So after E3... is The Witcher 3 really a PC game ?

[Scholdarr]

I see no reason why the devs would gimp the player just for the sake of realism, this is an open world, a big one at that. You'd rather have the player fast travel every time he comes across a new piece of equipment? To me that sounds worse than Geralt being able to carry a couple of extra swords in his inventory.

Well, the books AND the previous games were centered around some very special and rare swords and armour. It was never like Skyrim or Diablo in which you change you equipment every few minutes or even seconds...

Imo if Geralt finds a new, super epic sword he should be able to take it with him of course. But only for example in his horse bags and only a very limited amount of them (like for example two extra swords and one torso armour piece at the maximum). Everything else he should have to either sell or store in a chest at the place where he stays in Novigrad for example before he could take new stuff with him.

So, imo, perfect design would be that Geralt himself couldn't carry any additional swords or amour, just small stuff like some potions and ingredients. On top of that he would have a bag at his horse's saddle in which he could store two additional swords and one suit of additional armour.

Each item and piece of equipment Geralt uses should be unique. Open world shouldn't change that in any way. This is not a world in which you find secret chests behind a tree in some corner anyway.


But I got your basic idea: this is an open world game so there is some unalterable, natural law that forces CDPR to make the gameplay and mechanics exactly in a certain predefined way (much like Skyrim or action open world games). Why having an own creative vision and why trying to stick to the lore and mechanics of your own franchise if you could just surrender to the natural gameplay laws of open world games and action RPGs. Let's make Witcher 3 another "hunting and gathering" game like Skyrim and Diablo. It's apparently what compelling gameplay demands. There is no other way to offer good gameplay anyway and hey, if they would dare to come up with a different solution, there would always be some people complaining... (sorry for the rant)

All of this is assuming you'd be able to actually make proper money by selling equipment, and we have no idea how CDPR are addressing this problem, way too little information on this at this point. All of this then becomes a question of game balance. Which can obviously be tweaked.

No, only one of my three points was about that, the 2nd one. The first was about basic game design, the third one about tactics and strategy. Please read again.

 

[val.mitev]

"Realism" isn't the only reason for a realistically sized inventory. There are multiple other reasons based on mechanics and gameplay and game design:

• Why should Geralt still be a monster hunter for hire if he could have a much easier life by just selling crap all day long? The focus in monster hunting in TW3 doesn't benefit from that.
• Being able to earn too much money by selling stuff leads to the usual "money inflation" in RPGs which results in super rich players. Also loot mechanis could lead to boring and tedious gameplay with just collection and selling stuff all the time.
• Being able to take a good amount of different swords, armour and stuff with you takes away from the focus and thought you spend on your equipment. Crafting a special sword or putting runes on it should be a serious decision and not some kind of useless feature because you can always take 10 swords with you just for the case...

You guys are going overboard. I get your point, but this is a game, and I see no reason for Geralt to not be able to carry 20 swords.
Also there is nothing wrong with collecting loot and selling it, it's a vital part of RPGs.

If we are going to stay close to realism, we should also limit how much money Geralt can carry with him.
It would be bad for him to be running around with a giant bag of orens on his back?

 

[Jupiter_on_Mars]

@Kinley , let's do an experiment.
Do a find/replace substituting «lore» for «realism» and vice-versa. Then read back your comments. Enlightening.

After all, this is a separate creation, a video game , not a simulator of Sapkowski's works.

 

[Totalimmortal]

No.
The burden of proof is on you.
Why should Geralt have this much inventory space as opposed to just what realistically he'd be able to carry?

Roach. He is a big part of the game now, and you can use that as an immersion excuse. Just don't change your equipment while Roach isn't near and your inventory immersion breaking is safe.

 

[Kinley]

@Kinley , let's do an experiment.
Do a find/replace substituting «lore» for «realism» and vice-versa. Then read back your comments. Enlighten.

After all, this is a separate creation, a video game , not a simulator of Sapkowski's works.

I'm done here.

Funny.

Let's not forget CDPR make story driven games based heavily on existing lore and not realism based games.

 

[sidspyker]

I have not read every post in this thread but I will say this it's not a simulator of realism either, it's a game and it has a set direction it's headed towards just like the previous two games, calls for 'realism' in every aspect will fall on deaf ears at this point in the game's development and is ill advised.

 

[val.mitev]

As for constantly changing swords, the player could have easy access to low to medium level swords in merchants, maybe even some high level, but they should be extremely expensive.

But the really awesome swords could be rewards from quests or hidden in some secret areas also tied up to a certain quest.
Problem solved then, when you find such a sword, you stick with it, because you won't be able to find such a replacement easily.

