Staying true to the lore of the books VS Creating a game full of variety and choice

[Villentretanmerth]

Staying true to the lore of the books VS Creating a game full of variety and choice

This is a topic about finding the balance between the books, and creating a game that is fun with plenty of choice.

I'll give a few examples of what I mean:

-Should you be able to choose between Triss and Yennefer(and possibly Shani) as a love interest?

In terms of the books, it seems to be pretty clear that Yennefer is Geralt's soulmate. But at the same time, I think that CDPR realizes that there are many players that have only played the previous Witcher games, and won't ever read the books. These are players that may have fallen for Triss in the past games, and don't really know anything about Yennefer. Won't these players feel cheated if they don't have the option to choose Triss?

-Should you be able to use weapons that Geralt(or Witchers in general) never use in the lore?
It may not make too much sense in the books, but from the game perspective, it could be really fun to use crossbows or spears or shields, etc.

-Should you be able to purchase property?
Geralt, in the books, is a nomad. But again, at the same time, I think we can agree that buying a big mansion that you can customize would be really cool.

-How about sex? It's fun to be a "playa" in the game and sleep around, but does it make sense for Geralt to do so when he's searching for his lost love?

These are just a few examples of the fine line that may need to be drawn.

So how do you think CDPR should go about finding the balance between staying true to the characters and lore of the books, but also making sure that this is a fun game with plenty of variety and choice?

 

[alextyc1]

-cdpr should give a choice
-no, cuz it like batman with M16
-Property?,its not skyrim and why do you need it anyway?
-not really that important

 

[Kallelinski]

Won't these players feel cheated if they don't have the option to choose Shani?

As if they didn't do it in The Witcher 2 already.

Also some people assume that Witcher 2 already "prepared" the player for Yennefer, those flashbacks should show her importance for Geralt and so on. I'm not really convinced of that, but we will see. They are really reserved about story spoilers so far, so who knows.

A choice between those two or three seems to be the easiest way for the fans, but the hardest for CDPR, because they have to explain that shit

and if you know the books, this won't be easy to pull off in my opinion.

-Should you be able to use weapons that Geralt(or Witchers in general) never use in the lore?
It may not make too much sense in the books, but from the game perspective, it could be really fun to use crossbows or spears or shields, etc.

He is a experienced sword master, so he is gonna use swords, because he is really good using them. Using anything but swords seems to me like a dumb idea. I don't know, am i the only one who thinks like that? I hope not.

-How about sex? It's fun to be a "playa" in the game and sleep around, but does it make sense for Geralt to do so when he's searching for his lost love?

Well, it's true that he slept with several women in the books (and games if you wanted to, you didn't need to), but he hadn't every weekend a new one. He had like a 6-8 encounters over 10-20 years, that's not really a "playa" in my book. In the novels there is a similiar case like it will be in Witcher 3, so let's say, i don't really see a problem here.

So how do you think CDPR should go about finding the balance between staying true to the characters and lore of the books, but also making sure that this is a fun game with plenty of variety and choice?

A game doesn't make automatically more fun just because you add more features, sometimes less (but refined) is more.

Why do you need to own property, just because it could be more fun? Who says it will be? It doesn't make any sense in terms of context. He doesn't even have the money for it, he can barely live with the amount of money he earns with monster hunting. Also why can he buy now property, but couldn't in the former games? And so on.

Those features have to fit in the context of the game, not vice versa.

 

[Sirnaq]

Cdpr already finished the story and according to lead writer, they are proud of it and it is the best out of 3 games so i doubt your thread gonna change much op. Anyway the more book lore friendly the better.

 

[gregski]

-Should you be able to purchase property?
Geralt, in the books, is a nomad. But again, at the same time, I think we can agree that buying a big mansion that you can customize would be really cool.

This thing keeps popping up, more often on the CP2077 forums and I still cannot understand how owning and customizing a house makes a cRPG better in ANY way.

 

[ArenCordial]

For the Triss/Yenn thing I think it should be a player choice, given the fact a lot of players have only experienced the game and I think doing a repeat of TW2 beginning (throwing Triss at you and overriding any player choice) would be a poor move.

That said frankly it may never come to that. Geralt is going to be more interested in protecting his loved ones and that's going to include (Yenn, Triss, Ciri, Zoltan, Dandelion, etc). Considering Yenn is in Nilfgaadian hands and the Hunt is looking for Ciri he's going to be more interested in ensuring his friend's safety rather than who's going to be his #1 very special time fun buddy.

 

[Garrison72]

The only inconsistencies I've seen have been Shani and the way Triss changed personalities (for the better) between TW1 and TW2. As long as CDPR keeps in mind they are creating a Witcher game, not a generic open-world game, everything else should fall into place. So that means stuff like owning property, pointless minigames, archery, a wide array of weapons, marriage, fucking every one of your companions, gay Geralt - all this stuff is out. It has nothing to do with the books.

 

[FoggyFishburne]

Villentretanmerth. That's a badass name. It's always nice to see names from the books/games in the forum. It does kinda suck however that your name doesn't really fit in the poster window

Anyway!

