Did you play TW2? Geralt could draw his swords whenever he wanted, but he could only damage hostile NPC's who were attacking him (and if you try to attack a friendly NPC the sword "misses" and doesn't do any damage even if it looks like it hit ).AgentBlue said:
It's no longer an ambush if you're expecting it...AgentBlue said:
That can be part of a plot point in the game - e.g. Geralt doesn't investigate something very well or doesn't manage to get all the information out of someone. Then he doesn't get a warning about the ambush and the attackers get the first strike. Maybe a cutscene starts where Geralt gets wounded because of this and that then results in him being captured, thus expanding the quest and providing consequences for the player not being informed about the attack.
Or Geralt learns about the ambush, so instead of falling into the trap, avoids the ambush and attacks the enemies later on. Or he walks into the trap anyway but is prepared to avoid the attack.
I simply don't see how any of this justifies always on "friendly fire"
Every time someone chimes in and provides additional details on how it's been handled in the past the picture just gets darker, I'm afraid.WardDragon said:
I have no desire whatsoever to go on a killing spree. In fact, I personally never have, even in the game-which-cannot-be-named where you're allowed to. I just find it glaringly obvious imposing such a top down restriction hurts the game far more than simply letting the player deal with the consequences of his actions.
Suppose an enemy wishes to see Geralt wrongly imprisoned. He might have him drugged so that Geralt goes raving mad for a brief period and indeed goes on a killing spree. This is just right off the top of my head, so don't hold me to it, but it goes to show how this kind of good intentions end up stifling the game in terribly unnecessary ways.
Anyway, much as I dislike it, the feature is said to be in.
Either you allow completely uncharacteristic behaviour from Geralt or you do not. If you do, then performing such actions should of course have very dire repercussions in the game. Geralt stealing indiscriminately without a good reason is a sign of him having lost his marbles.
If an enemy makes Geralt attack innocents, then I don't see why that can't be handled in a cutscene. And if you're so eager to actually be in control of the character while butcherng those people, then I don't see how temporarily (while Geralt's still under the effect of the drug/hex) changing the random NPC status from neutral to enemy can't solve that problem.AgentBlue said:
Again, I fail to see why always on "friendly fire" is needed for such situations. It's very similar to the whole point why unlimited fast travel is bad.
No, if there's an analogy to be made here it's handholding, right there where it's most extraneous, combat. But it's been a staple since TW1, apparently, and they've announced it.ReptilePZ said:
So it's in alright.
Personally, I feel one has to pick one's battles. Slow-mo and Detective modes appear to be more problematic and potentially more harmful, though I could be wrong. I'm throwing in a pre-emptive strike on those features just in case.
And that is one of the other things I wasn't too happy about when I read the article. Looting from other people's houses is an old RPG mechanic that has no place in a modern game that's based on choices and consequences. I'm honestly kinda hoping they drop that by the time the game's released. Is it so difficult to not put loot in people's houses?Randomdrowner said:
There's a difference between handholding and mechanics that break the character and can't be implemented simply because of the limitaions of video games. Since you don't have a DM that can actively forbid you from doing dumb crap that ruins the RP aspect of the game/the campaign, video games are forced to use such restrictions.AgentBlue said:
I have yet to decide how I feel about slow mo and detective mode simply because I haven't seen it in action - can't really judge it at this point with so little information about it. No harm in raising concerns about it though
That would make things a lot easier. I just shutter to think that you walk into a house click a couple times near something and suddenly you take something and the guards are out to get you.ReptilePZ said:
I have said this in another thread: I don't think Geralt is always "stealing", my impression is that people let him take a few bits and pieces of crap because while they may not like or understand witchers, they realize that the job is important for their community, so they show appreciation by not raising hell when Geralt takes something.Randomdrowner said:
Killing is a lot worse I could maybe see Geralt stealing something if he was desperate, but I can't see him kill an innocent person who has not posed a threat to him.Greenei said:
No one ever say: "Please master Witcher help yourself to our stuff". If they did, it would be OK, although very strange given how people in general treat and shun Witchers.cmdrflashheart said:
I am especially curious as to what is your stance on this.Randomdrowner said:
Friendly fire- yay or nay?
Stealing?
My spontaneous thought is: Contextual.AgentBlue said:
First and foremost one must remember that we are not playing some kind character that we can model freely, like some more traditional rpgs aspire to. We are playing Geralt with returning memories after having lived with amnesia for a while.
As far as I know, Geralt does not steal, so causal theft seems out of place. However, Geralt might find himself in a situation when there are larger things at stake than getting money for a yet another new sword or a beer, he must acquire something in order to save someone and so forth. Then stealing seems like an appropriate optional method to try and solve the problem (for example steal the amulet that allows the mayor of the town to mind-control the townsfolk (just an example).
Friendly fire, well definitely not an outlandish idea when it comes to bombs and traps. Friendly fire would also seem reasonable when it comes to people getting in the path of ranged attacks. For melee, nah, perhaps on hardcore if someone gets in the way of a heavy blow and you are out of ”focus mode” or whatever.
I´l give it some thought.
Why is it important to have every bit of game logic explained or spoon fed. Just take some things on face value, and move on. This is not such an important aspect that it needs exposition.Randomdrowner said:
When it comes to some types of action, it is central that consent/permission is communicated and given or the action becomes an entirely different action. How else can you know what type of action was performed and what it means outside of ones own solipsistic head-canon?cmdrflashheart said:
This should be clear enough.