 

[Scholdarr]

You guys are going overboard. I get your point, but this is a game, and I see no reason for Geralt to not be able to carry 20 swords.
Also there is nothing wrong with collecting loot and selling it, it's a vital part of RPGs.

If you don't see the reason you don't get my point...

What a vital part of RPGs is might be up to discussion. To me, that's not true and it depends greatly on the design of the world and the creative vision of each game. I don't understand why each and every RPG has to be the same and why each open world RPG has to be like Skyrim. That's even closer-minded that the ones like me who want the lore to be maintained whereever possible...

If we are going to stay close to realism, we should also limit how much money Geralt can carry with him.
It would be bad for him to be running around with a giant bag of orens on his back?

True. But in the witcher world there are banks so Geralt wouldn't take a huge bag of Redanian crowns with him. Tbh he is in most cases completely broke anyway, looking desperately for another job...

@sidspyker
Being true to the lore and realism are two different shoes. We are constantly getting accused for demanding realism while we just demand to stay true to the lore as much as possible. And how is "It's a game. Deal with it." a better argument, welcoming new users in a better way??? If I can speak about my wishes for the game here and try to bring up arguments for it I see no reason for this forum to exist in the first place.

 

[WhiteWalker]

Some here seem to forget that you could have multiple swords in your inventory in TW2, the same goes for armours, sure there was a weight restriction but the option was there, and for the sake of convenience it should be that way to be frank, following the logic of weight Geralt should not be able to carry a 100 different monster parts, then there is the crafting materials, add the armour and 2 swords and he should not be able to crawl let alone walk.

 

[val.mitev]

If you don't see the reason you don't get my point...

What a vital part of RPGs is might be up to discussion. To me, that's not true and it depends greatly on the design of the world and the creative vision of each game. I don't understand why each and every RPG has to be the same and why each open world RPG has to be like Skyrim. That's even closer-minded that the ones like me who want the lore to be maintained whereever possible...

[Quest]If we are going to stay close to realism, we should also limit how much money Geralt can carry with him.
It would be bad for him to be running around with a giant bag of orens on his back?

Ah, but here's the kicker, that's what you want, not necessarily what everyone wants.

That's why I get your point and I agree to an extent, but not fully, thus I choose something else.

In many places we talk about balance and game design, but this is quite the convenient word to use to justify a lot of ideas.
The game design eventually leads to compromises, like it or not. You just can't please everyone.

 

[Kinley]

If I can speak about my wishes for the game here and try to bring up arguments for it I see no reason for this forum to exist in the first place.

You can speak about your wishes all you want, nobody is telling you to stop. Just don't expect these "wishes" to not be contested.

 

[StaGiors]

I think that we are forgetting that TW3 is actually a game based on a franchise with a special, predefined character with certain traits, abilities and characteristics. It's not Skyrim in which everything is possible and you can create your own hero with your own character and ablities. Of course TW3 is still a game and nobody says that it shouldn't be. But I don't know why you think that lore and game mechanics couldn't work hand in hand. There are always nice to have features and people who want feature A or feature B but not every game ans world is suited for that. Not every creative vision is suited for every type of gameplay or mechanic. "It's just a game" isn't a good excuse for anything...

I am going to refrain from replying to the assumption that, I think, lore and game mechanics can not work hand in hand. And the weird thought that I compare Skyrim and TW3. I have not even played Skyrim, since it does not interest me.

It is not a matter of lore at this point. It is a matter of the amount of realism that we expect from the game. "Realistically", we can not expect such amount of realism. It will make the game less enjoyable, it is very obvious to me why. Even though I am all for realism in the game, I have understanding on what can be annoying to players, and what is not.

I also did not say it is "just" a game. Saying that is a lot different, than saying TW3 is actually a game.

"Realism" isn't the only reason for a realistically sized inventory. There are multiple other reasons based on mechanics and gameplay and game design:

• Why should Geralt still be a monster hunter for hire if he could have a much easier life by just selling crap all day long? The focus in monster hunting in TW3 doesn't benefit from that.
• Being able to earn too much money by selling stuff leads to the usual "money inflation" in RPGs which results in super rich players. Also loot mechanis could lead to boring and tedious gameplay with just collection and selling stuff all the time.
• Being able to take a good amount of different swords, armour and stuff with you takes away from the focus and thought you spend on your equipment. Crafting a special sword or putting runes on it should be a serious decision and not some kind of useless feature because you can always take 10 swords with you just for the case...

To that I answer, we have no idea, how many swords or armor or anything will be in the game. Judging from TW2, drowners will not be dropping armor when killed.

