No, please, not this. Several quest markers are truly the death of quest design.- The map should show as many quest objectives simultaneously as the player wants, and be possible to read the quest name/details by highlighting the corresponding point in the map, just like in Dragon Age: Inquisition. It's really good to know when you are close to 3-4 different quests objectives to try to look into some of them and save time. It would also be good to distinguish clearly when an objective is a main objective (I mean, will allow to advance in the story) or secondary. That's not really well done in DA
I hope there will be visual effects of potion intoxication, like in the opening cinematic of the witcher 1 and of the 52 and a half trailer!!!
I'm not sure if you misunderstood me or, maybe, I misunderstand you. Just to clarify, I mean several DIFFERENT quests having their markers appearing on the map (if the player wants that). Just like Dragon Age Inquisition or Skyrim. Choose several quests, display their markers at the same time, now you have a reference on the map of which things to do in the area you are.
Currently in TW 2 you can only track the markers of one quest at the time and holy s***t, that's a pain. Makes you even forget your other quests exist (part of that are also the cumbersome menus, though)
Don't worry, I understood.
Dragon Age Inquisition and Skyrim aren't the standard. Those games are truly bad RPGs, and one of the many flaws they have is the quest markers displayed on the map at the same time.
You HAVE to forget that other quests exist until you complete the active quest. It's simply narrative focus. The system in Fallout 1 and 2, and Gothic. Those games are the example to follow. Not Inquisition and Skyrim, a cancer in the RPG genre.
Well, I think I may understand you in terms of immersion, and even agree with you. However, in terms of gameplay, depending on how the quests are located, having to do them one by one, specially if one quest means going to several places, may be a horrid pain in the ass. And anyway, it would be only an option, so the player can track quests one by one if he chooses so.
F***k, even in terms of immersion, you are Geralt, you speak with a shop owner in Nolfgaard who wants an ingredient, a friend who asks you to kill a guy there, a merchant who wants you to kill a monster, and a couple of other people who give you objectives there. If you were Geralt, would you go to Nolfgaard, kill the monster, come back for the reward, then go there again, find the herbs, come back, go there again to kill the guy... and so on? No way. You would just remember by heart what you would have to do there, do everything, and then come back when it's convenient.
I do care a lot about immersion too, but it's a game, for God's sake. And playing TW 2 is being cumbersome for me because of several gameplay flaws, not because they didn't do a good story or the graphics were not good enough.
A good example of good RPG design without many markers is Divinity OS, where direction indicators and clues replace in many cases a lot of arrows, which is good and immersive. But it's also a game where they give you objectives that are close by, no need to exit a village and walk through the forest back and forth 3-4 times.
F***k, even in terms of immersion, you are Geralt, you speak with a shop owner in Nolfgaard who wants an ingredient, a friend who asks you to kill a guy there, a merchant who wants you to kill a monster, and a couple of other people who give you objectives there. If you were Geralt, would you go to Nolfgaard, kill the monster, come back for the reward, then go there again, find the herbs, come back, go there again to kill the guy... and so on? No way. You would just remember by heart what you would have to do there, do everything, and then come back when it's convenient.
I do care a lot about immersion too, but it's a game, for God's sake. And playing TW 2 is being cumbersome for me because of several gameplay flaws, not because they didn't do a good story or the graphics were not good enough.
A good example of good RPG design without many markers is Divinity OS, where direction indicators and clues replace in many cases a lot of arrows, which is good and immersive. But it's also a game where they give you objectives that are close by, no need to exit a village and walk through the forest back and forth 3-4 times.
Quest markers:
(Ignore the interview's title, it isn't really that weird)
From http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/28/sex-witcher-3-grand-theft-auto-of-fantasy-games
(Ignore the interview's title, it isn't really that weird)
When fighting Vilgefortz in 'Pani jeziora' (Lady of the Lake) Geralt has deflected a fireball with a dwarwen-made sihil. I wonder if such a mechanic will / can make its way to TW3.
Here are two things (and if poss, would like to know the answer to whether these are in):
1. Recognizable, visitable locations from the previous games. Maybe even a 1-for-1 recreation?
2. Witness regrouping with the other Witchers. Geralt and the others went in different directions in Witcher 1--for the duration of Witcher 2 he was 'missing in action'. I hope they don't just gloss over this and it shows them catching up with one another. Given that the intro showed Geralt with Vessemir, though, perhaps not.
1. Recognizable, visitable locations from the previous games. Maybe even a 1-for-1 recreation?
2. Witness regrouping with the other Witchers. Geralt and the others went in different directions in Witcher 1--for the duration of Witcher 2 he was 'missing in action'. I hope they don't just gloss over this and it shows them catching up with one another. Given that the intro showed Geralt with Vessemir, though, perhaps not.
