Over-complexity of TW3

[TouPoutsou]

Lol, i never meant the whole "best RPG of all time " LITERALLY. It was more in the sense that with high ambition and so much hype, naturally the expectations are going to be overly high as well. However if they do implement all the features to the level we expect them to do, it might as well be the case. We are dealing with a story driven, sandbox huge open world RPG, with complex build creation that "encourages hybrid" playing, serious tactical planning, and deep action based combat, on top of the most insane graphics ever seen in an open world RPG. Yeah this is THAT hard to do, without screwing the gameplay on different levels, and keeping the game relatively bug free. If we take a look at the legendary RPGs: Planescape Torment, Baldur's Gate, Diablo, Morrowing, Icewind Dale, Dragon Age, Dark Souls. All of them literally really excel in one of the above. TW3 aims to excel in ALL of them.
I am with ONLY_ONCE. I beleive they will pull it through.

 

[Agent_Bleu]

(...) i never meant the whole "best RPG of all time " LITERALLY. It was more in the sense that with high ambition and so much hype, naturally the expectations are going to be overly high as well. (...)

Let's not shift the onus here.

From The Beginning trailer (2013):

We'll once again break new ground and redefine the RPG.

From Features, official site:

A gigantic and limitless world to explore
...
Unparalleled novel-like story
....
Genre-defining, truly next generation audio-visual fidelity

The argument that gamers as a whole have somehow magically developed overly high expectations out of thin air just does not hold water. Can you give examples where you feel gamers have impossibly high expectations that are not grounded and mirrored in REDs' own statements?

Based off on TW1, TW2, what I've been shown and their professions of faith, I feel I'm entirely justified in expecting the best RPG ever. And I do genuinely expect the best RPG ever, instead of talking myself into believing a merely good one is around the corner just for the sake of avoiding potential disappointment further down the line. Another aspect to consider is that the whole package is what is looking out to be outstanding, not necessarily the individual bullet points. For example, TW3's graphics, though very good, are not the state of the art they once promised to be.

To answer your question, none of us is in the position to answer your question. Because none of us has actually played the game to see whether or not their ambition turned out to be in the detriment of the game itself, the only criterion by which it could justly be declared excessive. For now, I applaud them for going big instead of going home.

 

[thislsmadness]

Let's not shift the onus here.

From The Beginning trailer (2013):



From Features, official site:



The argument that gamers as a whole have somehow magically developed overly high expectations out of thin air just does not hold water. Can you give examples where you feel gamers have impossibly high expectations that are not grounded and mirrored in REDs' own statements?

Based off on TW1, TW2, what I've been shown and their professions of faith, I feel I'm entirely justified in expecting the best RPG ever. And I do genuinely expect the best RPG ever, instead of talking myself into believing a merely good one is around the corner just for the sake of avoiding potential disappointment further down the line. Another aspect to consider is that the whole package is what is looking out to be outstanding, not necessarily the individual bullet points. For example, TW3's graphics, though very good, are not the state of the art they once promised to be.

To answer your question, none of us is in the position to answer your question. Because none of us has actually played the game to see whether or not their ambition turned out to be in the detriment of the game itself, the only criteria by which it could justly be declared excessive. For now, I applaud them for going big instead of going home.

Caveat emptor.

Despite all the good will and respect that CDPR has (rightfully) earned as a developer, we have to remember that they are still in the business of selling a product. This means that you have to expect them speak about their product in an exaggerated and grandiose fashion because thats just how things have and always will be sold. So its really our responsibility to guard against the hype and keep our expectations tempered no matter how amazing CDPR says the game will be.

As for my expectations:

1. Its the first "new gen only" open world RPG, so I expect that to be true.
2. The storytelling and writing of the past games is, arguably, the best in the industry so I have high expectations here.
3. I don't expect this game will be much of a sandbox, I expect restrictions on what you.
4. I expect the combat will be better than the previous games, I dont expect that it'll will rank among the best of the action genre.
5 & 6. I don't expect that every fight will require prep work. The past games all went for a similar lean toward preparation but it was only necessary for encounters that were very difficult.

 

[TheDeathRun]

Let's not shift the onus here.

From The Beginning trailer (2013):



From Features, official site:



The argument that gamers as a whole have somehow magically developed overly high expectations out of thin air just does not hold water. Can you give examples where you feel gamers have impossibly high expectations that are not grounded and mirrored in REDs' own statements?

Based off on TW1, TW2, what I've been shown and their professions of faith, I feel I'm entirely justified in expecting the best RPG ever. And I do genuinely expect the best RPG ever, instead of talking myself into believing a merely good one is around the corner just for the sake of avoiding potential disappointment further down the line. Another aspect to consider is that the whole package is what is looking out to be outstanding, not necessarily the individual bullet points. For example, TW3's graphics, though very good, are not the state of the art they once promised to be.