A good adaptation must adhere to the lore AND find an appropriate method to represent certain features/aspects that were popular with the original intellectual property.

In terms of mechanics, RED know what they're doing.

Lorewise, can't speak for it. Haven't read the books. I'll say this though: The general rule should be to start from the basis of where the books are. From there, you can branch off and tell your own story in your own way. RED may not be the holder of the copyright or whatever but they're storytellers in a different medium and damn good ones. They have the right, and have earned it according to me, to tell their own original stories and add to the original. Whether that's new monsters, characters or regions.

Also, I should add, the player is a part of the dynamic storytelling as well. After all, this is an RPG AND an interactive medium.

So yeah that's where I stand. With that said, I'll see if I can answer your "sub questions" real fast.

1. Absolutely. Kinda the point with an interactive medium. It should be a given, especially considering that it's an RPG we're talking about here. So yeah. Without a doubt we should have a say in this. Would be jarring as fuck if it was chosen for us. In that case, the story telling must be immaculate in order for us to empathize with the choice that has been given to us.

2. This is a really cool question, kudos! I think that we should be given the chance to customize and "imprint" our idea or version of Geralt onto him. At the very least add a third slot where a particular weapon can be equipped. The reasoning for this is, again, we're part of the story telling here and it's awesome that we can choose in dialogues to reflect our intent but I think the gameplay, more accurately, the combat should allow for some freedom for the player to express "their" Geralt. It's a Role playing game after all. Also, it adds to variety.

3. No.

Ok ok, let's think about this. Apparently Geralt's a nomad? K, that's a favour for keeping property management out of the game. But as we've established, it's a RPG. What if YOUR Geralt wants to buy one. I don't know if you could ever justify owning property from a Witcher standpoint. They're not merchants or kings. Surely they can't afford that? They can't be tied down because they have to move around, from job to job, to earn a very meagre living. Which is spent on repairing and buying equipment, food and temporary housing.

Personally, it's a resounding no from me. It doesn't fit, with the role of a Witcher or my idea of Geralt.

4. I don't want any sex. Period. It's gratuitous but that's not really my issue. My problem is that it doesn't add anything to games or plot. I actually felt really bad for "cheating" on Triss in TW2. But I HAD to because sometimes there were gameplay benefits for doing it. Like getting a short cut in Vergen. Maybe that's clever storytelling on REDs part? Hm... Mind blown if it is. Well played gentlemen.

I don't know. I don't need any, and frankly I don't want any. But if there is, great. I hope it makes sense within the context of the narrative.

Awesome thread!

 

[FoggyFishburne]

This thing keeps popping up, more often on the CP2077 forums and I still cannot understand how owning and customizing a house makes a cRPG better in ANY way.

Is that a typo or? What is a cRPG? Cyber role-playing game?

Anyway, yeah I agree with you. But I guess it adds to role playing. Maybe YOUR character would get a house. I don't know.

Personally, I prefer not having a house. It transforms the way you look the world you're inhabiting and it can get really tense, knowing you're a wanderer, all alone, wandering the plains or whatever. You're isolated and vulnerable. There's no place you can call home. Nowhere to run when you're afraid. Ah, love it! That kind of immersion is awesomesauce. Fallout 3 did this really well. Then you get a house and suddenly you're anchored. You're part of the world instead of just being a visitor or passer-by. I don't know. I'm just spitballing my thoughts over here.

That said, I'm a little bitch. Whenever I can buy a house, I'll do it. Unfortunately I do it out of convenience. Whether it's for storage, save point, checkpoint if I die outside in the world (like in Red Dead Redemption) or whatever.

 

[Agent_Blue]

4. I don't want any sex. Period.

(...)

Awesome thread!

C'mon man, not even, you know, solo missions?

 

[ReptilePZ]

2. This is a really cool question, kudos! I think that we should be given the chance to customize and "imprint" our idea or version of Geralt onto him. At the very least add a third slot where a particular weapon can be equipped. The reasoning for this is, again, we're part of the story telling here and it's awesome that we can choose in dialogues to reflect our intent but I think the gameplay, more accurately, the combat should allow for some freedom for the player to express "their" Geralt. It's a Role playing game after all. Also, it adds to variety.

They did do this. In TW2 you could pick up some different weapons (although they felt like swords). And in TW1 you had a lot of weapon choice, and they did it right there - Geralt (the role you're playing - that of a guy who's trained to use swords) could use an axe or a hammer but was pretty meh at it.

 

[alextyc1]

/>

C'mon man, not even, you know, solo missions?

Hmm wait what,but...what,why...what?

 

[pomor]

-Should you be able to choose between Triss and Yennefer(and possibly Shani) as a love interest?

Sure, why not?

-Should you be able to use weapons that Geralt(or Witchers in general) never use in the lore?

resoundingNo. It is supposed to be "The Witcher", not "The Crossbowman"

-Should you be able to purchase property?

Huh? Not that I am against it, I just don't get the appeal of buying property in RPG. These requests pop up from time to time, along with ownig pet and somesuch and have me completly stumped.

-How about sex? It's fun to be a "playa" in the game and sleep around, but does it make sense for Geralt to do so when he's searching for his lost love?