Would it be possible to either have the option to toggle the UI button input symbols used e.g. Keyboard/Dualshock/XBox Controller regardless of what input device is being used, either that or would the texture files for the user interface (guessing either .tga or .dds) be accessible on pc so that the end user could replace them with custom ones? Only reason I ask is that I'm more used to circle/square/cross/triangle interface prompts when using a controller and would like to use them as opposed to the XBox prompts.
i just want 2 things.
to port the tatoo from the witcher 2 and to see Regis in a cameo or something its the coolest sidekick
to port the tatoo from the witcher 2 and to see Regis in a cameo or something its the coolest sidekick
I hope CD Projekt releases a Making of The Witcher 3, like they did with witcher 1 and 2!
1. Open world. Check!
One of my strongest memories of Witcher 1 is wanting to visit and explore the house on the hill on the other side of the lake (or river?) on the Dike. I also remember thinking that an open-world Witcher game would be the best game ever. Prove me right CDPR!
2.Traditional music. Check!
While I loved the music in W2, there was something magical about the music in W1. W3 clearly seem to be on the same track, every single piece of music from W3 that has been released has been fantastic. Great melodies and composition with a slavic (or should I say "traditional"?). touch. Absolutely amazing.
3. Improved swordplay. Check!
I love the battle system in W2. I am glad they choose to refine it rather than to do something completely new.
4. Item descriptions
Hopefully, this time they include descriptions beyond "Crafting material" or "Contains vitriol". I love the lore and I want more of it!
5. Mini games
It is not a Witcher game without mini games. The fistfight mechanics seem promising, as does the card game. But I really hope the dice poker makes a return (perhaps in EE?).
6. Improved alchemy
I am perfectly OK with the "meditate to refill" idea, it can be explained reasonably well and it saves us from unnecessary tedium. But there must be some point to using potions. A trade-off and a reward, not just "chug to restore life".
In W1, the alchemy system and battle system were both meant to be explored, just as every thing else in the game. I really miss this.
7. A big, fat, detailed journal.
I love reading, I love gaming. When you put them together you get something great.
One of my strongest memories of Witcher 1 is wanting to visit and explore the house on the hill on the other side of the lake (or river?) on the Dike. I also remember thinking that an open-world Witcher game would be the best game ever. Prove me right CDPR!
2.
While I loved the music in W2, there was something magical about the music in W1. W3 clearly seem to be on the same track, every single piece of music from W3 that has been released has been fantastic. Great melodies and composition with a slavic (or should I say "traditional"?). touch. Absolutely amazing.
3.
I love the battle system in W2. I am glad they choose to refine it rather than to do something completely new.
4. Item descriptions
Hopefully, this time they include descriptions beyond "Crafting material" or "Contains vitriol". I love the lore and I want more of it!
5. Mini games
It is not a Witcher game without mini games. The fistfight mechanics seem promising, as does the card game. But I really hope the dice poker makes a return (perhaps in EE?
). 6. Improved alchemy
I am perfectly OK with the "meditate to refill" idea, it can be explained reasonably well and it saves us from unnecessary tedium. But there must be some point to using potions. A trade-off and a reward, not just "chug to restore life".
In W1, the alchemy system and battle system were both meant to be explored, just as every thing else in the game. I really miss this.
7. A big, fat, detailed journal.
I love reading, I love gaming. When you put them together you get something great.
Sorry for my english is not my navtive language.
Mod support tools and encourage talent modders to create their amazing mods.
CDPR can't do everything for every fans. (That's need times, human resources, budgets, ideas, research etc.) The standard is the most important for consumers and fan. (mass consumers can get and enjoy this game as much as possible, I'm relived CDPR's decision announced rather high requirements because if they compromised the low spec pc, it'll ruined their master piece game, their reputations, trust, fans etc. crippled everything)
We can see how fans responded when very high expectation AAA games disappointed them, how hard to recover their reputation and woo from fans, need more marketing budgets again and again why they didn't do it right and honestly for customers as it should be.
Beyond the high quality of standard such as advanced gameplay, environment, UI, detail, taste, style, very hi-end model and texture for muscle PC etc. leave them to modders (but the game standard must appealing modders and encourage them), gamers can freely choose. It's like researches, brainstorm ideas, support by community what fans wants and proved that ideas are success or not and CDPR can extending or advancing those idea.
Gamers known use the mods at their own risks but ton of mods made by modders are satisfied or amazing, gamers enjoy in their customized their favorite games which one match their taste, equipment etc. too many variables to design to cover all of them.
Win-Win Situation. This games can keep interested for a long time by community, new consumers coming, more fans base, continuous advertising by public media to gamers and target groups. So many positive possibilities and chances made by mods from communities.
thanks for reading, i hope it's not wasted your time.
Sincerely,
Mod support tools and encourage talent modders to create their amazing mods.
CDPR can't do everything for every fans. (That's need times, human resources, budgets, ideas, research etc.) The standard is the most important for consumers and fan. (mass consumers can get and enjoy this game as much as possible, I'm relived CDPR's decision announced rather high requirements because if they compromised the low spec pc, it'll ruined their master piece game, their reputations, trust, fans etc. crippled everything)
We can see how fans responded when very high expectation AAA games disappointed them, how hard to recover their reputation and woo from fans, need more marketing budgets again and again why they didn't do it right and honestly for customers as it should be.
