You can actually see Geralt dressed in something more official in the Sword of Destiny trailer in the scene where he kisses Triss.
I think TW2 "lacked it" mostly because it didn't need it.
Characters who needed to change did so appropriately: Ves, Aryan, Cynthia, Saskia etc. However otherwise, for the most part, the characters were always moving, always travelling, and guys like Triss, Zoltan, Dandelion, Iorveth, Roche etc all staying in that same set of clothes made sense. There wasn't any formal banquets to attend or market square areas like the first game where a character was able to "relax" a bit. Characters are pretty much always in a battle, or prepared for one, that's just the nature of TW2.
I suspect TW3 will have a few more "still" moments, like Chapter 3/4 in TW1, and I think we'll definitely see attire changes to appropriately reflect circumstances. If they were able to do it in TW1, and payed enough attention to detail to do it (And even do it when it was necessary in TW2), I see no reason why it wouldn't be present in TW3.
Characters who needed to change did so appropriately: Ves, Aryan, Cynthia, Saskia etc. However otherwise, for the most part, the characters were always moving, always travelling, and guys like Triss, Zoltan, Dandelion, Iorveth, Roche etc all staying in that same set of clothes made sense. There wasn't any formal banquets to attend or market square areas like the first game where a character was able to "relax" a bit. Characters are pretty much always in a battle, or prepared for one, that's just the nature of TW2.
I suspect TW3 will have a few more "still" moments, like Chapter 3/4 in TW1, and I think we'll definitely see attire changes to appropriately reflect circumstances. If they were able to do it in TW1, and payed enough attention to detail to do it (And even do it when it was necessary in TW2), I see no reason why it wouldn't be present in TW3.
Minor, yet Important Improvements That Should Be Made for The Witcher 3
Let me preface this by saying that I am extremely excited for the newest addition to the Witcher series. I have been a huge fan of the Witcher games since the first game came out back in 2007, and I plan to spend $1500 for a new PC just to be able to play the new game at full setting when it comes out next year. I have no doubt that The Witcher 3 will be the game of the year for me. That said, there are a couple of issues with the previous iteration of the Witcher games that I feel can be addressed rather easily to make The Witcher 3 an even better game.
1. Combat
Let me be brutally honest here. I did not like the combat in The Witcher 2. While it was by no means bad, I felt that it could have been so much more than the generic click fest it ends up being by the end of the game. I'd go so far as to say that I prefer the combat system in the original game - clunky as it was - if for no other reason than for having more ways to interact with your opponent. 90% of the time in the Witcher 2, you left-click your way to victory. This is true regardless of the difficulty you're playing at. The only thing that changes if you play at Dark difficulty is that mobility becomes more important as the enemies can 1 or 2 shot you. So you have to move around more, but other than that, combat remains largely the same. So what are the problems in The Witcher 2 combat system as I see it?
First, there are almost no reason to use the strong style. This is simply a matter of risk vs reward. Right-click swings take more time, and hence exposes you to more instances of interruption and damage. For all this, you're rewarded with a marginally increased DPS against armoured targets, if you manage to land the swing uninterrupted. On the other hand, if you try to use the strong style against fast enemies like the nekker, you'll hit nothing but thin air. The same analogy does not apply to the fast style. Not only is it the only usuable sword attacks against fast enemies, it is fairly decent against armoured targets as well. While you might do less damage against armoured targets with left-clicks, your attacks are quicker, hence the risk of retaliation is smaller. This becomes more important the higher difficulty. While I realize that the combat in The Witcher 3 will be different from that of its predecessor, I'm positive that the fast/strong style will still be present in some form. Assuming it will be somewhat similar to The Witcher 2 system, a good way to balance the strong style against the fast one will be by giving enemies more pronounced armour as well as giving the strong style drastically increased chance to proc stuns and knockdowns.
