I just had a thought - when you loot, it automatically removes a piece of junk from your inventory as "payment". I'm sure all of the Lobinden peasants would happily donate to your Witcher's Needs in return for that fishing net you picked up off a body half an hour earlier.
Provided that it wsn't so automatic, and that you would have to pay much more in junk than the worth of the item you were stealing, why not?
Yes, I agree with you about death in DA2. Too over-simplified. At least we don't have that particular problem in TW2. But again, such issues shouldn't become an overriding aspect of the game. TW2 *did*, I think, get it wrong with the Dark Mode items, which suddenly raised "farming for orens" into an over-significant activity.
I want story, combat and immersion in a game, in that order. If immersion is handled by too much emphasis on elements that don't contibute to the story, such as eating, sleeping, working, shopping, minigames, then I don't consider it a bad game, but not necessarily the type of game that I'd want to play.
I feel similarly, but I treat immersion a little bit differently. To me immersion doesn't come from having to eat, sleep, sh*t, doing daily chores and so on. This is indeed, boring, and adds nothing to experience, but frustration. Unless you could integrate it into the story, you shouldn't bother with those. Things like stealing, and reputation, however, are naturally integrated into story. What's more the story can benefit from them.
Games have this one advantage over other types of story-telling media (book and film) that they can be non-linear. Reputation, maybe not in the sense we are used to, could help with that. I really don't want to play the equivalent of what I could read. That's why I'm a little bit sceptical about - 'Geralt wouldn't behave like that' argument. In TW1 we had 'Geralt would never join the Grand Master'. Wouldn't he? The Geralt who condemned Abigail to burining on a stake wouldn't go for that? The same Geralt who made both sides of Scoia'teal and Order bleed each other so that there was no decisive victor in their clash later on, wouldn't do that? What about Geralt who killed Vincent, the werewolf? Or the one who slaughtered Berengar and the Strigga, later on? All those Geralts rolled together into one, wouldn't see wisdom in Grand Master's words?
Although Geralt is very much the person we know from the novels, I think, more control over his actions and personality would benefit storytelling much. Otherwise, it just strikes me as looking for excuses, in order not to do anything.
The thread is generating ideas, giving feedback. No "CDPR MUST do this". If they read it and get some ideas, fine. If not, I'll probably still love TW3.
Precisely. That's why no one's saying: "It must be done!!1111". All I'm saying, given the right approach, it COULD be expanded and made better.
To be perfectly honest, I am not as optimistic as you are about TW3, for simple reasons - I don't like some of the decisions that were made e.g. QTEs, much simplified Alchemy (the old system would work equally well), leapfrogging, arcade boss battles etc. All of these seem to indicate the shift to simplistic (not simple - simple is a good thing) gameplay instead of more complex (complex doesn't amount to complicated) one.
I've no problem with the simplified alchemy - it's different, but it isn't nerfed like (to use the obvious example) DA2. DA2 was a relief after the over-complexity of DA:A, but it was still nerfed.
I *HOPE* that QTE was a tentative experiment and that they fix it or replace it with some other device in TW3. As it stands, players can either do it (in which case it's trivial and doesn't require any skill at all) or can't do it (in which case it's impossible and frustrating). I'm fine with the combat. One man's meat...
I agree with you about Geralt's character, but there are boundaries. He can deviate a fair amount from canon, but no further. Where that boundary occurs is definitely going to be something that no two people agree on
People, you can call me purist, but when I play an RPG I want to loot all NPC houses while they look at me with a dumb smile in their faces. I also want that the blacksmith (for say something) stills do business with me after I loot the corpse of his closes friend.
I want easy access to resourses to craft, trade, sell, etc.
I "explore" NPC houses to loot this resouces, and some times I found other interesting stuff too (rare items, side quest). But to explore a full town just 'cos you may get something at one house sounds borring to me.
I really don't care about immersion, it is just a buzz word to me, and if means that video games must have the same mecanics than real life I hope that everybody forget that word soon.
Immersion is the #1 most important factor of an RPG. It's the complete opposite of a "buzzword" - it's a fundamental tenet that RPGs have been based on since the birth of the genre. Here's the catch, though - Immersion does not mean Realism. Sometimes the two concepts intersect, but they are far from synonymous.
