, but of how the order in which you did them limited/opened different consequences.

Ah, now that is complicated. Can you find the source? I don't recall reading about that (and I realize it might be difficult fishing it from all the dozens of links and hundreds of posts, so no worries if you don't feel like it).

 

[TheDeathRun]

Ah, now that is complicated. Can you find the source? I don't recall reading about that (and I realize it might be difficult fishing it from all the dozens of links and hundreds of posts, so no worries if you don't feel like it).

I recall CDPR saying something similar as well, though unfortunately I don't have a source either. It was something along the lines of: let's say you're looking for clues for something as part of the main quest. If you feel like it you can search for them in Novigrad, Skellige, or No Man's Land. If for some reason you get bored of Novigrad halfway through your search there, go to Skellige and search there instead. I'm afraid I don't have a source, so take that as you will.

 

[frivolousam]

Yeah it'd be difficult to find a specific source but It's has not been said once but many times. Main quests will be all around the map and you'll pick it up where ever you're, if you complete a piece of it then your completed piece will effect the rest of the pieces, that's why in which order you do the main quests will be important.

They told it like this once: Let's call main quests A-B-C and D on for corners of the world; you can do them in different orders like B-C-D-A/C-D-A-B/A-D-B-C...and each quest will effect the rest.

 

[EliHarel]

That's cool. But to play devil's advocate, that can mean more than one thing, and in both cases it isn't a problem limited to open worlds. It could be that you have several stand-alone objectives, like, say, in Dragon Age: Origins, where you could recruit your allies in whatever order, and it didn't influence the game too much. I have a feeling that this isn't the case with TW3 though, but something more complicated. But still, even in the more-complicated sort-of-one-direction but with many different approaches story, this isn't limited to open world. What's there to deny a developer in a hub-focused game, instead of open world, to do the same? Go search around in each hub, and do the quests in whatever order.

 

[TheDeathRun]

That's cool. But to play devil's advocate, that can mean more than one thing, and in both cases it isn't a problem limited to open worlds. It could be that you have several stand-alone objectives, like, say, in Dragon Age: Origins, where you could recruit your allies in whatever order, and it didn't influence the game too much. I have a feeling that this isn't the case with TW3 though, but something more complicated. But still, even in the more-complicated sort-of-one-direction but with many different approaches story, this isn't limited to open world. What's there to deny a developer in a hub-focused game, instead of open world, to do the same? Go search around in each hub, and do the quests in whatever order.

Good point. I guess what would separate TW3 is the consequences of your chosen order. Doing B first would affect A and vice versa. If that's not the case then it's... nothing special.

 

[frivolousam]

It could be that you have several stand-alone objectives, like, say, in Dragon Age: Origins, where you could recruit your allies in whatever order, and it didn't influence the game too much. I have a feeling that this isn't the case with TW3 though, but something more complicated.

I have the same feeling but it's based on what devs have said; like in this video(10:50 to 12:40)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO9kaZmQcos#t=651

Also for @Scholdarr : Watch this and tell me if you think this guy is capable of lying for PR purposes?

Yes, we should doubt what game devs/suits are saying but we shouldn't treat all of them equally if we have a reason not to; CDPR's not a company under a money-crazed publisher for one thing.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

How would "believing/trust" work then? They'll earn our trust after we play their newest game? We'll trust them for small a amount of time then for Cyberpunk 2077 what they achieved in Witcher 3 would mean nothing?

No, the message is that "trust" is a pointless trait in general when we talk about companies and products you can buy. All you can do is hoping that it will be to your liking but you should actually never "trust" a company. Loyalty and such things are ok for people you personally know, your friends and family, but not for companies for which you are a mere customer. But I know, that's how our ape brains sometimes work and PR is doing everything to strenghten that...

This statement can't be more wrong.

No, it's not. Every new game can suck even if all your previous games were great. That happens quite often in video games. Again, hope is not the same thing as trust. There's nothing wrong with being optimistic but don't push it too far.


