TW3 Save game import

[HellKnightX88]

I always viewed the whole choice and consequence thing on a per game basis. I never expected them to make sweeping changes in a game based on decisions made in previous games because it might be a bit too much work having all the choices in TW3 and then adding more variation based on choices from TW1 and TW2.

 

[DuranA.111]

because it might be a bit too much work having all the choices in TW3 and then adding more variation based on choices from TW1 and TW2.

It's a series built on choice and consequences. People might be fine with what most people do, but CDPR is supposed to be leading the charge and yet the fall behind to Bioware of all people.

Then again Bioware, for good or ill, did significantly alter RPG gaming as we know it with Mass Effect 2 and solidified that with Mass Effect 3 to an extent.

 

[HellKnightX88]

I wouldn't say it's falling behind BW. Even in the ME series (which I loved to bits, hated the ending, but apart from that I loved the experience) while choice and consequence is present and very well made it's not even close to the extent to which CDPR took it in the Witcher games. You loose out on 30% of game content based on 1 decision in TW2.

Don't get me wrong, the fact that you could see Wrex on Tuchanka or see how destroying or keeping the genophage cure in ME2 changed certain things in ME3 was freaking awesome! The huge disappointment I felt when finishing ME3 wasn't because the series failed to catch me through it's story and choices, quite the contrary. This is why I'm glad Casey Hudson left Bioware. I don't have anything against the man and I wish him the best but I think he and the team behind him should have done better.

All that being said, on a per game basis CDPR takes the show as far as choice and consequence goes (at least for me). Time and money, like everywhere else (except Blizzard and Valve apparently), is limited. There's only so much you can put in a game, there's only so many branching story elements that you can have.

Lets assume you are given a choice between having a branching story based on the many actions you take in a game and a branching story based on the same amount of actions you take over 3 games. Both of them yielding the same number of consequences in your third game. Like I said previously you can only invest a certain amount of effort (time and money) into fleshing out these consequences. In this scenario I'd go for the first option: branching story based on the many actions you take in one game a opposed to 3 games.

Why? Because otherwise a part of the audience won't be able to experience some of it simply because they haven't played the previous game. So depending on how much you flesh out your consequences, as a game developer, you might end up with a lot of wasted effort in a manner of speaking. Not to mention that due to what I just said you may be tempted to not invest so much work in certain outcomes because a big part of your audience might not even experience it.

That's my point of view on it, not claiming any of this as fact. I'd love for them to make most of what you did over the course of 3 games count in a great way because I played TW1 and TW2 and I have saves ready for import for TW3 but I'm a bit pessimistic about them being able to meet everybody expectations. There's already a huge amount of work that's going into this, there's only so much they can do.

 

[DuranA.111]

Why? Because otherwise a part of the audience won't be able to experience some of it simply because they haven't played the previous game.

Untrue to a very large extent. People can use save game imports from other people and a lot of them did so. Bioware realized this was an issue on consoles though and addressed it with the motion comic for the ME series and are addressing it with Dragon Age keep for DA:I

Lets assume you are given a choice between having a branching story based on the many actions you take in a game and a branching story based on the same amount of actions you take over 3 games. Both of them yielding the same number of consequences in your third game. Like I said previously you can only invest a certain amount of effort (time and money) into fleshing out these consequences. In this scenario I'd go for the first option: branching story based on the many actions you take in one game a opposed to 3 games.

Except consequences in TW series don't really branch at all beside the obvious two-three possible outcomes. The path system is an exception not the rule and Bioware does take into consideration more variables for it's choices and consequences.

CDPR seems to do a better a job because they are far better with their writing. The Path is all smoke and mirrors for the most part.

That's my point of view on it, not claiming any of this as fact. I'd love for them to make most of what you did over the course of 3 games count in a great way because I played TW1 and TW2 and I have saves ready for import for TW3 but I'm a bit pessimistic about them being able to meet everybody expectations. There's already a huge amount of work that's going into this, there's only so much they can do.