Immersion refers to a continuity of tone or themes in a game. A simulated world should play by its own rules - when it fails to do so, the player's immersion is broken (assuming the player is conscious of his/her immersion, and not just mindlessly clicking buttons). In The Witcher 2, Geralt's random acts of robbery and the blank stares of peasants that accompany them are a perfect example of the game-world failing at its own rules. Like a glitch in the Matrix.
In case it isn't self-explanatory, here's why: Geralt's character (in both the books and the games) is along the lines of a "neutral good" alignment for those of you who are familiar with D&D. He fights evil 'cause it pays the bills, so he's no hero. But if he saw a kitten about to be devoured by hungry drowners, he'd probably go out of his way to save it. This isn't the type of character who would compulsively loot every cottage in his path, especially when the villagers we come across in The Witcher 2 are usually dirty and destitute. These are the types of people Geralt helps (for coin), not the type he robs. However, Tw2 is an RPG with a crafting system, and it would be pretty bizarre if the world were strewn with crafting items outside of peoples homes, but nary a book or a ladle to be found within. The items are there because they belong in the game world - that's an element of immersion. But CDPR has allowed the player to simply ransack these poor NPC's homes without redress! The fact that Geralt can't even draw his sword in Flotsam without alerting every guard in the area, but those same guards couldn't care less when he fills his pockets with someone else's twine, is an incongruity in the rules of the game-world. It's a deviation from the tone of the narrative - this is a dark, serious world where crimes have severe penalties (just look at Geralt's back)- and the omission makes for a glaring break in the player's immersion.
But again, if you play games without thinking about plot or tone or characters or themes - if you play games simply to amass the biggest stack of timber or the most Arena points - you won't have to worry about immersion, because it doesn't exist for you. There are better games than Tw2 for gamers like that, though. World of Warcraft comes to mind.
This isn't Elder Scrolls. It would ruin the game mechanics. Not to mention, most people are afraid of Witchers as they're considered mutants, so they'd probably just stare without wanting to mess with you anyway. You're not some nobody, people know your capabilities.
OK I know you clearly have your own opinion on this, but seriously, you yourself can't honestly think that a more realistic (fun) theft mechanics wouldn't have been more appropriate than simply taking anything, from anyone at any time. It wouldn't even have taken a lot of extra work, because CDP could have just added a few extra lines of upset or sarcastic dialog, such as "sure Witcher, just take anything you want, we don't need to eat..." (sarcasm), just to make me realize that they see what I'm doing and they don't approve but they know there's nothing they can do. In any case, they already had the mechanics in place because if you take out your weapon the guards warn you to put it away - it could have been done that way also. Anyways, it's not a deal-breaker for sure, but it's illogical they way it is right now.
Not really sure how to approach the theft mechanics. Geralt wouldn't steal that's cannon.
So maybe by adding more detail to the world, it would require a larger amount of assets in the game however.
Examples for crafting components:
Abandoned houses
Abandoned tents,camping sites.
More lootable dead bodies, that are scattered around the world.
Gifts from NPC's for sharing advice on diseases from monsters.
As for entering NPC's houses, the Lore states that people are afraid and not really fond of Witchers, that is another aspect that is not depicted in the second game with the same amount of care the first game had, so they could either react with fear or alarming the guards.
Paying a fine however would require somehow that Geralt keeps the crafting component so that's not really logical too.
The logical thing would be that the NPC gets His stolen goods back.
Finding the necessary books could be maybe solved by implementing a NPC that Has stolen the books already, after taking them to return them Geralt could learn a thing or two. Maybe traveling merchants, sorcerers and alchemists that are providing the world Lore book types, as for monster lore that could end up being ridiculous, learning from a wizard to fight a wyvern as a Witcher I mean.
This would be for a few books. The rest like the crafting component aspect scattered around the world, on locations that have no owner.
I think that maybe the aspect of exploration is a little bit limited in the second game, the Sepiroth stones of the first game where scattered around, but getting there provided lots of alchemy and even crafting resources, just a example, maybe changing the amount of components needed per item would provide some balance in the amount of resources needed and make looting inhabited NPC houses obsolete.
