- Status
Please, show me where I confuse lore with realism. I think that's an untenable accusation tbh.
I never demanded that TW3 should be a movie or feel like a movie. I don't know why you think so...
@Kinley
Well, how about addressing my ideas for actual game design which is imo more close to the lore? All you said so far is that you think that realism can't be maintained in a game (and nobody denied that actually). But to me lore-friendly solution and good gameplay can go hand in hand, they are not exclusive features. A lot of you guys react quite strange when somebody demands a more lore-friendly solutions. The first reaction is amost immediately: that's not possible because it's a game and because staying true to the lore is too inconvenient for players and after all, good gameplay and lore, that doesn't fit. I think this approach to the topic is fatally wrong.
When designing a game based on existing lore and an exisiting franchise you should always think about lore-friendly solutions first. Then you could compare them to some standard industry solutions and evaluate which option is better or whether there are compromises which would lead to an even better experience. But you should also be aware of that lore-friendliness is important to fans of the franchise and that sometimes solutions that are not on par with industry standards can deliver the better experience overall.
It's weird to think that I don't want a good gameplay. Of course I want to play a good GAME. I just don't think that lore-friendly automatically has to mean gameplay-hostile. I think it's worth discussing solutions and ideas which are closer to the lore and offering good gameplay as well (just "different" gameplay).
But then of course, if your only worry is whether casual gamers will be pleased with Witcher 3 or not this makes little sense.
Last edited:
I think we should really stop arguing there, there is no common ground to be found, I believe.
It comes down to this. I think you are going too far with your expectations towards CDPR, because I think that as a company, CDPR has to sell copies, in order to continue existing. And to sell, copies, "mainstream" gamers must be interested in the game. I am willing to sacrifice, a few bits off of my immersion, and try to obtain it another way, if CDPR will sell another million copies. Hell even 10 more copies would be enough. That of course, within "reasonable" for me limits. For me, the inventory is reasonable, the alchemy system as we know it, is not. The damn Crossbow is not.
Our difference is, that you do not find the inventory being reasonable. I can accept that. But understand that not a lot of people think that way.
It's actually beyond my mind why you argue that way. This is so wrong...
Let CDPR care about the business side, honestly. That's not our "task".
On this forum, we should imo discuss the gameplay side, about how we want to play this game and what we wish to be included. Sorry, but I just want the best possible game for my personal tastes. If CDPR decide that this is not possible because they think that too many games are too casual for that and they have to sell enough copies, then it's their decision and understandable. But I won't be quiet just because I surrendered even before I raised my voice. If every "hardcore" gamer would argue like that "Ah, they will cater to to mainstream anyway, there is no point in raising my voice" then there is no reason why they should cater to us "old hardcores" at all.
I'm not willing to sacrifice anything. I will fight for it until the end. It's not up to me to decide how to make and sell the game in the end. That's not our "job".
@LordCrash
All I'm saying the solution CDPR came up with is a good compromise, I personally do not mind it.
And honestly, all this "lore friendly" talk confuses me a bit. It does not affect the narrative, it does not affect how Geralt approaches combat situations, etc. It has so minimal impact on said "lore" that I personally see no issue with it.
All I'm saying the solution CDPR came up with is a good compromise, I personally do not mind it.
And honestly, all this "lore friendly" talk confuses me a bit. It does not affect the narrative, it does not affect how Geralt approaches combat situations, etc. It has so minimal impact on said "lore" that I personally see no issue with it.
It's actually beyond my mind why you argue that way. This is so wrong...
Let CDPR care about the business side, honestly. That's not our "task".
On this forum, we should imo discuss the gameplay side, about how we want to play this game and what we wish to be included. Sorry, but I just want the best possible game for my personal tastes. If CDPR decide that this is not possible because they think that too many games are too casual for that and they have to sell enough copies, then it's their decision and understandable. But I won't be quiet just because I surrendered even before I raised my voice. If every "hardcore" gamer would argue like that "Ah, they will cater to to mainstream anyway, there is no point in raising my voice" then there is no reason why they should cater to us "old hardcores" at all.
I'm not willing to sacrifice anything. I will fight for it until the end. It's not up to me to decide how to make and sell the game in the end. That's not our "job".
Understandable.
You will allow me though, to express my opinion on what is unreasonable and what is not. Key word "opinion".
I am not interested in posting exactly how I personally want the game to be.
We would be here all day arguing. Probably not with you but with a lot others.
I also refrain from posting things that put too much pressure on CDPR members, because they actually read almost everything.
That being said, I will not stop you from posting what you feel is right. After all we all want the game to be the best it can be.
Well, I took lore as an expression for the whole witcher world in the books, not only the narrative and characters.
And yeah, I got it that most poeple here wouldn't mind a compromise but you should also accept that I would. Every decision catering to mainstream action games is a step away from my personal wishes...
Last edited:
Exactly.
There is always going to be some compromise when you are adapting one medium to another. Chasing "pure realism" is almost never a good idea but neither is not having any limits whatsoever -- so we end up with a weight system as the compromise. There are limits on what you can carry but it isn't so strict that it will frustrate players.
The main reason why I would support limiting the inventory to a couple of swords max is not realism (which is a grossly overused term that has no place in something as obviously unrealistic as video games - try 'immersion' if you feel that concerned with 'realism') or lore.
It's simply that the in-game economy will be ruined if Geralt is allowed to carry too much stuff (especially swords/armour). And no, 'we don't know how the economy will be implemented' doesn't work here. Looting is a part of RPGs that many people find enjoyable, granted. But if the player is allowed to loot pretty much everything he finds, the only way to keep the economy balanced is by seriously shifting buy/sell price ratios.