Second, enemies' immunities, vulnerabilities, and special abilities seem a lot less pronounced compared to the first game. Part of the reason for this is the fact that most enemies die within 3 hits provided that you're equipped with chapter-appropriate gear. You don't really care whether a golem or a gargoyle is immune to poison and bleeding, among other things, because you can kill them in 3 swings with a sword that is available at the very beginning of chapter 3. So what if their bodies are made of solid stone? Yes, they do hit hard, especially at Dark Difficulty, but they seem just as fragile as any other. Contrast this with the golem in the original game who laughs at your attempt to hack his body of solid rock with your puny blade. Another reason for this is the incredible resistances that are provided by the available gear. I have played The Witcher 2 from beginning to end 3 times yet I still do not know what differentiates a bruxa from a wraith, other than their appearances. This isn't the case in the original game - bruxa stuns you and drinks your blood. Fighting a bruxa requires you to drink potions that gives you resistance to stun attempts and the black blood potion that poisons them when they attempt to drink your blood. All this combines to make the combat in The Witcher 2 fairly generic. You don't really care who you're fighting because you're always doing the same thing - left-click, roll away, left-click, use a sign here and there - which is a shame because the rest of the game is anything but generic.
Lastly, concerning the matter of potions: While imbibing potions prior to combat is faithful to the books, I feel the combat in the game became less tactical because of it. For this reason, I prefer the implementation used in The Witcher 1; however, I recognize that this is a matter of personal preference so I won't delve further. Perhaps you could poll your fan base to see which system they prefer?
2. Itemization
The Witcher 2 had tiered itemization, which meant that even the best piece of equipment you found in chapter 1 was worse than the stuff you could buy from the store as soon as you progressed to chapter 2. Not only does this not make sense from a lore perspective, (why is a Nilfgaardian sword 4 times better than a Temerian sword?) it dramatically reduces the joy of getting/crafting rare items. For what is the point of spending all your gold and effort on the best items in chapter 1 when it is inferior to the most mundane stuff found in chapter 2?
The WItcher 3 is known to feature an open world, much like the one found in Skyrim. One of the best things about having an open world is that some (not all) of the best items in the game are immediately accessible provided the player is up to the challenge (Carsomyr and Ring of Gaxx, anyone?). Of course, the challenge is greater at the beginning of the game, but the important thing is that the player has the option to take up that challenge and get a reward that lasts the entire game should he succeed in his endeavour. At the same time, it is important that the reward not be so powerful as to trivialize the rest of the game once the player obtains it. In Skyrim, this is achieved by items providing unique advantages, rather than having overpowering stats. It is my sincere wish that tiered itemization go away in the new game, replaced by a system of rewards that scales with challenge relative to the character strength. The more challenging a particular task is, (relative to the strength of the main character at the time he performs this task) the more longer-lasting, and meaningful the reward should be. As a good rule of thumb, the most powerful sword in the game should not be more than twice as powerful as Geralt's starting equipment. This way, getting good items will be meaningful, but this alone will not dictate the pace of the game. Playing as Geralt should not be about hoarding items.
If nothing else, I hope that CDPR includes an easy-to-use database editor for the new game so people can alter the stats on the items (and other things) as they see fit, should they feel inclined to do so. (The existence of an editor for the Infinity Engine kept me coming back to Baldur's Gate 2 for 5 years xD)
3. Character Progression
One of the biggest gripes I have about The Witcher 2 concerns character progression. I feel the game would have felt much better overall if Geralt started the game around level 20 instead of level 1 (with appropriate balancing of mobs, of course.) Not only does Geralt feel weak at lvl 1, he feels inadequate - he seems unable to perform in a capacity befitting his legendary reputation. Together with tiered itemization, this weak start makes it so that Geralt at the end of The Witcher 2 is literally hundred times stronger than Geralt at the beginning of the game. This makes absolutely no sense when you consider that Geralt is already about 100 years old. In fact, I'd argue that Witcher 3 could do away with character progression altogether and it won't be any worse for it. At the same time, I realize that some people absolutely love skill trees and the feeling of growth that comes with progression in levels, so a meaningful compromise for The Witcher 3 would be to make Geralt become about twice as strong as the game goes on, but no more than that.
One of the best ways to tone down the insane scaling seen in both Witcher games is by nerfing the skill tree. Simply put, skills in The Witcher 2 were too powerful. Such powerful specialization marginalized non-specialized skills by the end of the game. For example, going down the swordmaster tree essentially meant combat became a left-click fest; your signs, bombs, and traps were all inferior to simple left-clicks. In similar fashion, individual signs became useless unless upgraded, block was vastly inferior to dodge unless fully upgraded in 2 different trees (block damage reduction, riposte, and vigor reduction), more than half of the potions were useless unless one specialized in alchemy, etc. I ask that CDPR take a more nuanced approach to skill trees for The Witcher 3 (i.e., increases of 5, 10% instead of 50, 100%).