On the other hand Witcher gear, generally items related to Witchers , well I found the amount of armors ridiculous in the second game,and I admit that there is nothing wrong with loot in RPG's, the problem with this game is coming from the known secrecy that surrounds them, it really wasn't logical, that Geralt is able to wear some random types of armor that feel like they are made for standard human warriors.
A reputations system well, that is for me another drift away from established things, Geralt wouldn't care, neither would I personally , simply because the NPC are either a business relation for Geralt , or for the sake of the right thing in the right moment, that will be probably irrelevant once He moves on, the problem with it, well the grittiness of the first game showed a majority of NPC's that are not fond of Witchers- He's well used to that in the books and in the first game so changing that even more than in the second game leaves a few questions, one of them being what's next?
Factions?
Retconning the books by giving the player the option to change and affect Geralt's past
Making Him gay/bi/
A women beater?
A black haired heavy metal fan?
The players desire for impact is however understandable, the idea of RPG's starts for many players with customization, goes over looting and ends with dialogue lines,in many situation's the real changes on the world and characters get ignored, because there was a tactical effect missing the player needed as confirmation that He did it, and not the game all by it self. With established characters like Geralt , it somehow gets lost, the second game demonstrated lots of character progression, via gameplay , story and even world aspects, some real some just cosmetic but the relevance is missing unless depicted via a skill tree,tactical pause, finisher, loot, or some kind of out of character influence ...
Depending if someone believes She/He Geralt or believes She/He just influences Geralt and the entire world around Him
could affect even the theft mechanic's. Some people I know including my self never looted anything from houses except quest related items in the first game because Geralt wouldn't do it. It was more problematic in the second game but doable if not crafting everything available.
I disagree with that. The first question we should ask ourselves here is: "In what circumstances would Geralt steal?" The second is: "How would other characters react to Geraly acting out of characer?". Lastly, "What would be the gameplay consequences of Geralt acting out of character?" Address those and you can do anything without breaking the 'cannon'.
So maybe by adding more detail to the world, it would require a larger amount of assets in the game however.
Examples for crafting components:
Abandoned houses
Abandoned tents,camping sites.
More lootable dead bodies, that are scattered around the world.
Gifts from NPC's for sharing advice on diseases from monsters.
As for entering NPC's houses, the Lore states that people are afraid and not really fond of Witchers, that is another aspect that is not depicted in the second game with the same amount of care the first game had, so they could either react with fear or alarming the guards.
Paying a fine however would require somehow that Geralt keeps the crafting component so that's not really logical too.
The logical thing would be that the NPC gets His stolen goods back.
And pay a fine. And suffer consequences of being a thief - reputation drop etc.
Finding the necessary books could be maybe solved by implementing a NPC that Has stolen the books already, after taking them to return them Geralt could learn a thing or two. Maybe traveling merchants, sorcerers and alchemists that are providing the world Lore book types, as for monster lore that could end up being ridiculous, learning from a wizard to fight a wyvern as a Witcher I mean.
This would be for a few books. The rest like the crafting component aspect scattered around the world, on locations that have no owner.
I think that maybe the aspect of exploration is a little bit limited in the second game, the Sepiroth stones of the first game where scattered around, but getting there provided lots of alchemy and even crafting resources, just a example, maybe changing the amount of components needed per item would provide some balance in the amount of resources needed and make looting inhabited NPC houses obsolete.
While I like your way of thinking, you seem to be implying that your solution, by removing the need to loot people's houses could allow for scrapping this possibility altogether. That would be a bad idea I think. It would take away possibilities from the game. My solution is: make it all more meaningful, instead of removing it.
On the other hand Witcher gear, generally items related to Witchers , well I found the amount of armors ridiculous in the second game,and I admit that there is nothing wrong with loot in RPG's, the problem with this game is coming from the known secrecy that surrounds them, it really wasn't logical, that Geralt is able to wear some random types of armor that feel like they are made for standard human warriors.
At first, I was too very sceptical about it. It turned out quite well, though I would prefer armours were more difficult to change.