Even if that is the case, nobody is forcing you to play like that. The space in the inventory, might be enough to carry 20 swords as you all seem to believe, (I do not think we are going to run around looking for swords to fill up our empty inventory), but nobody is forcing you to pick up every sword you see, to go sell it. If it breaks your immersion, and in my case it does, do not pick the sword up. What will you do about a new armor though? Would Geralt take off his armor and wear another one that looks stronger? And then leave his old armor to the ground?
I repeat, though, we have no idea, on how the economy of the game will be, it is in CDPR hand to balance it.

Depends on your definition of reasonable. If reasonable means "most common denominator" then yes. But then again it's pure, ugly mainstream. Something made for both everyone an nobody at the same time...

Is it now? Do we know how much items weight? Every item? We do not. And I think, that we should be able to carry a second set of armor around, in case we need it to lift a curse or whatever. But yet again, if it breaks immersion for you, do not pick the armor up. Or drop your previous armor. It is not ugly mainstream, it is common logic. If a player is forced to go back to town to sell stuff, every 10 minutes because he couldn't carry more, most gamers will not buy the game. It is stupidly annoying for most players. I can't say that it is for me though.

 

[Scholdarr]

In many places we talk about balance and game design, but this is quite the convenient word to use to justify a lot of ideas.
The game design eventually leads to compromises, like it or not. You just can't please everyone.

True. But so why do they please the Skyrim fans and not me and the lore fans? Why do I have to deal with anything just because other people have different opinions and they prefer for example convinience over realism or mainstream open world design over true to the lore world design? Of course I only talk about my own view, we all do. We talk about our preferences and try to find arguments for them to convince others that our ideas are good.

I strongly disagree with the statement though that you HAVE to make certain stuff in a certain way to make a game fun and compelling which was indicated quite several times. I'm surprised that so many of you think that someone forces CDPR to make the game in some predefined limits. That's this strange natural law of open world games I guess....

 

[Jupiter_on_Mars]

Well, just an addendum.

Please fellow forumers please stop with the logic fallacies. Drop the sliding slopes, the shifting the goalposts, and last but least stop with thee Strawmans.

Exactly 0 individuals called for, quote, «'realism' in every aspect»
Exactly 0 individuals called for Geralt going to the loo. Equating a realistic inventory with this kind of mundane activities is, I regret to say it, not a serious way to discuss this.
Exactly 0 individuals asked for TW3 to become a sim. I have no idea what that would look like. I will ask this: were TW1 and TW2 a alchemy sims, since you did have to collect all the ingredients and you did have to brew potions, instead of them simply auto-refilling?

Very specific reasons were given as to why inventory should be realistic, how it would enhance gameplay and player discretion, how it would better fit the lore - which, incidentally, seem to have disappeared from the top concerns of some of those who only yesterday were crying Wolf!.

You're more than welcome to disagree on those reasons. Feel free to rebut. But, please, spare me the logic fallacies.

 

[StaGiors]

True. But so why do they please the Skyrim fans and not me and the lore fans? Why do I have to deal with anything just because other people have different opinions and they prefer for example convinience over realism or mainstream open world design over true to the lore world design? Of course I only talk about my own view, we all do. We talk about our preferences and try to find arguments for them to convince others that our ideas are good.

I strongly disagree with the statement though that you HAVE to make certain stuff in a certain way to make a game fun and compelling which was indicated quite several times. I'm surprised that so many of you think that someone forces CDPR to make the game in some predefined limits. That's this strange natural law of open world games I guess....

Again, I believe you are confusing lore with realism. They are two totally different things, that of course can be associated with each other. Since we are talking about a game, and not a book, CDPR has limitations to what they can do. They cannot turn the game into a "movie". It will stop being a game that way. People buy games, so that they can play games, they do not buy them to watch movies. Again, you are free to play your game as if it was a movie. I had no trouble doing that in the previous games. Even though the weight we could carry was 350 and not 50. Anyway.

 

[sidspyker]

@sidspyker
Being true to the lore and realism are two different shoes. We are constantly getting accused for demanding realism while we just demand to stay true to the lore as much as possible. And how is "It's a game. Deal with it." a better argument, welcoming new users in a better way??? If I can speak about my wishes for the game here and try to bring up arguments for it I see no reason for this forum to exist in the first place.

I'm not 'accusing' anybody nor am I saying you shouldn't give your opinion it was a general statement that the chance of things such as that happening are too slim with how much the game's development has progressed.

It's a perfectly valid argument, it IS a game and a lot of design decisions can, are and should be taken entirely for that reason. The best games are the ones that strike a good balance between everything - respect lore to a degree that's satisfactory, ignore/alter the lore for things that can enhance/fit the game's aspects which has been done on countless occasions in both the games. There is no one side or the other but a good mix of both that makes a good game and it is a game. They are quite simply different mediums a game is not a book and a book is not a game.