I don't buy the argument that there's a huge work in the game and thus we can't have real consequences for our choices in TW1 and TW2 ( they already ignore all but one major choice in TW1 in terms of meaningful consequences and that was the faction choice. Adda was irrelevant ). I didn't enjoy CDPR games for their gameplay, in fact it's quite sub-par to a lot games, including Mass Effect 2 and 3, especially 2. I enjoy them for their story, universe, atmosphere, characters etc. but I see them focusing on gameplay on TW3 with making a huge open world, improving combat etc.

Now that's well and good, especially combat, as long as story quality is not sacrificed for it. I am hoping it isn't but I've had huge doubts ever since they announced open world bigger then Skyrim.

The most recent IGN video was perhaps the only reassuring thing with regards to story quality. I loved the dialogue there and their intentions at making monsters more then just creatures to hunt but as part of the eco system that can also have good effects.

 

[SeasonedWitcher]

I have to say, I'm very disappointed with what I'm hearing about the impact our saved games on Witcher 3. Our choices will likely have little to no impact on the game world, that's bad enough. But, what really got me, was realising that we start W3 at level one, again. Geralt will once again be a novice, at best. All the effort I put into my builds for W3 was for nothing. It's bad enough that our characters will go from being epic to novice, but the items will also likely follow suit.Addan Deith which even announced itself as the bane of the Wild Hunt, will likely be a butter knife in W3, while the Vran Armour will probably be as effective as bed sheets.

We beat a Dragon at the end of Witcher 2, now Drowners will be a challenge again. I just find the whole going from powerful to weak at the start of every game, very immersion breaking. They could have allowed us to retain our levels and abilities, as well as item powers, it's not like they have another sequel to worry about if going past level 70, or whatever, was their concern. And continuing a sequel at a high level from a save import has been done successfully by other developers in the past. All they had to do was set the W3 level cap at 70, or higher. As I said, it's not like they've another sequel to worry about. It just seems to me that new players to the series have been given priority. If appealing to new players was their primary concern, they could have just given the option of starting at a higher level to new players with no save game import.

 

[HellKnightX88]

I disagree. Starting fresh with the skill trees means they can improve them. Personally I wasn't thrilled with some of the design decisions as far as the skill tree goes (having to waste the first 6 level ups in the beginner tree was silly). I definitely don't want them to restrict their design options by keeping your imported level and skills. And if they start fresh that doesn't mean you'll have to relearn how to parry a bolt, maybe you'll start with that from the get go.

Yeah, you defeated a dragon in TW2 and all that. Do you want them to throw more powerful stuff at you from the get go in TW3? Does that even make sense, won't it break your immersion then? Or should you battle stuff that you can mostly one shot till the later stages of the game? Won't it be boring?

 

[SeasonedWitcher]

All they had to do in that situation was keep the levels, and allow us to spend points on this supposed improved skills tree.

So instead lets just pretend we didn't beat a Dragon, and nothing from the previous game matters, because that's better, right? No you don't need Dragons every five minutes in Witcher 3 to make it a challenge, although they did that in Skyrim and it didn't break the game. All that's needed is powerful enemies, and more the one of them at the same time, and fewer filler encounters, rather than the Drowner cannon fodder they always seem to fill the games with.

 

[HellKnightX88]

Nobody's going to pretend you didn't beat a dragon. You did, it's part of the story. And as you very well point out they don't have to add dragons. They can't, because they are extremely rare in the witcher universe now as opposed to Skyrim and it's world status (apples and oranges).

All that's needed is powerful enemies, and more the one of them at the same time, and fewer filler encounters, rather than the Drowner cannon fodder they always seem to fill the games with.