A reputations system well, that is for me another drift away from established things, Geralt wouldn't care, neither would I personally , simply because the NPC are either a business relation for Geralt , or for the sake of the right thing in the right moment, that will be probably irrelevant once
I firmly disagree here. Butcher of Blaviken, anyone? The world of the witcher is the one reputation mechanics makes most sense. Sure, everyone is at first distrustful of Geralt - peasants, townspeople and nobles alike. It's worth taking note, though that all those groups have different interests in mind.
So instead o classic system of reputation, where the highest value is the best, let's think of system where your deeds can be seen in a different light by different people. Let it be a mini faction system - existing outside of the main narrative - officialy you don't join one, but they do exist and have separate goals.
So stealing from a peasant woman would be seen as a bad thing by all of those factions, but nobles would care the least for that. Supporting peasants in the dispute similar to TW2 act 2 quandary would win their favour but antagonise nobles.
You could toy around with this system e.g. bad enough reputation among farmers would make it difficult to use diplomatic options with them, but grant you bonuses to intimidation. Such thing could influence the outcome of many quests. For example, if in TW1 act it turned out that you antagonised ENTIRE village, before the boss fight, after saving Abigail and slaughtering the Beast you would have to fight 12 peasants more than usual. If you befriended at least some villagers (e.g. by saving that barmaid, in the quest) you would face just the Reverend and his goons.
Suddenly reputation makes more sense, and does not go against cannon, does it?
He moves on, the problem with it, well the grittiness of the first game showed a majority of NPC's that are not fond of Witchers- He's well used to that in the books and in the first game so changing that even more than in the second game leaves a few questions, one of them being what's next?
Factions?
Retconning the books by giving the player the option to change and affect Geralt's past
Making Him gay/bi/
A women beater?
A black haired heavy metal fan?
No one's arguing in favour of that. These are extreme examples. However, blindly sticking to character's personality does harm the sense of progression. It's cool if Geralt can impact the fate of the world, but shouldn't be a double-edged sword - shouldn't the world change Geralt as well? Note, he doeas undergo change in the novels.
The players desire for impact is however understandable, the idea of RPG's starts for many players with customization, goes over looting and ends with dialogue lines,in many situation's the real changes on the world and characters get ignored, because there was a tactical effect missing the player needed as confirmation that He did it, and not the game all by it self.
Agreed. This facet is missing from TW2. Sorry to change the topic for a moment, but I personally lament the fact that player had nothing to do with Geralt's regaining his memory. No quests, no NPC, no looking for information, no nothing. People just say stuff like 'Isle of Apples' or 'Hydra's Gorge' and Geralt just remembers things. The player is literally spoonfed with info that should be part of the gameplay. Even when Geralt does something to regain memory it strikes as a byproduct of his actions, not his (and player's) willing effort (oh, so dispelling the curse had something to do with his memory... yeah, now I remember - they told me about it once some 7 hours ago).
Truly, a great opportunity to reestablish 'folk feel' from TW1 was wasted here.
With established characters like Geralt , it somehow gets lost, the second game demonstrated lots of character progression, via gameplay, story and even world aspects, some real some just cosmetic but the relevance is missing unless depicted via a skill tree,tactical pause, finisher, loot, or some kind of out of character influence ...
Yes! Don't forget about Geralt's personality. Yes I want to influence that facet as well - up to a point of course (no one wants to make him a homicidal killer, or homosexual, or whatnot).
Depending if someone believes She/He Geralt or believes She/He just influences Geralt and the entire world around Him could affect even the theft mechanic's. Some people I know including my self never looted anything from houses except quest related items in the first game because Geralt wouldn't do it.
Cool, it was against your and 'cannon' Geralt's morality compass. But if you could make it more meaningful to the player, wouldn't you be tempted? If the player could feel, from the reaction of his companion's that it's not the way things should be done. If you could suffer consequences, but also reap benefits? How about new 'hidden' quests coming up - some that let you atone for you sins, others, that would let you work with more morally questionable folk - Havekars, Scoia'tael, and such (and see how they are not rotten to the core as society believes them to be)? It doesn't have to impact the main quest, but it would definitely help you feel as a part of the world.
I hope not. Maybe, in the future, if there will be a game with blank state witcher, one that a player creates from scratch.