Beyond the high quality of standard such as advanced gameplay, environment, UI, detail, taste, style, very hi-end model and texture for muscle PC etc. leave them to modders (but the game standard must appealing modders and encourage them), gamers can freely choose. It's like researches, brainstorm ideas, support by community what fans wants and proved that ideas are success or not and CDPR can extending or advancing those idea.
Gamers known use the mods at their own risks but ton of mods made by modders are satisfied or amazing, gamers enjoy in their customized their favorite games which one match their taste, equipment etc. too many variables to design to cover all of them.
Win-Win Situation. This games can keep interested for a long time by community, new consumers coming, more fans base, continuous advertising by public media to gamers and target groups. So many positive possibilities and chances made by mods from communities.
thanks for reading, i hope it's not wasted your time.
Sincerely,
My request is only about fixing the feedback of both slashes and stagger animations. Other than that, I think everything is just fine, as we didn't have the chance to see AI that much. So AI is also a priority.
Architecture Specific Compiler Optimizations
CDPoject, would you consider enabling architecture specific compiler optimizations? Before you dismiss this idea as ridiculous, please hear me out.
The Witcher might be mostly GPU bound but under certain circumstances the bottleneck might, and judging by the CPU requirements you have published this is not far fetched, change to the CPU. Even if it doesn't, faster code means less CPU cycles meaning less heat, less power consumption, battery, etc, etc. And why dismiss free performance?
You don't have to test each build, AMD's and Intel's, separately. You don't need to make sure the builds are stable that there are no odd behaviors or crashes. What I'm proposing is to create two additional builds after you guys are finished with the game. Simply activate the pertinent options in Visual Studio and hit compile. Append the executables in the game directory under a folder named "extras" or something and you are done. It will not cost you more than 10 minutes. (OK I might be underestimating the time it takes to compile the game a little )
While you are at it, you might as well activate more aggressive optimization options. The builds will not be officially supported anyway and no one but the most savvy users will dig-in to find the files.
CDPoject, would you consider enabling architecture specific compiler optimizations? Before you dismiss this idea as ridiculous, please hear me out.
The Witcher might be mostly GPU bound but under certain circumstances the bottleneck might, and judging by the CPU requirements you have published this is not far fetched, change to the CPU. Even if it doesn't, faster code means less CPU cycles meaning less heat, less power consumption, battery, etc, etc. And why dismiss free performance?
You don't have to test each build, AMD's and Intel's, separately. You don't need to make sure the builds are stable that there are no odd behaviors or crashes. What I'm proposing is to create two additional builds after you guys are finished with the game. Simply activate the pertinent options in Visual Studio and hit compile. Append the executables in the game directory under a folder named "extras" or something and you are done. It will not cost you more than 10 minutes. (OK I might be underestimating the time it takes to compile the game a little
)While you are at it, you might as well activate more aggressive optimization options. The builds will not be officially supported anyway and no one but the most savvy users will dig-in to find the files.
My mind still boggles at claims that "it will not cost you more than 10 minutes" or "simply activate the pertinent options and hit compile."
NO. It takes personnel and equipment suitable to making the builds, conducting the tests, and evaluating the results, and no self-proclaimed expert who is not actually a developer on the project knows how much time that isn't available because they have been in crunch mode for months it is going to take.
What would you be willing to risk delaying or not completing in order to have this feature that has no definite benefit and only a speculative market? Why would you think this is a better use of developers' time when they already have all possible optimizations on the table?
Say HELL NO to feature creep.
NO. It takes personnel and equipment suitable to making the builds, conducting the tests, and evaluating the results, and no self-proclaimed expert who is not actually a developer on the project knows how much time that isn't available because they have been in crunch mode for months it is going to take.
What would you be willing to risk delaying or not completing in order to have this feature that has no definite benefit and only a speculative market? Why would you think this is a better use of developers' time when they already have all possible optimizations on the table?
Say HELL NO to feature creep.
Last edited:
You seem to have a misconception of what compiling means in terms of software engineering. Compiling is the process of translating the written source code into processor specific binary code. Is a complex multi-step process that results in the creation of a binary executable. It requires absolutely no intervention on the part of the developers, it's automatic. If the game's source code was available, we could compile the game ourselves, me, you, everyone, provided we had all the dependencies. It literally is as easy as pushing a button.
Compiler Optimizations are nothing more than flags you can activate to make the compiler perform extra steps such as loop unrolling, function inlining, aligment, array stacking, etc, when translating the source code into binary. This will produce a faster executable. Some optimizations are architecture dependent; an executable compiled with such optimizations will perform bad on a CPU of a different architecture. Obviously these optimizations are not enabled when producing executables for a wide variety of CPUs.
What I asked is for the devs to compile the game once more after they compile the official executable but to activate more aggressive and architecture specific optimizations this time. In order no to create extra work for them, this special build would be completely unsupported and undisclosed.