So either you limit Geralt's inventory seriously, or it will be difficult to have a proper impression of 'value' in the in-game economy. For me, the choice is simple, as I don't really care about collecting several hundred pairs of pants so I can pick the best one of them all. I expect CDPR will have to compromise here though.
It's simply that the in-game economy will be ruined if Geralt is allowed to carry too much stuff (especially swords/armour). And no, 'we don't know how the economy will be implemented' doesn't work here. Looting is a part of RPGs that many people find enjoyable, granted. But if the player is allowed to loot pretty much everything he finds, the only way to keep the economy balanced is by seriously shifting buy/sell price ratios.
So either you limit Geralt's inventory seriously, or it will be difficult to have a proper impression of 'value' in the in-game economy. For me, the choice is simple, as I don't really care about collecting several hundred pairs of pants so I can pick the best one of them all. I expect CDPR will have to compromise here though.
This is the lowest common denominator at its finest....
From a gameplay, design and creative vision perspective: pure poison
From a business and marketing perspective: absolutely understandable and the usual way to go
Well, it's obvious that you can't stay a true indie company once you've reached a certain size. If you're whole game is based on compromises and marketing to the mainstream you're nothing else than a traditional AAA publisher yourself. Understandable but still a pity imo...
Last edited:
And yeah, I got it that most poeple here wouldn't mind a compromise but you should also accept that I would. Every decision catering to mainstream action games is a step away from my personal wishes...
They're basically using the same system they used in the previous game. Why is it such a big problem this time around? And how is it one more step into this "decisions to cater to the mainstream"?
I never said I liked the system in TW2 (which was imo already on the track to cover a more mainstream audience)...
And the problem isn't really that BIG. It's just an element of the game we talk about.
This is the lowest common denominator at its finest....
From a gameplay, design and creative vision perspective: pure poison
From a business and marketing perspective: absolutely understandable and the usual way to go
I disagree, I don't think it is "poison" at all. In fact, I think a "realistic" inventory system would be incredibly ruinous. I'm not a game developer, but I imagine theres a good reason why almost no popular RPGs have gone in that direction.
And how so? I would like to read your arguments. But please also read my system suggestions from previous posts in this thread. It's maybe the case that we don't speak about the same "realism" here...
Then don't gather a hundred pairs of pants, but someone else might want to.
Why cripple the fun for other people and limit their choice?
I personally think that in TW2, the size of the inventory was fine, you could not carry 5 sets of armors, as they were too heavy, yes, you could carry 10 swords and other stuff, but it didn't matter too much. You could sell those things pretty cheaply, not much of an issue with the balance of the economy.
Now when we consider the size of the world in TW3, it would be really bad if you could carry almost next to nothing, that would kill the enjoyment from looting. And just be a really annoying.
There should be a limit, so that you choose the things that you want to carry, but not be too limited or be allowed to have your whole house in your pocket.
I repeat, this has very little to do with the lore. Immersion is indeed a better word than realism, although I used both.
Lore breaking, is Geralt using a crossbow all the time. Or even once. In my opinion.
Lore breaking is Geralt making a potion once, and never needing to make it again.
Geralt being able to carry 20 swords, is not lore-breaking. After all he could, if he had a bag, that is big enough.
It would help players who want to feel more immersed to the world, if Geralt could not carry 20 swords. Because we can not expect an immersive animation of Geralt carrying his stuff in a bag over his shoulder, or even on Roche. And that everything Geralt picks up, he places it in that bag. Animated.
CDPR wants the player immersed while playing the Witcher. I do not think they would allow us to carry too much stuff, unless it wasn't necessary. It is a sacrifice that they do as well, along with us, for the game to be playable/sellable.
They are still an indie studio. They just make more money now. I don't see the problem with that, since pretty much all their money goes into games.
Lore breaking, is Geralt using a crossbow all the time. Or even once. In my opinion.
Lore breaking is Geralt making a potion once, and never needing to make it again.
Geralt being able to carry 20 swords, is not lore-breaking. After all he could, if he had a bag, that is big enough.
It would help players who want to feel more immersed to the world, if Geralt could not carry 20 swords. Because we can not expect an immersive animation of Geralt carrying his stuff in a bag over his shoulder, or even on Roche. And that everything Geralt picks up, he places it in that bag. Animated.
CDPR wants the player immersed while playing the Witcher. I do not think they would allow us to carry too much stuff, unless it wasn't necessary. It is a sacrifice that they do as well, along with us, for the game to be playable/sellable.
They are still an indie studio. They just make more money now. I don't see the problem with that, since pretty much all their money goes into games.
And how so? I would like to read your arguments. But please also read my system suggestions from previous posts in this thread. It's maybe the case that we don't speak about the same "realism" here...
It would impose extreme limits on everything and it would suddenly become a game about inventory management.
You end up in situations where if you're making your way through a large cave and you come across a body with some gold on it -- ah too bad, your sack is already fully. You just killed a beast and you need both his hands... but you have to drop half the ingredients you just picked up to make room, sorry.
Pretty much this. Such artificial limits, just for the sake of realism, are not fun. It does not enrich the game experience. It would just frustrate people.
That's black and white thinking tbh...you take extreme realism to defend extreme unrealism...
I said you should read my suggestions for a reason. Extreme realism to the point that you even have to go to the toilet was never demanded by anyone here.
@StaGiors
I agree that immersion is the better word. Or believability which is the same.
Last edited:
- Status