To answer your question, none of us is in the position to answer your question. Because none of us has actually played the game to see whether or not their ambition turned out to be in the detriment of the game itself, the only criteria by which it could justly be declared excessive. For now, I applaud them for going big instead of going home.

Disagree somewhat. You are right that CDPR has marketed their game as such. But whether you willingly truly believe that is really up to you. Underworld Ascendant is being marketed as having "the underworld as a character, a dynamic, player-driven narrative, intense combat and inventive magic, and that the game will stretch traditional RPG boundaries". Do I really believe that this will turn out as they say? No. I can't remember the last time a game really re-invented the use of magic in combat, and what they claim they're doing with the game doesn't seem to stretch RPG boundaries. But that doesn't mean my expectations aren't high. I just choose not to be ignorant enough to buy into the marketing used to sell the game, especially the bit that is clearly hyperbole without a track record or substantial evidence to back it up ("limitless world to explore" - limitless world? Really? Maybe in content, but certainly not in geography).

 

[AvengerGrim]

The fact is...TW3 is not a sandbox.
Sandbox doesn't mean "open world". Sandbox is a superstructure in which you can modify the world as you like (Minecraft) or a game with a lot of tools and a big variety of approches that you can use to beat the game (Dishonored).

Note that I did make my point around the notion of a "sandbox RPG", an RPG structure with elements of "sandbox" in that you can do pretty much what you want, go where you want and, with the help of mods, much more, very inherent of big open-world games. "Sandbox" in itself is not a genre, more of an element in a game, the same way you compared two extremely different games as being "sandbox" or having "sandbox" elements, the same way TW3 do have sandbox elements...

 

[MichaelArdTirana]

The fact is...TW3 is not a sandbox.
Sandbox doesn't mean "open world". Sandbox is a superstructure in which you can modify the world as you like (Minecraft) or a game with a lot of tools and a big variety of approches that you can use to beat the game (Dishonored).

It can be modified... RedKit. [Much like TES Skyrim's Creation Kit.] So in that case, it is SandBox.

---------- Updated at 08:53 AM ----------

3)Sandbox: Massive Open world X x times bigger than Skyrim with non linear gameplay.

Sorry, while it may be a Sandbox, in that you can Mod it with RedKit - it is not really 'true' Open World, as discussed within these forums.
Apparently there are indeed walls in place to keep you from moving on until you complete certain quest.

How this plays out is not exactly clear to me, but it is, again, my understanding that these walls will prevent your full exploration at the outset of the game.

 

[Agent_Bleu]

Disagree somewhat. You are right that CDPR has marketed their game as such. But whether you willingly truly believe that is really up to you. Underworld Ascendant is being marketed as having "the underworld as a character, a dynamic, player-driven narrative, intense combat and inventive magic, and that the game will stretch traditional RPG boundaries". Do I really believe that this will turn out as they say? No. I can't remember the last time a game really re-invented the use of magic in combat, and what they claim they're doing with the game doesn't seem to stretch RPG boundaries. But that doesn't mean my expectations aren't high. I just choose not to be ignorant enough to buy into the marketing used to sell the game, especially the bit that is clearly hyperbole without a track record or substantial evidence to back it up ("limitless world to explore" - limitless world? Really? Maybe in content, but certainly not in geography).

Caveat emptor.

Despite all the good will and respect that CDPR has (rightfully) earned as a developer, we have to remember that they are still in the business of selling a product. This means that you have to expect them speak about their product in an exaggerated and grandiose fashion because thats just how things have and always will be sold. So its really our responsibility to guard against the hype and keep our expectations tempered no matter how amazing CDPR says the game will be.

As for my expectations:

1. Its the first "new gen only" open world RPG, so I expect that to be true.
2. The storytelling and writing of the past games is, arguably, the best in the industry so I have high expectations here.
3. I don't expect this game will be much of a sandbox, I expect restrictions on what you.
4. I expect the combat will be better than the previous games, I dont expect that it'll will rank among the best of the action genre.
5 & 6. I don't expect that every fight will require prep work. The past games all went for a similar lean toward preparation but it was only necessary for encounters that were very difficult.

What I mean is it cannot be reasonably claimed that overly high expectations rose out of thin air, when we have such bold statements from CD Projekt themselves. They were born out of their discourse and vindicated by their promotional materials such as the likes of the VGX trailer, which clearly was a turning point. Again, I would like anyone who thinks so to come forward and provide specific examples of impossibly high expectations.

Do I take the grandiose pompous language at face value? Of course not. Critical thinking is something we can't ever have too much of and that's why I shall keep calling REDs out on their ostensibly nonsensical statements, such as those on the Elder Blood trailer. Do I believe TW3 will reinvent the genre? No, not really.

To topple the king, whichever you feel it is, TW3 does not have to be perfect, which, of course, I can guarantee it won't be. It merely has to beat it on the core aspects. Much as I direct criticism at some of what has been shown, I just can't think of any other RPG that can rival in scale, aesthetics and depth of story. The only question remaining - granted, it is a paramount question - is whether or not gameplay will be on par.