4. Alchemy
While the ritualized potion-drinking in The Witcher 2 was interesting and faithful to the spirit of the witchers - mutants who hunt monsters by carefully studying them and preparing for them with concoctions only they can handle - I feel alchemy became something of a chore in The Witcher 2, which is unfortunate because alchemy in the original game was one of my favourite parts of the game.
I'm of the opinion that any good mini-game must give the user the chance to engage his brain. This is usually achieved by building the game on a few basic rules and giving the user freedom in the execution of their strategy. Alchemy in the original game is a game of experimentation based on only 2 rules - which base to use for potion/bomb and quality of the base which contrains the maximum number of ingredients that can be mixed. Recipes merely facilitate this process. Together with the presence of seconary substances (albedo, nigredo, and rubedo) granting additional effects, this rule-set presents the user with endless choices that take into consideration overall cost, ingredient rarity, and additional combat bonus. Contrast this with alchemy in The Witcher 2 which is best described as a card-collecting game with minimal strategy involved in the execution. There are as many rules as there are recipes, for it is impossible to create anything without them.
5. Dialogue and Other Role-Playing Elements
There is a minor gripe concerning interruptions in conversations in that it doesn't feel like interruptions at all. The interruptions portrayed in The Witcher 2 are mostly of one person interjecting while another person is in the middle of a sentence, yet there is no overlapping of voice to convincingly portray this. For me, this makes the flow of conversation pretty awkward because it feels so unnatural. I hope CDPR improves on this particular bit for the new game.
Let me preface this by saying that I am extremely excited for the newest addition to the Witcher series. I have been a huge fan of the Witcher games since the first game came out back in 2007, and I plan to spend $1500 for a new PC just to be able to play the new game at full setting when it comes out next year. I have no doubt that The Witcher 3 will be the game of the year for me. That said, there are a couple of issues with the previous iteration of the Witcher games that I feel can be addressed rather easily to make The Witcher 3 an even better game.
1. Combat
Let me be brutally honest here. I did not like the combat in The Witcher 2. While it was by no means bad, I felt that it could have been so much more than the generic click fest it ends up being by the end of the game. I'd go so far as to say that I prefer the combat system in the original game - clunky as it was - if for no other reason than for having more ways to interact with your opponent. 90% of the time in the Witcher 2, you left-click your way to victory. This is true regardless of the difficulty you're playing at. The only thing that changes if you play at Dark difficulty is that mobility becomes more important as the enemies can 1 or 2 shot you. So you have to move around more, but other than that, combat remains largely the same. So what are the problems in The Witcher 2 combat system as I see it?
First, there are almost no reason to use the strong style. This is simply a matter of risk vs reward. Right-click swings take more time, and hence exposes you to more instances of interruption and damage. For all this, you're rewarded with a marginally increased DPS against armoured targets, if you manage to land the swing uninterrupted. On the other hand, if you try to use the strong style against fast enemies like the nekker, you'll hit nothing but thin air. The same analogy does not apply to the fast style. Not only is it the only usuable sword attacks against fast enemies, it is fairly decent against armoured targets as well. While you might do less damage against armoured targets with left-clicks, your attacks are quicker, hence the risk of retaliation is smaller. This becomes more important the higher difficulty. While I realize that the combat in The Witcher 3 will be different from that of its predecessor, I'm positive that the fast/strong style will still be present in some form. Assuming it will be somewhat similar to The Witcher 2 system, a good way to balance the strong style against the fast one will be by giving enemies more pronounced armour as well as giving the strong style drastically increased chance to proc stuns and knockdowns.
