Sorry, but no, you didn't.
Whatever you say, mate.
Sorry, but no, you didn't.
Please, show me where I confuse lore with realism. I think that's an untenable accusation tbh.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.
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...
It's actually beyond my mind why you argue that way. This is so wrong...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".
Well, I took lore as an expression for the whole witcher world in the books, not only the narrative and characters.@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.
@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.
This is the lowest common denominator at its finest....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.
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...
I never said I liked the system in TW2 (which was imo already on the track to cover a more mainstream audience)...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"?
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
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...In fact, I think a "realistic" inventory system would be incredibly ruinous.
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.
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 in in situations where if you're making your way through a 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.
That's black and white thinking tbh...you take extreme realism to defend extreme unrealism...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.