But while playing as Geralt, thieving skills are big not go. Geralt the pickpocket? Breaking into someone's house? For starters, the real Geralt would never loot pockets of killed bandits - when one girl tried to do just that, he ordered her to stop it, he found it disgusting. As it is now, looting is not that jarring, because it is very abstract stuff... like finding gold coins in the barrel on the street. Adding thieving skills would make it sort of "official".
Immersion is the #1 most important factor of an RPG. It's the complete opposite of a "buzzword" - it's a fundamental tenet that RPGs have been based on since the birth of the genre. Here's the catch, though - Immersion does not mean Realism. Sometimes the two concepts intersect, but they are far from synonymous.
Immersion refers to a continuity of tone or themes in a game. A simulated world should play by its own rules - when it fails to do so, the player's immersion is broken (assuming the player is conscious of his/her immersion, and not just mindlessly clicking buttons). In The Witcher 2, Geralt's random acts of robbery and the blank stares of peasants that accompany them are a perfect example of the game-world failing at its own rules. Like a glitch in the Matrix.
I hate pointless loot, hate it with a passion. In betrayal at krondor when knocking on doors in towns and cities the occupants would come to greet you and tell you to sling your hook, invite you in for a brew and a natter or even pack you up some rations for a few coins. If the house was abandoned or unoccupied however you could partake in a bit of breaking and entering to see what was on offer, this would seem like an eminently workable method of doling out hints, immersing you in the local culture, picking up little quests and so on.
Course I still miss spending a night behind bars as old rpg's such as Ultima occasionally were wont to throw you in prison when you were acting rather un-avatar like, one can imagine in a town like Flotsam that a substantial show of fiscal appreciation to Bernard Loredo could overturn most convictions but would also place you more squarely under the bastards thumb entailing some detestable tasks to be carried out on his behalf as well as a rather unsavoury reputation.
Twine, nails, cloth and iron ore however I really don't want to be collecting. Craftsmen should stock all these consumables themselves and leave me the task of gathering rare components and precious fancies, as a famed monster hunter should rather than acting as a glorified rag and bone man.
I remember them saying something like, 'house looting ends here' before release, so supposedly they had other plans in mind.
I'll be honest: I like looting. I like exploring all the buildings. An area like Flotsam would be boring to me if I couldn't enter all the buildings. Is it realistic? No. Do we need realism in this case? I'm not so sure..
Yeah, I too remember that. Frankly, I hoped they meant that house owners would take notice of you ransacking their property; not that they were going to remove that option altogether. The latter would make TW series more simplistic, in that facet, than your avarage jRPG.
I'll be honest: I like looting. I like exploring all the buildings. An area like Flotsam would be boring to me if I couldn't enter all the buildings. Is it realistic? No. Do we need realism in this case? I'm not so sure..
We do. This is an RPG, not a generic hack'n'slash with a story. The world of the witcher aims to be gritty and mature place, working according to real life's rules. So we have very realistic characters, realistic dillemmas, realistic politics, but we can't have realistically behaving NPCs, for some reason?
Thief mechanics (and reputation - but it's just me ), we are arguing in favour of, are meant to reinfroce exploration, which would balance out a significant obstacle that people not going spontaneously blind would pose.
Besides it's 2011. Gothic series had a skeleton of thievery and proper NPC reaction systems working in, like 10 years ago? Witcher series should be aiming higher, not lower!
I disagree with that. The first question we should ask ourselves here is: "In what circumstances would Geralt steal?"
Never, for me, for You probably something else, but one of us is not getting what He wants, It was me in the second game.
The second is: "How would other characters react to Geraly acting out of characer?".
Don't care, You probably do, the world needs to be even more alive to even remotely make me interested in NPC opinions, again the first game had it the second didn't for for me ,again I lose.
Lastly, "What would be the gameplay consequences of Geralt acting out of character?" Address those and you can do anything without breaking the 'cannon'.
None, Geralt doesn't act out of character in my game, I don't need it , others do, one of the reasons why I had to metagame my self in to a half arsed neutral path, and a half arsed cannon Geralt but again the player wins over the character. It's a game, it needs replay value, how would the game look like without arguing how badass some decisions are.Wonder when they will become awesome too.
And pay a fine. And suffer consequences of being a thief - reputation drop etc.
And still not having the crafting component, and still creating the need to steal again, pay fine again, purpose?