Second, enemies' immunities, vulnerabilities, and special abilities seem a lot less pronounced compared to the first game. Part of the reason for this is the fact that most enemies die within 3 hits provided that you're equipped with chapter-appropriate gear. You don't really care whether a golem or a gargoyle is immune to poison and bleeding, among other things, because you can kill them in 3 swings with a sword that is available at the very beginning of chapter 3. So what if their bodies are made of solid stone? Yes, they do hit hard, especially at Dark Difficulty, but they seem just as fragile as any other. Contrast this with the golem in the original game who laughs at your attempt to hack his body of solid rock with your puny blade. Another reason for this is the incredible resistances that are provided by the available gear. I have played The Witcher 2 from beginning to end 3 times yet I still do not know what differentiates a bruxa from a wraith, other than their appearances. This isn't the case in the original game - bruxa stuns you and drinks your blood. Fighting a bruxa requires you to drink potions that gives you resistance to stun attempts and the black blood potion that poisons them when they attempt to drink your blood. All this combines to make the combat in The Witcher 2 fairly generic. You don't really care who you're fighting because you're always doing the same thing - left-click, roll away, left-click, use a sign here and there - which is a shame because the rest of the game is anything but generic.
Lastly, concerning the matter of potions: While imbibing potions prior to combat is faithful to the books, I feel the combat in the game became less tactical because of it. For this reason, I prefer the implementation used in The Witcher 1; however, I recognize that this is a matter of personal preference so I won't delve further. Perhaps you could poll your fan base to see which system they prefer?
2. Itemization
The Witcher 2 had tiered itemization, which meant that even the best piece of equipment you found in chapter 1 was worse than the stuff you could buy from the store as soon as you progressed to chapter 2. Not only does this not make sense from a lore perspective, (why is a Nilfgaardian sword 4 times better than a Temerian sword?) it dramatically reduces the joy of getting/crafting rare items. For what is the point of spending all your gold and effort on the best items in chapter 1 when it is inferior to the most mundane stuff found in chapter 2?
The WItcher 3 is known to feature an open world, much like the one found in Skyrim. One of the best things about having an open world is that some (not all) of the best items in the game are immediately accessible provided the player is up to the challenge (Carsomyr and Ring of Gaxx, anyone?). Of course, the challenge is greater at the beginning of the game, but the important thing is that the player has the option to take up that challenge and get a reward that lasts the entire game should he succeed in his endeavour. At the same time, it is important that the reward not be so powerful as to trivialize the rest of the game once the player obtains it. In Skyrim, this is achieved by items providing unique advantages, rather than having overpowering stats. It is my sincere wish that tiered itemization go away in the new game, replaced by a system of rewards that scales with challenge relative to the character strength. The more challenging a particular task is, (relative to the strength of the main character at the time he performs this task) the more longer-lasting, and meaningful the reward should be. As a good rule of thumb, the most powerful sword in the game should not be more than twice as powerful as Geralt's starting equipment. This way, getting good items will be meaningful, but this alone will not dictate the pace of the game. Playing as Geralt should not be about hoarding items.
If nothing else, I hope that CDPR includes an easy-to-use database editor for the new game so people can alter the stats on the items (and other things) as they see fit, should they feel inclined to do so. (The existence of an editor for the Infinity Engine kept me coming back to Baldur's Gate 2 for 5 years xD)
3. Character Progression
One of the biggest gripes I have about The Witcher 2 concerns character progression. I feel the game would have felt much better overall if Geralt started the game around level 20 instead of level 1 (with appropriate balancing of mobs, of course.) Not only does Geralt feel weak at lvl 1, he feels inadequate - he seems unable to perform in a capacity befitting his legendary reputation. Together with tiered itemization, this weak start makes it so that Geralt at the end of The Witcher 2 is literally hundred times stronger than Geralt at the beginning of the game. This makes absolutely no sense when you consider that Geralt is already about 100 years old. In fact, I'd argue that Witcher 3 could do away with character progression altogether and it won't be any worse for it. At the same time, I realize that some people absolutely love skill trees and the feeling of growth that comes with progression in levels, so a meaningful compromise for The Witcher 3 would be to make Geralt become about twice as strong as the game goes on, but no more than that.
