Remove "Forced Failures" from the game

[aegiskleais]

Remove "Forced Failures" from the game

A problem TW2 suffered greatly from are Forced Failure sequences. Where you either give the user the belief that something can be done, allow them to do it, and then mount impossible odds against them (literally, impossible, such as never ending spawning) or you put the player into a situation where they have to be defeated in order for the game to progress to the next stage.

As much of a mechanic you feel that this might progress the story or bring a level of humanism to the player experience, you are doing little more than frustrating the user by requiring failure, an act associated with a lack of progress, in order to move the game forward. I hope the team on TW3 will not put forced failure into the game in any shape.

 

[GamaH]

I don't recall there being such an instance in W2. Refresh my memory?

 

[aegiskleais]

I'll give you a recent one. After the battle at Vergen, You and Iorveth (or Roche) approach the Order of the Rose soldiers, and though Iorveth hints that you can go around, the game states you can do this or investigate the camp. If you investigate the camp, a small conversation entails, and they attack you for being "the murder of kings". Well, you can fight to reduce their numbers, and move into their camp, but I noticed that the game started spawning more and more enemies around me, basically now keeping me indefinitely engaged against a never-ending flow of enemies until I inevitably fell. There was no chance for success, but the game made me think there was.

 

[wichat]

why? I thik is a great way to remember us that Geralt can be wrong and not immortal...too

 

[aegiskleais]

why? I thik is a great way to remember us that Geralt can be wrong and not immortal...too

Well, what I state is nothing more than an opinion, but it would be no different than for a piece of software to lead you down a course of actions, only to tell you that you either cannot do what you want, or have to go all the way back. It's as if you're lead to a belief to take a course of action which cannot be fruitful. If that is someone's cup of tea, more power to them, but I feel it's a waste of my time and a bit deceptive. Can Geralt fall in battle? Sure. Can you stack large odds against me for a challenge? No problem. But where's the warning that my enemy is going to immediately spawn and that my choice was reduced into never having a chance of success? Personally, I feel that's a bad practice. Like how websites "opt you in" to solicitations without your expressed consent by default.

 

[Yurtex]

... only to tell you that you either cannot do what you want,...

Sorry for cutting out of context but, you can't do what ever you want, and this I think what makes witcher much more mature, even more than sex or alcohol.

Also that reminds me, when I accidentally killed guards in flotsam, and was shot with arrow to death.

 

[Scholdarr]

A problem TW2 suffered greatly from are Forced Failure sequences. Where you either give the user the belief that something can be done, allow them to do it, and then mount impossible odds against them (literally, impossible, such as never ending spawning) or you put the player into a situation where they have to be defeated in order for the game to progress to the next stage.

As much of a mechanic you feel that this might progress the story or bring a level of humanism to the player experience, you are doing little more than frustrating the user by requiring failure, an act associated with a lack of progress, in order to move the game forward. I hope the team on TW3 will not put forced failure into the game in any shape.

You basically just demand good quest design. I agree.

 

[wright1978]

Have to say i disliked the forced loss to Letho in the first battle in TW2. Going from feeling you are winning to cutscene of Geralt losing felt jarring. Hopefully if there's fights say with Wild Hunt they work others for fight to end without final win/loss.

 

[Devils4dvocate]

Although I understand you, OP, I like those, sorry, OP. Geralt is not invencible.

 

[StaGiors]

Have to say i disliked the forced loss to Letho in the first battle in TW2. Going from feeling you are winning to cutscene of Geralt losing felt jarring. Hopefully if there's fights say with Wild Hunt they work others for fight to end without final win/loss.

That's not quite the same thing. You actually beat Letho gameplay wise, but in order for the story to continue you had to lose the overall fight. The defeat was in a cutscene not during gameplay.


What Aegis says makes total sense, though I had not tried to go into Loc Muine that way, myself. And I cannot remember any other instance in the game, where a similar thing happened. View it this way, ever respawning Knights is as silly as auto refilling potions. Sorry I had to.

 

[spacehamsterZH]

You basically just demand good quest design. I agree.

I think the issue here is that sometimes the demands of well-designed quests are at odds with the demands of a realistically told story. To take another example, if you go along with Loredo's request to throw the last fight in the "Fight Club" sidequest, you wake up the next day to find you've failed the entire quest. From a story standpoint, that makes sense - Loredo's a shady character, and you shouldn't have trusted him to honor his agreement with you (since there's exactly no reason for him to do that if he can just as well rip you off), so that choice is "wrong" and the game punishes you for it. From a gameplay perspective, I've just clicked my way through a series of dull QTEs only to then receive zero reward because I was faced with an unclear choice.

