That's not the comment I was referring to but w/e.AgentBlue said:
The point is, people who know what the game's about won't mind somewhat limited fast travel or Geralt being a preset character. People who DGAF about the game will request stupid shit and then cry about it and use that as their "proof" that TW sucks. Haters gonna hate one way or the other, making the game more generic certainly won't help.
My comment wasn't and isn't directed at you.ReptilePZ said:
If some can't seem to detect some mighty obvious sarcasm it might be they are looking for dumb questions just to vindicate their prejudgements.
If the hat fits.
I brought up the orc comment thing so I felt it was directed at me.AgentBlue said:
I just wanted to clarify what I meant by that and that I wasn't referring to that particular comment. My point was that we've seen many people (on this forum even) that post a list of features they'd like to be included in the next game that make no sense in the context of the witcher. So what I'm saying is, CDPR shouldn't listen to *all* feedback but to the *right* feedback. I assume they're clever enough to distnguish between the two otherwise they wouldn't have made such great and deep games. And people need to understand that there isn't one single model for open world RPGs (say, Skyrim). So not every feature ever can be available in The Witcher 3.
I feel like that comment was made by a person who's seen all the dumb suggestions a la Skyrim that don't fit Geralt/the world, which is why he brought up that question - just because it's dumb and people need to stop asking for nonsensical stuff like that.
You know the ability to kill random people is going to result is stupid crap. Why would Geralt go around killing people for no reason?AgentBlue said:
Now, if they can make this as a result of a decision/story element (e.g. the massacre in the inn from "The Witcher" short story) then more power to them. But making every NPC killable is plain dumb and doesn't fit the character. It's not a question of choice and consequence, it's a matter of Geralt not being that kind of person that would go on a massive killing spree for absolutely no reason.
I've said it before, I'll say it again - The Witcher is not Skyrim. The charatcer is predefined and has his morals - you're not the one defining them, you're the one making the morally ambiguous choices. And butchering a village just for lols or not doing that is not a morally ambiguous decision.
ReptilePZ said:
Jesus, just no.
So you walk up to an "innocent" NPC.
You draw your sword.
You swing it at his throat.
You do slit his throat...and nothing but an on-screen notification happens?
No.
Mistakes happen. Misjudgements happen.
How on earth does Geralt know for sure such and such NPC is "innocent"?
Do they wear pink tags on their foreheads?
Do you realize the absolute mess you are digging yourself into?
Why would Geralt walk up to a randome guy and swing his sword at him in the first place? How is that a mistake/misjudgement. That's just random crap the charatcer would never do. Just because you're "not sure" if he's an innocent dude or not, you're going to go around an entire village killing everyone just to make sure you've killed a bad guy?AgentBlue said:
Do *you* realise you're becoming that Skyrim fan that doesn't know there's a difference between the two games?
Because mistaking a civilian for an enemy combatant has never ever happened in military history?ReptilePZ said:
Right.
You do realize what that would entail, don't you? It would mean enemies would have to be identifiable at all times, so not to be confused with civilians. And that would rule out the possibility of enemies disguising themselves as ordinary NPCs.
It's official.
That hole is now a crater.
I don't see how your opinion makes something official.AgentBlue said:
You know what makes an enemy stand out - it's usually the guy attacking you so of course it's going to be pretty obvious who's an enemy and who isn't. Walking up to a random guy and killing him for absolutely no reason makes 0 sense.
Massacring and entire town in order to find a single hidden enemy also goes against Geralt's character.
ReptilePZ said:
Right, next time, I'll be sure to highlight rhetorical passages in red.
Ambushes, night time, fights in crowded squares,
There's a zillion instances where such mistakes can happen - and that's the reason why they've freakin' happened throughout hsitory. More importantly, making sure one can't kill innocent NPCs from the get go, making it an arbitrary top down restriction which I have no idea how on earth they're going to enforce, restricts designers big time. Lots of interesting ideas such as enemies disguising themselves as simpletons cease to be possible. All this in the name of some obscure and abstract notion.