I'm someone that believes that junk sorting buttons are stupid, I believe that exploration, research and reading is a
primary aspect of RPG's ,feeling quite alone in the past 10 years with it, but still trying, a reputation system that is able to appeal to players that play Geralt as Geralt, and play Geralt as them selves well that would require lots of work.
Work that would probably like seen in many cases take away from other things that need implementation because they are really missing in the second game. Game making is a business and many games of today are built around resource allocation and not around the creative process.
While I like your way of thinking, you seem to be implying that your solution, by removing the need to loot people's houses could allow for scrapping this possibility altogether. That would be a bad idea I think. It would take away possibilities from the game. My solution is: make it all more meaningful, instead of removing it.
Where did I imply such thing? What I'm indeed implying simply because we all are witnesses of such things is that making something more meaningful usually takes away something.
Simply put, if there is a way to implement such system for those that want it -fine, but without taking away the freedom for those that don't want it.
If I will get the option to gather my resources without ass kissing on peasants, playing Robin Hood vs nobles, that's OK.
Such things never happen, and I don't want Gothic, Risen or any other system implemented in my Witcher game, it creates only uniformity, and there is already more uniformity than the genre can handle.
At first, I was too very sceptical about it. It turned out quite well, though I would prefer armours were more difficult to change.
And they should for me be made from more Witcherlike, unique resources.
Kaer Moorhen is full of rat skins, wolf pelts , monster parts but Ye olde Geralt suddenly is unable to skin a wolf,and
needs to rob a peasant house.
The nerfed alchemy system only contributed , a proper alchemy system would leave space for leather preparation at a alchemists shop, and so many other ways of gathering items that could be made into crafting components by Geralt or even by specialists.
I firmly disagree here. Butcher of Blaviken, anyone?
Butcher of Blaviken is a moniker of a world impacting decision, not related to the options about robing a peasant's house.
More importantly Geralt didn't run back to the peasants because His reputation was so important(not really) to Him to explain to the clueless peasants that He saved their sorry asses and gain +1 reputation with the peasant faction. Thanks, but not for me, if its there fine, but don't force me into dependence on decisions I'm not willing to make, and most importantly Geralt is unwilling to make, for what a crafting mechanic?
Ending of Lesser Evil:
Is your wound serious?”
“No.”
“Then, away with thee.”
“Yes,” said the witcher. He kept standing for one more moment, avoiding the sheriff’s gaze. Then he turned
slowly. Very slowly.
“Geralt.”
The witcher looked round.
“Never return,” said Caldemeyn, “Never.
The world of the witcher is the one reputation mechanics makes most sense. Sure, everyone is at first distrustful of Geralt - peasants, townspeople and nobles alike. It's worth taking note, though that all those groups have different interests in mind.
So instead o classic system of reputation, where the highest value is the best, let's think of system where your deeds can be seen in a different light by different people. Let it be a mini faction system - existing outside of the main narrative - officialy you don't join one, but they do exist and have separate goals.
So stealing from a peasant woman would be seen as a bad thing by all of those factions, but nobles would care the least for that. Supporting peasants in the dispute similar to TW2 act 2 quandary would win their favour but antagonise nobles.
You could toy around with this system e.g. bad enough reputation among farmers would make it difficult to use diplomatic options with them, but grant you bonuses to intimidation. Such thing could influence the outcome of many quests. For example, if in TW1 act it turned out that you antagonised ENTIRE village, before the boss fight, after saving Abigail and slaughtering the Beast you would have to fight 12 peasants more than usual. If you befriended at least some villagers (e.g. by saving that barmaid, in the quest) you would face just the Reverend and his goons.
Suddenly reputation makes more sense, and does not go against cannon, does it?
Not really, the faction are the Witchers and the reputation mechanic in Geralt's case was always related to the people and events He cared about, so a friendship system is more present than factions around Geralt,factions are usually more based on finances and politics, when He's involved it's mostly on a path to somewhere else, somewhere where important people are.
I don't want the option to piss off the Scoiatell to appeal to Shenaaz the mermaid plain and simple, I want the option
to see them all, interact with them all, without frequently thinking that a Witcher is the most obsolete factor in their world ,that doesn't gets the option to do His Witchers work.Taking sides however happens, but a system that is built with a sole purpose of taking sides-again I would be QFT You, if this would be any other game, but not on this one.