One of the best ways to tone down the insane scaling seen in both Witcher games is by nerfing the skill tree. Simply put, skills in The Witcher 2 were too powerful. Such powerful specialization marginalized non-specialized skills by the end of the game. For example, going down the swordmaster tree essentially meant combat became a left-click fest; your signs, bombs, and traps were all inferior to simple left-clicks. In similar fashion, individual signs became useless unless upgraded, block was vastly inferior to dodge unless fully upgraded in 2 different trees (block damage reduction, riposte, and vigor reduction), more than half of the potions were useless unless one specialized in alchemy, etc. I ask that CDPR take a more nuanced approach to skill trees for The Witcher 3 (i.e., increases of 5, 10% instead of 50, 100%).
4. Alchemy
While the ritualized potion-drinking in The Witcher 2 was interesting and faithful to the spirit of the witchers - mutants who hunt monsters by carefully studying them and preparing for them with concoctions only they can handle - I feel alchemy became something of a chore in The Witcher 2, which is unfortunate because alchemy in the original game was one of my favourite parts of the game.
I'm of the opinion that any good mini-game must give the user the chance to engage his brain. This is usually achieved by building the game on a few basic rules and giving the user freedom in the execution of their strategy. Alchemy in the original game is a game of experimentation based on only 2 rules - which base to use for potion/bomb and quality of the base which contrains the maximum number of ingredients that can be mixed. Recipes merely facilitate this process. Together with the presence of seconary substances (albedo, nigredo, and rubedo) granting additional effects, this rule-set presents the user with endless choices that take into consideration overall cost, ingredient rarity, and additional combat bonus. Contrast this with alchemy in The Witcher 2 which is best described as a card-collecting game with minimal strategy involved in the execution. There are as many rules as there are recipes, for it is impossible to create anything without them.
5. Dialogue and Other Role-Playing Elements
There is a minor gripe concerning interruptions in conversations in that it doesn't feel like interruptions at all. The interruptions portrayed in The Witcher 2 are mostly of one person interjecting while another person is in the middle of a sentence, yet there is no overlapping of voice to convincingly portray this. For me, this makes the flow of conversation pretty awkward because it feels so unnatural. I hope CDPR improves on this particular bit for the new game.
Much of that was brought under some control by the changes made with FCR** ~ there wasn't a huge difference in sword quality. Geralt starts off competent if not spectacular... and with some cobwebs back... His final skill set is better, but not by 'literally hundreds of times'. (I think my end state damage was around "60" using my best swords, and protection around 15, with maximally enhanced late stage armour... which compares to around "30" and 5 with the original equipment.)
Fighting is still a lot about position and hitting hard and fast ~ but that doesn't seem wrong. The changes also focussed the player more on being a swordsman, because the spell and alchemy progression wasn't *quite* as OP compared to that in the books... though he does still get played as a grenadier or mini-mage in some plays.
I also do wonder whether minimal/no progression wouldn't suit the character better ~ with *knowledge* and opportunity being the currency of progression rather than skill-points.
** significant as Flash is currently part of the team working on TW3 combat.
Fighting is still a lot about position and hitting hard and fast ~ but that doesn't seem wrong. The changes also focussed the player more on being a swordsman, because the spell and alchemy progression wasn't *quite* as OP compared to that in the books... though he does still get played as a grenadier or mini-mage in some plays.
I also do wonder whether minimal/no progression wouldn't suit the character better ~ with *knowledge* and opportunity being the currency of progression rather than skill-points.
** significant as Flash is currently part of the team working on TW3 combat.
I actually agree with all of these points and some (especially 1 and 5 are things I hadn't though about before).
@Lieste I liked that about the first game, especially in terms of the equipment. I never really bothered with upgrading and it was fine playing it. And even with stats I felt the knowledge increment was the most interesting thing and maybe the additional effects for your moves.
@Lieste I liked that about the first game, especially in terms of the equipment. I never really bothered with upgrading and it was fine playing it. And even with stats I felt the knowledge increment was the most interesting thing and maybe the additional effects for your moves.
Full Combat Rebalance.
There was a version for The Witcher, which went as high as 1.6a (with an excellent manual)... as well as the later one for The Witcher 2: Assassin of Kings.
Both brought Geralt to a swordsman with signs and alchemy, rather than a mage who could carry a sword, and rationalised the interactions between reward and difficulty and monster, human and witcher.
