News and Rumours about TW3 (Was Tomorrow is the Day!)

[CostinRaz]

They might as well have Emhyr talk about how he doesn't see why a person shouldn't be as cruel as nature. It would just be "perfect"

That a Hitler quote btw.

 

[Seboist]

Their comments about Nilfgaard being "the empire of evil" still make me experience fear, years later.

They must be channeling Reagan's "evil empire" comment.

I've been worried for a while now about Nilfgaard's portrayal in this ever since I heard them being compared to the Nazis by one of the devs in a TW2 "making of" featurette.

Hopefully Nilfgaard doesn't turn into another Derperus or the Wild Hunt into another Reapers.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

No I;d rather have Emhyr stare into the soul of a dwarf, and methodically explain why his kind needs to be annihilated, while sitting on a throne made of the skull of northerners.


....suddenly Emhyr the White Bunny sounds compelling

 

[Garrison72]

But if resolving a political conflict has us kill a giant, what's the difference between that and your average monster slaying?

And more and more it seems like there is no pro-Nilfgaard path, except maybe through inaction which I would hate.

Backing Nilfgaard may depend on Sapkowski's lore. Maybe those who have read all the books can guess whether this is tenable or not. Monsters are used as backdrop and metaphor in good fantasy. Based on the VERY spare description we got, I wouldn't rule that out. The meat of the conflict could still be inter-tribal squabbling, the climax a fight with a giant.

What was your e-mail about?

 

[Seboist]

No I;d rather have Emhyr stare into the soul of a dwarf, and methodically explain why his kind needs to be annihilated, while sitting on a throne made of the skull of northerners.


....suddenly Emhyr the White Bunny sounds compelling />

How about Emhyr being possessed by the Wild hunt and then through some talk-jutsu commits seppuku to free himself?

 

[Username.]

New interview with the devs: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2013/02/08/designing-the-witcher-3-wild-hunt.aspx

 

[grregg]

I fail to see exactly why shouldn't people question CDPR? Why blindly follow a company just because of their past games? It's really the wrong way to go as it has been shown to us especially with Bioware and Blizzard just what can happen with that mentality.

To me it seems that the wise course of action is that when they have something that's essentially bad marketing that developers should be held responsible for it not defended for it.

As Dragonbird noted: Complacency doesn't fix anything.

I wouldn't propose to follow a company blindly, but still two thoughts occur.

One is that "past games" are also known as a "track record" and I would think that a good track record counts for something. I'm assuming here that you did enjoy TW and TW2. It is actually quite funny to see how little faith CDPR fans have in CDPR.

Second is that you really cannot fix the company from the outside. Heck, it's hard enough to do it from the inside. So if for some mysterious reason CDPR decided to crash and burn crash and burn they shall. Regardless of whatever wisdom KoP puts in his email.

Or, you know, they could be making another great game and a reveal of one quest out of dozens that they probably have doesn't mean anything. By the same token as starting Cyberpunk marketing with a half-naked kneeling female doesn't necessarily mean that it'll all be about kneeling women. Or does it?

 

[yokokorama]

First of all you make such a big deal, and overreact based on a paragraph that you read on a magazine about an example of a situation that could be present in the game that's far from finished, and also that's featuring a huge world with 100+ hours of goddamn quests.

While I may or may not agree with how Costin Moroianu is going about it, I have to agree with him in the long run. I believe its very important to vocalize our thoughts NOW. Since CD Projekt still has over a year to develop the game (technically, they've given themselves about a 2 year window if the game releases late 2014), they can realistically sculpt the game to the fans' desires. If we wait until we get "more details," it may be too late for any substantial changes to take place.

So yes, jumping the gun isn't good idea most of the time, but given the fact that by the time we get more details the game might be much closer to releasing, its better to speak out now. Not to mention that CD Projekt probably CHOSE that quest to be featured in the magazine. The fact they felt comfortable enough using that quest to "market" the game to us and get us interested should mean they hold it in at least moderate regard. And if we don't like what they deem to be adequate enough to feature in a popular magazine, we should [respectfully] let them know.