So basically instead of drowner cannon fodder you'd fighting more-powerful-enemies cannon fodder? Because in your scenario you'd be higher level therefor they wouldn't pose the same threat to you as to a level 1 character, thus providing more or less the same difficulty curve otherwise you risk punishing people that imported a save. They'd basically have to populate the word with 2 different sets of spawn points based on you importing your save or not (you said it yourself that they can't use drowners). Not to mention the difficulty of handling progression (the kind of monsters in an area and their levels) for what is basically two different kind of playthroughs that will eventually play out the same way as far as difficulty goes.

And if I misunderstood you and what you're suggesting is giving everyone level X | X > 1 then isn't it better to just start instead at level 1 , with some of the knowledge and skills that Geralt gained during the events in the previous games (two bolt deflection and all that jazz).

Imagine your suggestion with this scenario: the save import from TW1 to TW2. The skill trees and their mechanics are so vastly different that it gets difficult to find a good level where to start the player at in TW2 How would you handle that? Why not do what the FCR mod did for TW2, give some of the basic moves from the get go: you already know all the skills from the basic training tree and a few others (keep in mind that FCR changes all the skills). All of a sudden Geralt isn't a noob anymore.

 

[SeasonedWitcher]

You see that doesn't address the issue. The fact is we go from beating a Dragon to having a problem beating Drowners again. You can't rationalize that away, it is a plot hole. And I didn't compare the two worlds, so where you're going with the apples and oranges analogy, only you know.

Where did I say more powerful enemies being cannon fodder? Other games have done it with high level character imports, the enemies weren't cannon fodder, why should they be now? That argument about importing saves or not was addressed in my first post. They could have just designed the game for high level characters. The how, is again, in my first post. Also, we're talking about imports from W2 to W3, which are very similar, so the differences between the mechanics of W1 and W2 doesn't apply to this.

 

[DuranA.111]

It's not a plot hole. Just because you defeated a powerful enemy doesn't mean weaker ones are not a threat. The only problem you will have in beating drowners will come down to personal skill. Witcher is not one of those RPGs where stats matter so much.

In the books Geralt takes down mighty creatures, fights some of the most powerful mages in the land and wins...and then he get's killed by a peasant with a pitchfork.

Other games have done it with high level character imports

You mean Mass Effect 2/3 and Dragon Age Awakening combat balance or lack thereof? The balance in those games was terribly broken if you imported a high level character.

 

[HellKnightX88]

What I'm trying to explain is that they can't redo all the design they did on the world spawns for a second case scenario. And if said second case scenario is actually the only case scenario (even non-imports start at a high level) why just not start everyone at level one with certain special abilities unlocked (bolt deflect to name an example)? It has already been done by FCR and Flash, the author of it, is working on TW3 so it could very well happen.

Now moving on to monsters: I called them cannon-fodder because in my eyes they are the first kind you encounter and are generally easy to deal with if you don't get sloppy and know your character's limitations. Now assuming you have two kind of starting players you want the same difficulty curve for level 1s and level 35s at the start of the game (remember what I said about punishing imported saves by making it too hard or too easy, you don't want to do that). So basically it's double the amount of work with populating the world with spawn points and balancing it for providing the same experience.

Now if you don't have 2 kinds of startups and everybody starts at level Y (might as well be 1 for the reasons I stated before, but that doesn't matter right now) what you're suggesting is: don't give me drowners or crap I should be able to mop the floor with because I beat a dragon in the previous game, I'm powerful, I want a challenge that makes sense. So they'll have to fill the world with stuff that makes sense to keep you challenged and immersed. But the same things that would keep you challenged would pose an immense threat to everything else simply because you're so powerful. Now all of a sudden you have nilfgardian patrols technically not being able to go through the nomans land because the creatures inhabiting it are nearly as powerful as a dragon. But somehow they still do it, they're supposed to for plot's sake, and that doesn't make sense. It's contradicting the plot. The types of monsters that the patrol should be ale to defeat is drowner level monsters.

And what about the drowners and the like: have they suddenly dissapeared from the world, replaced by monster X? If you throw them in as super weak enemies they're just an annoyance, like the ones from the swamp in chapter 5 in TW1.