But I've said everything I'd wanted to say so I'll probably leave the discussion. We're going around in circles anyway so there is little incentive to proceed with this discussion imo.

 

[DBag]

No, the message is that "trust" is a pointless trait in general when we talk about companies and products you can buy. All you can do is hoping that it will be to your liking but you should actually never "trust" a company. Loyalty and such things are ok for people you personally know, your friends and family, but not for companies for which you are a mere customer. But I know, that's how our ape brains sometimes work and PR is doing everything to strenghten that... .

I would just like to emphasize these words of wisdom.

 

[1337Smithy]

[trust] and such things are ok for people you personally know, your friends and family, but not for companies for which you are a mere customer.

If I knew all of the staff as personal friends, would I be able to trust them then?

No, it's not. Every new game can suck even if all your previous games were great. That happens quite often in video games. Again, hope is not the same thing as trust. There's nothing wrong with being optimistic but don't push it too far.

Of course it can, a person you've known and trusted for decades can still end up being untrustworthy. But I haven't seen anyone being absolutist here. I don't think it's unreasonable to claim that based on company ethos, what has been shown, previous endeavours, technological presentations, design mechanics, reviews (by reviewers that have same/similar tastes and reasoning to you), etc., it can, combined, help earn trust and expectations, even if in a tentative manner. I see 'optimism' as a confidence or trust in something. It's to do with likelihoods more than anything.

Plus, what are we trusting them to do? Make a game that we'll generally enjoy as individuals? It may not be a trust in them achieving perfection across the board, or indeed a trust in them creating a game everyone will like.

 

[BlackWolf500.298]

I recall CDPR saying something similar as well, though unfortunately I don't have a source either. It was something along the lines of: let's say you're looking for clues for something as part of the main quest. If you feel like it you can search for them in Novigrad, Skellige, or No Man's Land. If for some reason you get bored of Novigrad halfway through your search there, go to Skellige and search there instead. I'm afraid I don't have a source, so take that as you will.

I can confirm that. There was an interview (I think it was with one or two guys of the writing staff) where they asked what the biggest challenge or the biggest difference was in TW3 in comparison to TW2's development and they said it was taking into account that you could do any quest at any given time later on. And they said that you can do different "parts" of the main quest-line in different orders and based on the order you did it in it would have slightly different outcomes.

As far as I understood it it really is that you can make certain decisions or discover certain things in one of the "parts" of the main storyline which will then influence the next parts. I mean, after all there might be a lot that we are trying to achieve.

1. We want to find Yennefer
2. We want to find Ciri
3. We want to find the Wild Hunt

Also, we have different goals and friends. Triss, Yennefer, Ciri, Vesemir, the other Witchers, Zoltan, Dandelion, they can all serve as go-to stations for the progress of a part of the main quest. Maybe we can investigate certain things to find the people and things we need to find and have to decide which lead to follow first. Based on this we might find out things we wouldn't otherwise or change the fate of a character we meet or the situation of the person or thing we are searching for is changing. It all depends. Since this is a very personal quest and we have a lot of things to achieve in the end there is definitely room for mixing the whole thing up. And since TW3 is "the last" game of Geralt they will not be restricted by possible sequels in terms of the decisions and world states.

 

[Psycroptoxic]

http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=988112

I had some good laugh through facepalming reading how people are disappointed and how Reds lied about seamless open world based on absolutely literal interpretation of extremely vague statement of some german previewer before conducting any further research.

Only recommended to read if your faith in humanity cannot decrease any more.

 

[EliHarel]

I knew this from the first day I began following TW3, before I even bothered reading interviews and the like. So some of these people don't do even a minimal research into a game, and then have the nerve to call the developers liars? Or instead, some logic there says that if two maps are as big as Skyrim, but they're separated by a loading screen, then it's not open world (and let's ignore that there aren't loading screens when entering buildings, which is a blessing).

I really need to stop interneting.