Am I reading this right? In this last suggestion you, for a change, would like to reduce player's freedom?
Let put is this way. Geralt was never very monogamous, neither he demanded it from Yennefer (he knew better then that />/> ), after all once they bumped into one another while both looking for one night stand...
But it also should be left to a player' choice.

 

[Thothistox]

This thing keeps popping up, more often on the CP2077 forums and I still cannot understand how owning and customizing a house makes a cRPG better in ANY way.

I'd +1 this if that was possible.

Yeah, it's like a wart that keeps growing back. Some people ask for it, but they don't realize how boring it is until they get it.

 

[Thothistox]

4. I don't want any sex. Period.

There should be sex. The potential for sex influences people's perceptions and behaviour. How can you make a game about pursuing Triss or Yennefer if Geralt wants to be "just friends"?

Now, whether or not they show the sex is another thing. I don't play these games for the porn factor. The screen could go black for all I care.

 

[whiplash27]

Triss vs. Yennifer - There should be a choice. Players from all three games have grown close with Triss (maybe), so there should be a choice that impacts other aspects of the game. Either way, we have no idea what state Yennifer is to begin with. Maybe the choice comes down to a way that makes sense even with the lore of the game. There should even be a choice for no one or maybe even someone else.

Weapons - I don't think so. I get that people want to use crossbows or whatever, but I'd rather stick to the swords, magic, dagger route.

Property - Do Witchers own property? If yes, then sure? If no, then no. Maybe having a safe house to keep stuff is all we need. I mean what are we using this property for? Is it Gertalt's shag shack? Does it give him income?

Sex - It should flow with the story like in TW2. I guess there are times for casual sex in TW2, but it's not as frequent as in TW1. There should also be consequences for your actions. If you have sex with everyone you come across, you should be treated differently than if you stay loyal to one person. Keep it mature.

 

[Alpha8Wolf]

I haven'd read the books only because they are not available in my country. So, I'm an RPG gamer who is playing a game which is supposed to "define" the next Gen-RPG. Honestly, I would be fucking pissed off if I didn't get a choice in the matter of Triss/Yennefer/Shani.

I agree with almost everything Foggy said, especially about purchasing property.

1- They should give us a choice.

2- The Silver Chain!!

 

[Vigilance.492]

Yes we should be able to choose (I doubt Shani will be an option however). However that being said, if they deny us the choice, I won't be angry either. It's pretty obvious from the focus on finding Yeneffer in TW2 that Geralt knows she is something special, now that he has his memory back in TW3 you would naturally assume he would realize everything from the books & would only have eyes for Yeneffer once more. However, CDPR have never shown people who played the game that Yeneffer/Geralt are "meant" to be together, he is merely searching for her, so it could still make some sense to just ditch some canon from the books to give players that choice. It will take some stellar writing to pull it off though.

Weapons? I guess in TW1/2 you were allowed to use random Hammers/Clubs/Spears... So I wouldn't be surprised if they allowed that again, but they were always very ineffective compared to your Swords.

Purchase Property? I wouldn't be opposed to it, but since it would probably subtract Development time from more important features, I would say no. Geralt is a traveler, and perhaps he might settle down one day, I doubt it'll be during the game, so buying property during the game would seem a bit odd. Not only that but CDPR stated the game ENDS after the Epilogue, there is no freeroaming a World-State, so the property would kinda be a waste of time.

Sex is already confirmed that CDPR are chasing more complex & interesting Romances rather then just loadsa sex encounters/cards. Fewer situations, but more satisfying & natural when you get the reward.

I don't know how CDPR are going to go about all the choices & balancing the lore etc, but they've done a good job so far, so I'm just putting my faith in them.

 

[shawn_kh]

People keep saying "yeah, in the books Yennefer was Geralt's soul mate and there is no way he chooses Triss over Yen". They forget that Geralt from the games is not the Geralt from the books, because he has lost his memory. When you lose your memory, you also lose the feelings and emotions associated with your memories because there are no memories to associate those feelings with. You can regain your memory, because memories are facts but you'll never re-live those moments to re-experience the emotions associated with them. That is why people who lose their memories and regain them will never be the same, because they only remember the facts and not the emotions and feelings associated with them. So Geralt remembers who Yennefer is and the fact that he had sex with her, but he can't remember his love for her because love is not a memory, love is an emotion that you feel and experience.

My second point is that Triss was the one who helped Geralt, saved his life twice, and took care of him during his memory loss, while Yennefer and Ciri were no where to be found. According to Letho, Yen has also lost her memory, which means that she is in the same state as Geralt. My question is where is Ciri? Why hasn't she found Geralt or Yennefer? In Witcher 1 Triss said that she could feel Geralt coming back to this world that's why she went to Kaer Morhen, why haven't Ciri or Yennefer felt it ?

 

[wright1978]

Yes of course the player should be given choice of which of the women in his life to pursue, not railroaded down Yen path.

Personally think Geralt should stick to bladed weapons.

Personally see no need for property to be added as a mechanic.

Yes of course there should be opportunities for Geralt's with a wandering eye.