Why not?
Same as above, it would create individuals that are good/bad, a black and white system, befriending villagers like in the case You mention above with the Reverend decision,gives the choice of selectivity, punishing, again choosing sides for the sake of belonging somewhere a faction that are neither needed or in my case desired :
I'm a Witcher, I neither judge nor punish.
“I am not a judge. I am a witcher.”
“I am not a mercenary rogue, Shrike.”
I want the decisions to flow, with the easiness of the first game, and to a certain extent of the second.
What's next:
A notice board message with a contract to kill a leader of the opposing faction, discredit His wife in society what?
No one's arguing in favour of that. These are extreme examples. However, blindly sticking to character's personality does harm the sense of progression. It's cool if Geralt can impact the fate of the world, but shouldn't be a double-edged sword - shouldn't the world change Geralt as well? Note, he doeas undergo change in the novels.
Everybody is arguing in favor of such things, it's the believe that impact is coming from dead NPC's , from ruined factions, from meddling, it's a player thing.
The changes in the novels that Geralt undergoes are related to Him, only Him and the few people He cares about, they
occur from imminent danger for individuals He cares about, not from danger for politics and factions, each one of them, they don't come from judging, from His political ideologies or desires to save the world. So the world changes Geralt only to the extent He allows it, not the other way around, it's never absolutely never out of character.
Wonder what's next killing off Dandelion, Zoltan?
Agreed. This facet is missing from TW2. Sorry to change the topic for a moment, but I personally lament the fact that player had nothing to do with Geralt's regaining his memory. No quests, no NPC, no looking for information, no nothing. People just say stuff like 'Isle of Apples' or 'Hydra's Gorge' and Geralt just remembers things. The player is literally spoonfed with info that should be part of the gameplay. Even when Geralt does something to regain memory it strikes as a byproduct of his actions, not his (and player's) willing effort (oh, so dispelling the curse had something to do with his memory... yeah, now I remember - they told me about it once some 7 hours ago).
Truly, a great opportunity to reestablish 'folk feel' from TW1 was wasted here.
Didn't lament on it for a second. Why? I was willing to do research and read. I wouldn't want any impact on Geralt's past, not a thing, history Has proven that expanding is good, adapting mostly never goes well. Think I'm Legend.
It waters down the persona's, their importance, the impact they already made, it's prone to abuse. Imagine Golum using a fireball spell, or DW daggers, or the force.
While CD Projects writing team did a absolutely great job on the games, they are games and these need replay value, reply value needs variety, variety removes established things or reduces their impact,because there somewhere are finances and deadlines .Reestablishing the folk feel would be easy, via world interactivity, lore bombs, decisions that
affect more, stronger NPC and world responsiveness...Again I'm willing to deal with the limits of Geralt's past, if His present doesn't feels like it belongs to a completely different person,in both cases me-the player,and me- Geralt and it doesn't feel like that, so all credits go to CD Project.
Yes! Don't forget about Geralt's personality. Yes I want to influence that facet as well - up to a point of course (no one wants to make him a homicidal killer, or homosexual, or whatnot).
That's individual for You, I made more impact with Him than with any other custom character I made,those whose names are given by me, whose faces are created by me, that are now long forgotten, in a very long amount of years, and His personalty ,the established one was nothing but helpful for me in that task.
As for the no one wants to make Him a homicidal killer...
Well that's the optimists view, I'm not a optimist.
Cool, it was against your and 'cannon' Geralt's morality compass. But if you could make it more meaningful to the player, wouldn't you be tempted?
No.There are far more meaningful ways of implementing player decisions, C&C mechanics without theft/faction /reputation that is just a way of faking replay value. The idea of impact is in the story, character progression and mechanics that are flexible, there is no flexibility in taking away freedom, at the end it creates linearity on a chosen path,I have joined the Dol Blathanna elves -10 from good knows who,instead of interacting with all of them, balancing the grey aspects of each one of them, the only non-linearity that becomes available is the second,third fourth path/faction or metagaming a goodie two shoes character or a evil Geralt or ....