I am sorry you can't seem to see that.
Too bad.
Ambushes - What's your point?AgentBlue said:
Night time - What's your point?
Fights in crowded spaces - I'm sure randompeople would avoid the area of a fight once it starts, not start bumping into your sword. Even if there is such a fight - the attackers would probably have a very good reason to attack Geralt in a crowded place so I'm sure if casualties are possible, the devs will enable that for that particualr fight. You don't need to have that option always on.
A big concern of yours seems to be disguises. Surely, once the attacker has started atacking Geralt, it would be pretty obvious who the enemy is. He doesn't need to be marked as an enemy at all times. Changing the status of an NPC isn't exactly a novelty in games.
Preventing the player from doing unrealistic, dumb shit does not limit designers. The game designers themselves are telling you killing innocents goes against Geralt's character.
I'm sorry you can't see that.
Too bad.
Consider the Prologue of TW2 where Geralt is fighting alongside Foltest's troops. I don't think that the combat controls are precise enough to only damage the enemy soldiers, so I'm glad they eliminated the possibility of friendly fire. There would be no logical reason for Geralt to attack the soldiers on his side, and if the player is punished for the controls being too fluid then that would not be fun at all. The same goes for other situations in the game in which a friendly person is fighting alongside Geralt. Friendly fire would add a lot of unnecessary aggravation to the game.
Well, it clearly does. Night time, and all other instance where low visibility might be an issue such as foggy weather, open up the chance of tragic mistakes. If an assignation attempt happens on a crowded square, in those initial moments of sheer havoc, you won't be able to tell friend from foe. And in fact mistakes such as this open up tremendous narrative possibilities, which, of course, have all been fully taken advantage of in novels and other literary works of fiction.ReptilePZ said:
But I have a question for you now.
How do you propose such restriction be enforced, hey?
I'm really curious.
Like it is in the first two games -- Geralt can only fight people who are already attacking him.AgentBlue said:
If something this big happens in the game, it will surely be a major (or some sort of) plot point. It won't be a random thing happening for no reason. If the designers really want to take advantage of a possible "mistake" then they're more than capable of enabling friendly fire for that single encounter.AgentBlue said:
If it was enabled all the time it would result in:
A) Frustration with the combat system
B ) Players doing stupid things that don't fit the character. I'm sure modders will be thrilled to add that possibility to the game for the people that REALLY want to just derp around. But I don't think this is a necessary mechanic for the core game.
Simple. Do it like it was in The Witcher 1 - player can't draw their sword in a safe area unless under attack. Or like in TW2, you can only attack whoever is attacking you.AgentBlue said:
Enable "friendly fire" when it makes sense and the plot can gain an advantage from it.
Well, they're overhauled the targeting system, so your assessment is based off on a shaky assumption. But even if the targeting system were the exact same, I'd still much prefer having to deal with the consequences of my ill aimed actions in a Open World game thatn having Devs putting completely artificial restrains upon me.WardDragon said:
And while we're on the subject how do you propose such restriction be enforced?
If I aim at an innocent NPC, will the targeting system automatically switch to the nearest enemy?
That'd be handholding to the ninth power.
Also against killing for the sake of killing. Paired with the sign mechanic the game must have, there is one minor problem, they said that environmets are affected by signs, imagine a essential non-killable NPC, that is standing in the middle of a burned patch of ground perfectly intact, while everything else is destroyed. I wonder how they will do that with the signs and friendly fire. Again completly against accidental kills via sword, Geralt sees well even without potions, and He is too much of a swordsman for layman mistakes.
So Geralt suspects he's about to be ambushed.
He can't draw his weapon until someone actually attacks him?
Right. Makes perfect sense.
I understand your viewpoints but let's just agree to disagree.
He can't draw his weapon until someone actually attacks him?
Right. Makes perfect sense.
I understand your viewpoints but let's just agree to disagree.