 

[Kinley]

Very specific reasons were given as to why inventory should be realistic, how it would enhance gameplay and player discretion, how it would better fit the lore - which, incidentally, seem to have disappeared from the top concerns of some of those who only yesterday were crying Wolf!.

And I gave very specific reasons why the inventory system presented is not such an abomination as some might make it out to be, nor is it the biggest offender when it comes to "lore breaking".

Also:

@After all, this is a separate creation, a video game , not a simulator of Sapkowski's works.[/QUOTE] This statement really rubs me the wrong way. The games [I]are[/I] "simulations" of Sapkowski's works.

 

[Scholdarr]

It will make the game less enjoyable, it is very obvious to me why. Even though I am all for realism in the game, I have understanding on what can be annoying to players, and what is not.

You don't. Because the system in place is annoying to me. Why do you think that the game should cater to the most lore-unfriendly, most lazy people out there and everyone else should just look how to deal with it? Why is someone who is annoyed that he cannot take 20 swords with him more important to you than someone like me who is annoyed about the opposite?

Even if that is the case, nobody is forcing you to play like that. The space in the inventory, might be enough to carry 20 swords as you all seem to believe, (I do not think we are going to run around looking for swords to fill up our empty inventory), but nobody is forcing you to pick up every sword you see, to go sell it. If it breaks your immersion, and in my case it does, do not pick the sword up.

Sure, make a game as casual as possible and the hardcore will just be happy with limiting themselves. Oh, did we already mention that we also balanced the whole game according to the systems we have? That you will be pretty much fuc.... up in every second fight because we have balanced the game in a way that you have to carry different swords, armour and crossbows with you all the way?

I don't want to say that this must be necessarily the case. But basic game design always influences balancing as well. In fact, making a game as open as possible just leads to terrible balancing usually. Just have a look at Skyrim (well, it's still the best example even if you haven't played it): balance is completely broken there....

Is it now? Do we know how much items weight? Every item? We do not.

Of course we don't for sure, that's nott the point. We talk about wishes and thoughts about how the game should be according to our own tastes and visions. We give feedback before the release. I do not review the game in any kind...

If a player is forced to go back to town to sell stuff, every 10 minutes because he couldn't carry more, most gamers will not buy the game. It is stupidly annoying for most players. I can't say that it is for me though.

That is only the case if your whole game is loot-based. If you find valuable stuff everywhere you need a big inventory. But the wicher was imo never based on that and there are many good opions to avoid that. Open world doesn't necessarily has to mean that the game must be loot-based as well. If you only find valuable stuff at rare occasions there is no need for a big inventory.

And I gave very specific reasons why the inventory system presented is not such an abomination as some might make it out to be, nor is it the biggest offender when it comes to "lore breaking".

Sorry, but no, you didn't.

 

[Totalimmortal]

And I gave very specific reasons why the inventory system presented is not such an abomination as some might make it out to be, nor is it the biggest offender when it comes to "lore breaking".

Also:


This statement really rubs me the wrong way. The games are "simulations" of Sapkowski's works.

Very specific reasons were given as to why inventory should be realistic, how it would enhance gameplay and player discretion, how it would better fit the lore - which, incidentally, seem to have disappeared from the top concerns of some of those who only yesterday were crying Wolf!.

I also presented an idea about Geralt's Roach (his horse for those who aren't familiar) being the main bearer of the inventory items, which no one replied to. Now, i know it isn't PRESENTED as such, but for the love of God, are you being real by expecting the CDPR to do all the immersion job to cater to all of you? Can you do a bit yourself, cut them some slack.

For example, you take the items that you have on you, and you imagine that the rest of the swords and items you have in your inventory are straddled to your horse. You the change items and equipment ONLY while you are on/near horse, and not on your own (you just bring and use the items/potions Geralt could realistically carry).
And bam, you saved CDPR some few hundered hours of thinking, programming and changing the game, let alone their budget.

 

[StaGiors]

That is only the case if your whole game is loot-based. If you find valuable stuff everywhere you need a big inventory. But the wicher was imo never based on that and there are many good opions to avoid that. Open world doesn't necessarily has to mean that the game must be loot-based as well. If you only find valuable stuff at rare occasions there is no need for a big inventory.

That is for CDPR to judge then. While they are trying to make a decision though, they must consider the audience they are trying to sell their game to as well. And while I do not have the numbers, I believe that a crushing majority of the people who will buy TW3, will be pissed, if they have to be over encumbered, for the most part of the game. Because they do not understand that a witcher carries with him only the necessary. You can not expect that every person will think like that. And in the case of the inventory, I believe that CDPR is very reasonable. It remains to be seen in action.