I'm not saying you don't raise a valid point: Geralt is a badass that defeated a dragon, drowners shouldn't pose a threat from a character level perspective. But story doesn't work on levels. That's why it makes sense and it doesn't break immersion that drowners are still the early threats in the game and that you start from level 1.

 

[SeasonedWitcher]

Yeah, it is a plot hole. Are you seriously suggesting a Dragon would have any problem taking out 20 or so Drowners at the same time? Anything that could beat one should have no trouble doing the same, except he suddenly has a problem with just three. I'm not here to defend the writing in the books.

Funny, the combat in ME 3 seemed just fine to me.

 

[DuranA.111]

Are you seriously suggesting a Dragon would have any problem taking out 20 or so Drowners at the same time? Anything that could beat one should have no trouble doing the same, except he suddenly has a problem with just three. I'm not here to defend the writing in the books.

That's really bad logic there.

Is Geralt a flying massive dragon that can spew fire, has massive claws that can rip apart creatures with ease or is he still an enhanced human? Killing a Dragon changes nothing in Geralt's combat skills.

 

[SeasonedWitcher]

No, your assumptions are not what I was saying, and I can't word what I'm saying any simpler, I've explained how it there wouldn't be any second case scenario. Everything you've said has been addressed. Other games have done it, there is no reason CDPR couldn't have. I'm not getting drawn into a 'discussion' which is basically rewordings of the same post. You're bringing up 'issues' that aren't issues at all.

I also already said that it's clear the game has been designed with new players as a priority, I didn't ask or expect them to change it at this point. However, I'm very disappointed with their design decisions.

 

[SeasonedWitcher]

No, it's not, because the Dragon could do the same to Geralt, yet he still beat it. Also, Geralt can take out 20 Drowners at the same time, in the forests behind Vergen. Yet he will be back to struggling against a handful of them at the beginning of Witcher 3.

 

[DuranA.111]

Geralt is more intelligent and capable then your average drowner.

Also you can beat 20 drowners in TW2 in ACT 1 as a level 1 character, no bomb spam either just sword work.

 

[SeasonedWitcher]

Geralt is more intelligent and capable then your average drowner.

Also you can beat 20 drowners in TW2 in ACT 1 as a level 1 character, no bomb spam either just sword work.

And how long does that take, versus how quickly he can take them out later in the game?

 

[HellKnightX88]

By that logic by the time Geralt reaches the final stages of TW3 after going through 3 games he should be able to shoot "fireballs from his eyes, and bolts of lightning from his arse" and battle Cthulhu himself so he can get a decent challenge.

I jest of course.

Drowners, like all monsters, are supposed to be threatening. It's a widely accepted RPG convention and it's what drives progression: to make them increasingly easy to deal with through the player leveling but plot wise Geralt doesn't magically gets immensely better at killing stuff. He's already at a level where he's very competent at it. So there really is no plot hole. The plot hole is actually caused by the whole "getting good" aspect that is of course ignored because it makes sense to ignore it for gameplay's sake.

You're being unrealistic here expecting them to come up with a completely new monster progression sequence because it doesn't fi your vision of Geralt's skill.

 

[SeasonedWitcher]

Or they could just have Geralt at the power level he should be at the beginning of his final adventure, and Drowners should be the cannon fodder from the get go that they will inevitably become anyway. But as I've said, I know why they've done this (catering to new players), and it's too late to change it, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

 

[DuranA.111]

And how long does that take, versus how quickly he can take them out later in the game?

About the same time as it would take if you were max level. The amount of extra damage you do via talents is negligible.

Now the amount of extra damage you do because of a high level sword coupled with potions and oils is another matter.

But as I've said, I know why they've done this (catering to new players), and it's too late to change it, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

Starting a new game and being able to one shot everyone except very high level bosses would not be fun at all. Oh sure it's amusing for a bit, but only a bit.