Some don't like, because it significantly thins out the population of magical items and special bonuses on swords (in the area of magic buffs)... personally I tried vanilla ~ tried FCR and never looked back.
TW: http://www.moddb.com/mods/full-combat-rebalance1
TW2: http://redkit.cdprojektred.com/index.php?c=mod&m=show&p=77
Last edited:
Ahh Triss I was banging her as you where being tortured ah, but don't worry though I am highly unfaithful on average.
Geralts list of sexual partners is long, and vast. Often taking place at the most hilarious of inappropriate times. Such as the interaction with the fine woman I mentioned in the title at the expense of a rather unimportant long term friend. I am hoping for "more" opportunities to make the "wrong" decision. For example say I sea a boat being eaten by a Kraken, but there is also this incredibly enticing mermaid swimming alongside my little skiff. I think it goes with out saying who is more important...
Sorry Triss, but this comes first
View attachment 6031
Just hang out for a while its not like you are going anywhere.
View attachment 6032
LOL no thanks
View attachment 6033
Hows it going?
View attachment 6034
Geralts list of sexual partners is long, and vast. Often taking place at the most hilarious of inappropriate times. Such as the interaction with the fine woman I mentioned in the title at the expense of a rather unimportant long term friend. I am hoping for "more" opportunities to make the "wrong" decision. For example say I sea a boat being eaten by a Kraken, but there is also this incredibly enticing mermaid swimming alongside my little skiff. I think it goes with out saying who is more important...
Sorry Triss, but this comes first
View attachment 6031
Just hang out for a while its not like you are going anywhere.
View attachment 6032
LOL no thanks
View attachment 6033
Hows it going?
View attachment 6034
Attachments
That's probably gonna be there this time around. Just 'seems' like they're going to go with a more 'saner' route this time instead of combining double resolution+AF in one pointlessly taxing setting(Ubersampling).
Telltale-style choice charts
It would be interesting to see in the witcher 3 something like what telltale is doing,a chart of sorts displaying the percentage of people that picked the same choice you picked.
In the witcher 2 I'd really have liked to have known the percentage of people that picked Iorveth ,for example,because i believe that the majority picked him over Roche but i cannot be sure.If there was a chart though.
A feature like that would suit the style of the games and complement the experience for me,and i can't see any downside to it.Well maybe some hipsters will crop up as is always the case with majorities and minorities but i can deal with it ,those charts are that genius, like einstein level genius.
What do YOU think?
It would be interesting to see in the witcher 3 something like what telltale is doing,a chart of sorts displaying the percentage of people that picked the same choice you picked.
In the witcher 2 I'd really have liked to have known the percentage of people that picked Iorveth ,for example,because i believe that the majority picked him over Roche but i cannot be sure.If there was a chart though.
A feature like that would suit the style of the games and complement the experience for me,and i can't see any downside to it.Well maybe some hipsters will crop up as is always the case with majorities and minorities but i can deal with it ,those charts are that genius, like einstein level genius.
What do YOU think?
I'd love to see it, but aren't sure on the mechanics. How do you collect the data if the game is offline with no DRM? (Other than a forum poll, which is fun but a little complicated)
As @Dragonbird said, it shouldn't be a default feature. The game can offer some opt-in feedback. For example when you finish your playthrough, the game can ask if you want to send the results to the server with an option of "don't ask about it again". As long as it won't be using any .NET for networking, it can be fine ;D but it should remain purely optional.
Well there is actually a downside.
With the charts people can research what other people have chosen and that will affect their choices to some extent,but it's not that big of a deal.
As Gilrond said as long as they remain purely optional i think they are a very good idea.
With the charts people can research what other people have chosen and that will affect their choices to some extent,but it's not that big of a deal.
As Gilrond said as long as they remain purely optional i think they are a very good idea.
Optional could work. Maybe a button at the end of the game to "upload your choices".
I wouldn't worry too much about the spoiler potential. Within a short while of the game being released, there will be forum threads, wiki updates, plenty of places full of spoilers. Stay off the web until you've done your first playthrough.
That would be hard for those who will wait for the Linux release since it might take a while until it will surface after the initial release. Staying away from spoilers will be challenging
especially when editing the wiki and so on.
Personally I don't really see the point TBH. Wouldn't really add anything for me at least.