If it is, gents, we have a new king on the block.

 

[moonknightgog]

It can be modified... RedKit. [Much like TES Skyrim's Creation Kit.] So in that case, it is SandBox.

This doesn't mean nothing. That is modding.

How this plays out is not exactly clear to me, but it is, again, my understanding that these walls will prevent your full exploration at the outset of the game.

And the presence of blockades or soft gates doesn't mean that TW3 isn't an open world.

 

[TouPoutsou]

Note that I did make my point around the notion of a "sandbox RPG", an RPG structure with elements of "sandbox" in that you can do pretty much what you want, go where you want and, with the help of mods, much more, very inherent of big open-world games. "Sandbox" in itself is not a genre, more of an element in a game, the same way you compared two extremely different games as being "sandbox" or having "sandbox" elements, the same way TW3 do have sandbox elements...

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/185353/focusing_creativity_rpg_genres.php

This is an article of a video game designer on the subject, and while i do disagree with him on several things, he still makes good points, and even adresses the very same topic of this thread. However his title should have been Action RPG genres, since he mostly ignores clasic RPGs like balur's gate in his classifications. Anyway he considers "sandbox" an actual RPG subgenre, since pretty much "sandbox" is the main focus of games like Skyrim. It worths a read.

 

[Thothistox]

I have a confession: I never really understood what people mean by sandbox.

I just take that to mean "open-world", but people keep saying it in addition to open-world, so maybe I'm missing something.

But anyway, yeah. Other than MGS 5, I can't think of another game that's nearly as ambitious overall.

Def. Sandbox n.
1 - A type of game in which nothing you do makes any difference whatsoever, and yet people won't complain
2 - The place your cat goes to do its business

You're welcome.

 

[wichat]

Def. Sandbox n.

2 - The place your cat goes to do its business

.

 

[AvengerGrim]

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/185353/focusing_creativity_rpg_genres.php

This is an article of a video game designer on the subject, and while i do disagree with him on several things, he still makes good points, and even adresses the very same topic of this thread. However his title should have been Action RPG genres, since he mostly ignores clasic RPGs like balur's gate in his classifications. Anyway he considers "sandbox" an actual RPG subgenre, since pretty much "sandbox" is the main focus of games like Skyrim. It worths a read.

Ill go read it, thanks.

 

[IsengrimR]

Yes, it's very ambitious.
Every article I read makes me just...
Well.

Let's just say I strongly disagree with A LOT of what devs say alarmingly more than what I disagreed with about Witcher 2.

Three quotes come to mind, at the end:
"A small mind is easily filled with faith."
"Hope is a first step on a road to disappointment."
"Skepticism is a virtue."

 

[truthinoneword]

I have a confession: I never really understood what people mean by sandbox.

I just take that to mean "open-world", but people keep saying it in addition to open-world, so maybe I'm missing something.

But anyway, yeah. Other than MGS 5, I can't think of another game that's nearly as ambitious overall.

It basically mean an "interactive" open world. Which I don't think really fits the Witcher 3 as it is closer to a narrative driven open world.

 

[frivolousam]

It basically mean an "interactive" open world. Which I don't think really fits the Witcher 3 as it is closer to a narrative driven open world.

Just cos its story driven doesn't mean it's not sandbox; day/night cycle, dynamic weather - ecosystem, economy system etc are sandbox features.

 

[truthinoneword]

Just cos its story driven doesn't mean it's not sandbox; day/night cycle, dynamic weather - ecosystem, economy system etc are sandbox features.

I always thought sand box was closer to games with more interaction in the environment than just events, mini games, and fighting enemies. Like how you can blow up entire cities in mercenaries, or murder countless people in GTA.

 

[thislsmadness]

I always thought sand box was closer to games with more interaction in the environment than just events, mini games, and fighting enemies. Like how you can blow up entire cities in mercenaries, or murder countless people in GTA.

Yeah, I've always understood sandboxes to be "make your own" fun style games. GTA has some sandbox elements since you can ignore the quests and just wreck havoc on the game world. However, something like Minecraft is a much better representation of a sandbox. I have not gotten the impression that Witcher 3 has any of this, its all very deliberate and directed.

 

[TouPoutsou]

You do not really have define a sandbox, you feel it when you play it. Skyrim is the perfect example: 90% of the quests are terrible, you have absolutely nothing MEANINGFULL to do in this world and YET, you have an incredible time just being in there. That is a remarkable achievement. So i do not consider sandbox a bad thing. Now if on TW3, this feeling is recreated, and still the quests and story telling is up on TW1/2 levels, then we have an awasome game as it is. But if the RPG elements of the combat, as well as the combat itself is as great as it supposed to be, then yeah, we do have a masterpiece of a game.