I don't really know how to resolve this. I do think it should be possible to make decisions that later bite you in the ass, but you also shouldn't be made to feel like you're wasting your time because it's still a game.

 

[BroccoliSouP]

Have to say i disliked the forced loss to Letho in the first battle in TW2. Going from feeling you are winning to cutscene of Geralt losing felt jarring. Hopefully if there's fights say with Wild Hunt they work others for fight to end without final win/loss.

I hated this sequence. First game made you die if you lost the fight so you had to win in order to lose. I was really angry. Why would I loose when I kicked his ass.

I'll give you a recent one. After the battle at Vergen, You and Iorveth (or Roche) approach the Order of the Rose soldiers, and though Iorveth hints that you can go around, the game states you can do this or investigate the camp. If you investigate the camp, a small conversation entails, and they attack you for being "the murder of kings". Well, you can fight to reduce their numbers, and move into their camp, but I noticed that the game started spawning more and more enemies around me, basically now keeping me indefinitely engaged against a never-ending flow of enemies until I inevitably fell. There was no chance for success, but the game made me think there was.

Because you actually can get there like that but you need to use TW1 save where you sided with order. That´s why game tells you that you can get throught.

 

[Scholdarr]

I hated this sequence. First game made you die if you lost the fight so you had to win in order to lose. I was really angry. Why would I loose when I kicked his ass.

You didn't lose. If you'd lost you would've died. You fighted long enough to cause Letho to flee.

I don't know why you guys had problems with that...

I think the issue here is that sometimes the demands of well-designed quests are at odds with the demands of a realistically told story. To take another example, if you go along with Loredo's request to throw the last fight in the "Fight Club" sidequest, you wake up the next day to find you've failed the entire quest. From a story standpoint, that makes sense - Loredo's a shady character, and you shouldn't have trusted him to honor his agreement with you (since there's exactly no reason for him to do that if he can just as well rip you off), so that choice is "wrong" and the game punishes you for it. From a gameplay perspective, I've just clicked my way through a series of dull QTEs only to then receive zero reward because I was faced with an unclear choice.

Well, I don't really see a big problem here. Unclear choices are part of a believable "realistic" world and part of the fun. There will always be gameplay potions you personally don't like that much (e.g. melee combat QTEs here) while others enjoy them.
I think well designed quests and a good story can go hand in hand if you are good in what you're doing as a story/quest designer. Of course players will punished from time to time but I don't think that's bad. If you don't like that you probably shouldn't play "deep" RPGs after all...

 

[Cs__sz__r]

If you play on Dark/Insane mode you kick each other's asses.

 

[spacehamsterZH]

Well, I don't really see a big problem here. Unclear choices are part of a believable "realistic" world and part of the fun.

This is why I said I don't know how to resolve this. I like that it's totally unclear whether you should throw the fight or not. It's one of the strengths of these games that they have these moments. But they also lead to dead ends in terms of gameplay.

 

[BroccoliSouP]

You didn't lose. If you'd lost you would've died. You fighted long enough to cause Letho to flee.

I don't know why you guys had problems with that...

Nah. You beat him so he could spare your life in cutscene. It sucks. Right aproach would be if he puts your health low he wins and vanilla cuttsene plays. If you get him low cutscene when he just runs away plays. That would be way more satisfying and it would not change story at the same time.

 

[StaGiors]

This is why I said I don't know how to resolve this. I like that it's totally unclear whether you should throw the fight or not. It's one of the strengths of these games that they have these moments. But they also lead to dead ends in terms of gameplay.

It was very clear, only one thing you could do. Rocky never quit a fight.

 

[spacehamsterZH]

It was very clear, only one thing you could do. Rocky never quit a fight.

Hahahahaha. Alright, you win.

 

[Scholdarr]

Nah. You beat him so he could spare your life in cutscene. It sucks. Right aproach would be if he puts your health low he wins and vanilla cuttsene plays. If you get him low cutscene when he just runs away plays. That would be way more satisfying and it would not change story at the same time.

True. That's why I said it's basically a question of quest design. There is nothing wrong with the fight itself, just the end is poorly executed. But really, to "hate" this quest/aspect is a little bit too much imo...

 

[BroccoliSouP]

True. That's why I said it's basically a question of quest design. There is nothing wrong with the fight itself, just the end is poorly executed. But really, to "hate" this quest/aspect is a little bit too much imo...

Well it made me kill Letho first time. I was like "no sparing this time" when it came to final fight.