The main thing worrying me about Witcher 3 right now (in addition to a plot that is not as politically driven) is when I see statements like "its a good place to start the series" and "you don't need to play the prequel to hop right in." Obviously, accessibility is an important thing from a financial perspective (for sales) but I hope that making game more "accessible" doesn't involve the extreme dumbing down of plot-lines and politics for the sake of new-comers.

I really hope that those of us who played Witcher 2 (and even Witcher 1) get a unique experience (for example, get to team up with old friends like Iorverth, Roche, Saskia, or Letho, depending on what we did and have the game recognize the different states the northern kingdoms were left in at the end of our Witcher 2 playthroughs).

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Backing Nilfgaard may depend on Sapkowski's lore. Maybe those who have read all the books can guess whether this is tenable or not.

I don't see why it wouldn't be tenable.

If what CDPR is going to do is revert Geralt back to his pre-game self, then what was the point of all the character development and growth in TW1 and 2?

Yes Geralt is a set character and yes there are things he would not do. But short of making Emhyr like Loredo, I do not see why Geralt would absolutely reject the idea, if Emhyr can provide him with assistance in his personal quest. I of course am not asking for Geralt to become like Letho and actually join the empire.

Geralt post-amnesia is a new Geralt, even with his memory fully restored, and he can do things that pre-games Geralt wouldn't do, as long as they still fit his character.

What was your e-mail about?

I just asked for clarification if the Skellige crisis is indeed that simplistic and if the politics of TW3 will be on that level, after voicing my concern.

 

[CostinRaz]

I'm assuming here that you did enjoy TW and TW2. It is actually quite funny to see how little faith CDPR fans have in CDPR.

Blizzard had a great track record as well until they jumped the Shark, as did Bioware.

 

[yokokorama]

I just asked for clarification if the Skellige crisis is indeed that simplistic and if the politics of TW3 will be on that level, after voicing my concern.

Please keep us updated if you get a response or reply of some sort.

 

[Seboist]

New interview with the devs: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2013/02/08/designing-the-witcher-3-wild-hunt.aspx

Nice vid, at the end they said they read the boards and to voice any wants for the game. Hopefully they notice our concerns for the Skellige quest and about Nilfgaard in general.

 

[gregski]

Stop it you guys. Too early for arguing..I'm reading the scans and an interesting note:You actually have a choice to not complete an areas major plotline. That's very impactful.

No. We need arguing now. This forum was asleep for too long!

But it's all there, in both games. I don't see the problem with them including it in TW3. Personally I like the way they've described the game's structure. You basically have 3 parts:

-random open world stuff, which includes monster hunting. Not the core experience of The Witcher but it''s always seemed more meaningful to me than killing monsters in other games. I'm glad they're expanding on it.

-resolving political conflicts in the 3 major areas, dealing with the Nlifgardian invasion.

-finding Yennefer and dealing with the wild hunt is the main narrative thread. And really, this could still take a backseat to the political stuff and the story would work just fine.


If someone asked me to pen the ideal narrative goals for TW3, this would be it.

Well, as Knight said, if "resolving political conflitcs" is "kill teh giant and you're a saviour of princes" then there's not politics but just some simple, fantasy CLICHE that I thought died a few Witcher games ago.

 

[Garrison72]

While I may or may not agree with how Costin Moroianu is going about it, I have to agree with him in the long run. I believe its very important to vocalize our thoughts NOW. Since CD Projekt still has over a year to develop the game (technically, they've given themselves about a 2 year window if the game releases late 2014), they can realistically sculpt the game to the fans' desires. If we wait until we get "more details," it may be too late for any substantial changes to take place.

So yes, jumping the gun isn't good idea most of the time, but given the fact that by the time we get more details the game might be much closer to releasing, its better to speak out now. Not to mention that CD Projekt probably CHOSE that quest to be featured in the magazine. The fact they felt comfortable enough using that quest to "market" the game to us and get us interested should mean they hold it in at least moderate regard. And if we don't like what they deem to be adequate enough to feature in a popular magazine, we should [respectfully] let them know.