If the player could feel, from the reaction of his companion's that it's not the way things should be done.
Depends, this sounds to much as a good/evil right/wrong, it should be masked, up to the player,not a decision
that is obvious, not ME2 or anything similar.
If you could suffer consequences, but also reap benefits? How about new 'hidden' quests coming up - some that let you atone for you sins, others, that would let you work with more morally questionable folk - Havekars, Scoia'tael, and such (and see how they are not rotten to the core as society believes them to be)? It doesn't have to impact the main quest, but it would definitely help you feel as a part of the world.
Again, morally questionable folks- they all are, and none of them is, is it depictable, can it be shown in a manner that will not make me feel like I'm choosing black and white, but just the lesser evil- I doubt it. Everything feels like Gothic, Risen I don't want that, not in this game.Geralt is simply to well known in the Witcher's world to change that much,everyone knows Him, ballads are written about Him .
If it removes the option to stay away from each one of them ,if it shoehorns me into a faction, for no reason at all except for a morality system, for the sake of appeal to individuals Geralt would never care about-then most definitely-No.
+1 to Noble faction for clearing a path of dirty peasants or beggars , so that a lady doesn't make Her dress dirty, so much "Wichers work" would be unbearable for me.
But I agree with You despite everything I wrote, in any other game, any other RPG, I completely understand Your ideas.
But It would make me ignore the games, when the second game rescued it self in the final moments from my rage.
And I'm all for hidden quests,surprising twists but they should flow and not drag, even it it makes the game depending on dialogue decisions, there are ways of creating replay value within a less restrictive way than factions, that in many cases feel like the only replay value of a game. The shades of gray are creating when properly implemented
far more, than a reputation system.
I love the second game for different reasons than the first one, but it was close, very close for me.
But do you see wen you are controlling Geralt!, and looting houses, Geralt is becoming thief, just without consequence(that not for you a bit weird?)!!!...
You know they've got fine underused sneaking animations and activity cycles for all of the characters so why not combine the two and have Geralt have to pick locks or climb through windows and sneak into houses at night or when they're unoccupied. Obviously during the daytime housewives will not let a strange and dangerous mutant into their homes, so why not have to work for our looting. Course robbing that village elder in Lobinden who continues to tell stories while asleep would be kind of eery but you'd still get access to all of the quest homes, such as the tanner who keeps the troll head on his wall and runs a business from his home or Einar Gausels little bookshop.
Actually it would add another way of completing quests, for instance in the scent of incense quest you could break into the alchemists shop after he's locked up and steal the formula.
No. These aren't the books anymore my friend. I choose what Geralt does. Setting a character in stone is not what an RPG's about. If anything, they should let us make Geralt more flexible as a character.
Guys, Geralt is now a PC in an RPG. If i want to make him a thief, he'll be a thief. If you want to keep Geralt in line with the books, go for it, it's entirely possible. But i for one see Geralt as a different character after his amnesia. If i want to roleplay him a certain way (Such as acts of thieving out of necessity), i should not be prevented from doing so.
No. These aren't the books anymore my friend. I choose what Geralt does. Setting a character in stone is not what an RPG's about. If anything, they should let us make Geralt more flexible as a character.
Guys, Geralt is now a PC in an RPG. If i want to make him a thief, he'll be a thief. If you want to keep Geralt in line with the books, go for it, it's entirely possible. But i for one see Geralt as a different character after his amnesia. If i want to roleplay him a certain way (Such as acts of thieving out of necessity), i should not be prevented from doing so.
The same logic applies to: "Altair in Assassin's Creed should be able to become a Templar instead of staying a lame assassin-dude" or "You should be able to join the Blight's cause in Dragon Age: Origins".
Every game has a set of premises which can not be altered. You ARE an assassin, you ARE meant to fight for good. It's partially necessary to make a story work, and partially it's technical restrictions making these premises necessary (like boundaries of game world, limited interactions with the game world).
Arguably, one of those is "Geralt of Rivia is a man of virtue in a world of unjustness and mischief". If you take that away, you lead the whole concept of choice and consequence ad absurdum because moral standards would not have influence on Geralt's choices, making them arbitrary. And taking away the central element of TW2's concept makes it just another RPG.