The main thing worrying me about Witcher 3 right now (in addition to a plot that is not as politically driven) is when I see statements like "its a good place to start the series" and "you don't need to play the prequel to hop right in." Obviously, accessibility is an important thing from a financial perspective (for sales) but I hope that making game more "accessible" doesn't involve the extreme dumbing down of plot-lines and politics for the sake of new-comers.

I really hope that those of us who played Witcher 2 (and even Witcher 1) get a unique experience (for example, get to team up with old friends like Iorverth, Roche, Saskia, or Letho, depending on what we did and have the game recognize the different states the northern kingdoms were left in at the end of our Witcher 2 playthroughs).

Agree 100%. Voice our concerns now, but let's be tactful about it.

The accessibility bit is always a concern to me. Some people here may remember me freaking the fuck out about it prior to TW2. So yeah, I've no pity for people that could't keep up with the stories or combat in both games and I don't think that audience needs to be catered too. There's a level scaling joke in there somewhere...

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

The accessibility bit is always a concern to me.

Yea them saying that some people thought the politics of TW2 were "too much", hence there will be less of it, has me worried as well.

 

[Username.]

Agree 100%. Voice our concerns now, but let's be tactful about it.

The accessibility bit is always a concern to me. Some people here may remember me freaking the fuck out about it prior to TW2. So yeah, I've no pity for people that could't keep up with the stories or combat in both games and I don't think that audience needs to be catered too. There's a level scaling joke in there somewhere...

There's no level scaling, check the interview I've posted

 

[CostinRaz]

I didn't like the notion that the tutorial will be incorporated into the storyline...but oh well.

 

[yokokorama]

The accessibility bit is always a concern to me. Some people here may remember me freaking the fuck out about it prior to TW2.

I'm new to the forums, so I didn't see that. But to be honest with you, Witcher 2 was kind of independent from Witcher 1 in the sense that you didn't need to know much about the first game to play the second.

However, in Witcher 1, a lot of the stuff you did was "contained" (as in most of the decisions and impact you had on the game world was on the local level at best). In Witcher 2, you impact entire kingdoms and decide the fate of kings and leaders (Henselt, Saskia, and other important figures like Anais, Sile, etc). So to "ignore" all of that is a lot different (and worse) than ignoring the scuffle you had with Salamandra and the Grand Master (which pretty much only affected Vizima / nearby locations).

The way I see it, what will make or break Witcher 3 for me is how the game acknowledges our unique ending states of Witcher 2. It's so crucial to me that I don't care how long it takes them. If they need to until 2015, or 2016, or hell, even more, so be it. I just don't want to have a ME3 bad feeling all over again. I want this series to finish as strongly as it began.

So yeah, I've no pity for people that could't keep up with the stories or combat in both games and I don't think that audience needs to be catered too.

I agree. It's a mature game - the audience should be the ones adjusting, not the game itself. I've played Witcher 2 three times and I still noticed or learned something new with each playthrough (either listening more carefully to dialogue or finding journal entries that I might have missed earlier). The complexity of the game's plot lines should be something seen as a good thing and something that increases replay value, not something seen as a detriment.

 

[Garrison72]

I didn't like the notion that the tutorial will be incorporated into the storyline...but oh well.

I don't either. Massive immersion killer. Keeping it separate in TW2 seemed perfect to me.

 

[Wazhai]

The people who didn't get the story didn't care about it, they skipped cutscenes, didn't pay attention to dualogue and/or didn't bother to read the journal. Making the story simpler to understand and keep up with will only hurt the game because these people still won't care about it whatever the developers do.

I'm OK with politics being a subplot and the personal story taking the spotlight. In TW2 there was very little personal story and it was all about politics, even a little too much of them IMO. The Geralt from the books doesn't care about politics so the personal focus of TW3 seems logical.

That is why a quality political story should be there for those that care about it and want to dig deeper to discover it and grasp it completely, but fully understanding it should not be that vital for experiencing the game and the main point - Geralt's personal story.