So dying by having a thousand unseen archers kill you off screen was kind of stupid especially for defending yourself against a town guard attacking you for no reason. Should we be able to kill random people this time out, or do you think it to be just to out of character for Geralt, and the game should just automatically reload.
If we are to be allowed to kill people just for fun, then we should also be able to light up cows with Igni. Both equally dumb, for a game like the Witcher.
My vote goes to Jean-Pierre. If my sword slips at any moment, I'd like Geralt to get his ass whooped by that guy. Arrows not so cool. Jean-Pierre very cool.
Although I'd prefer to simply not be able to kill anything other than the people I'm "supposed" to.
I don't think there is a good solution to this problem. Getting killed by arrows is dumb, but then so is being able to kill and loot "friendly" guards and, by extension, entire towns. Worse still, if you can kill off non-enemy NPCs you'll probably have incentive to do so for looting, which throws the game off balance. Even worse, it means the devs have to think about potentially dead quest givers, which is just a waste of their time.
For an example of the kill-the-town mechanic play Gothic 3. In that game you'll have murdered half your quest givers by the end.
True, but they could add evryone in the town trying to kill you and not giving up until you are dead. once you are, they reset for befor you when on the murderous rampage =D. It would probably make some really funny videos abou angry mobs chasing Geralt trought mountains, rivers and brothels. Yeah... thinking better, probably not a good idea =P. But for the flaming cows part... if they don't put it in the game, there is allways mods!
:huh:
It wouldn't make a lot of sense TBH. I don't really see Geralt going like "Yup, murder time fun time! I'll start with the puppies and kittens and make my way up from there!". Geralt is a pre-established character, that's why you don't get near absolute freedom to do anything you want.
I never got attacked by a town guard for "no reason" so you probably did something
Maybe you had your sword in your hand and got attacked by him?
I don't think attacking random NPCs would be a good idea.
I did try IGNI on some chickens though, in W2
I think you should be able to kill them, but then all others around you become hostile. Or you can't use your weapon and signs around them at all. But invincible NPCs are weird...
Read the Books/ pay attention to how Geralt acts in the games - he's no killer that kills people randomly just to loot their dead bodies afterwards.. He kills humans in defense when it's absolutely necessary. He's a monster slayer, not a killer. Games are canon to books and it should stay that way. Otherwise it would be completely out of Geralt's character.
For this reason, you shouldn't expect the breadth of freedom of a game like Skyrim or Grand Theft Auto V. You can't, for example, run around town killing random non-player characters. "For me, that would be an immersion and story breaker," Platkow-Gilewski continues. "Here, we are playing the role of Geralt, of a Witcher, which is a predefined character. We know that he's not a serial killer going frenzy somewhere in the middle of a small, peaceful village."
I just mentioned this in another thread but it shows how great it is with consequences:
I can only think of the death cutscene when I tried to fight my way out of Roche's interrogation
(Ves shoots a bolt in Geralt's back)
as well as Iorveth's hideout
(Geralt is riddled with Scoia'tael arrows).
I just wanted to see the consequences of talking back and flipping people off. Well shit hit the fan. :lol:
I've never attacked either townspeople or guards in all of my playthroughs. Hell, I even went out of my way to never kill a dog for the 'dog tallow quest' in Witcher 1. But I finished the quest, as some rare Salamanders carry the tallow upon their persons.
It's a weird morality point of view to some, I now. To avoid killing dogs but have no problem with killing humans. But I see it this way: if someone doesn't attack me I don't attack them. Simple. The poor pooches never did me any harm so why would I harm them? If I could have reasoned with the Salamanders I wouldn't have had to kill them either.
Now, I never saw any point to go slaughtering civilians or soldiers in either Witcher game, and this attitude and behaviour are canon to me(nevermind what the books say) in all my gameplay choices in all games I play. As if Witcher 1 and 2 don't have monsters enough.
Read the Books/ pay attention to how Geralt acts in the games - he's no killer that kills people randomly just to loot their dead bodies afterwards.. He kills humans in defense when it's absolutely necessary. He's a monster slayer, not a killer. Games are canon to books and it should stay that way. Otherwise it would be completely out of Geralt's character.
It's true what you say, but all isn't that black and white as Sapkowski teaches us. To be frank and fair, Geralt didn't 'have to' kill those idiots attacking him at the Fox tavern in The Witcher short story either. He knew fully well that he could take them all on without breaking a sweat. Maybe he didn't have to kill them and only knock them out but he killed them all the same. He did it just to announce his presence in Vizima and to show off his skills in order to be taken before Velerad.
As if announcing himself as a Witcher for hire wasn't enough. :laughing:
The issue of devs going 'canon' or staying 'true' to the books, well, I think the devs did great to let all manner of choices be player choicesvictory so that you can play as 'your own version' of Geralt. To me the devs have been true enough. ^_^
Even if I'm all for player choice in most aspects of gaming, not being able to kill(slaughter) villagers, townspeople or anyone not attacking you: I'm on board with that decision.
The realistic reaction of random people would be running away instead getting hostile and attacking, if Geralt killed a random person in front of them. Some guards might also run away, since we are talking about Geralt also known as the Butcher of Blaviken. But in the books or the games so far, Geralt never knowingly used his skills and abilities to hurt innocent people . I can see him teaching peasants a non-fatal lesson, if they cross some lines though. I still chuckle at the part in Witcher 1 where Eskel wants to teach Geralt how to brawl and Geralt responds "Eskel, I'm a Witcher. If someone touches me, I'll cut their hands off".
we can create a character called witcher hunter (similar to the headhunter from TW1) that specializes in dealing with rogue Witchers. A mindless sword master who is immune to signs, can parry most attacks, deal insane damage to humanoids and even if you manage to win a duel against it, another clone will take its place and hunt you down (some powerful politicians continued the Grandmaster's experiment ?). It has no diaglogue option, once you killed someone you are not supposed to, it will be unleashed. Imagine running from this creature across a swamp forest and surrounded by monsters and you cant rest :fury:
Also this could be a nice homage to Maiev Shadowsong, I mean, we didnt have the spiky Sauron villain, we at least should have a design like this, for variety's sake
So instead of having a cutscene death, there will be a lot of chasing and duel with Sauron/Maiev. Gawd this sounds really good in my head
I don't think there is a good solution to this problem. Getting killed by arrows is dumb, but then so is being able to kill and loot "friendly" guards and, by extension, entire towns. Worse still, if you can kill off non-enemy NPCs you'll probably have incentive to do so for looting, which throws the game off balance. Even worse, it means the devs have to think about potentially dead quest givers, which is just a waste of their time.
For an example of the kill-the-town mechanic play Gothic 3. In that game you'll have murdered half your quest givers by the end.
Couldn't they just be considered vitals, meaning those specific characters can't be killed? I don't know, won't walking past a world full of people who are invincible to you make you feel like somewhat of a ghost... even if you wouldn't choose to attack, it seems like it would be a nice option to have.
Couldn't they just be considered vitals, meaning those specific characters can't be killed? I don't know, won't walking past a world full of people who are invincible to you make you feel like somewhat of a ghost... even if you wouldn't choose to attack, it seems like it would be a nice option to have.
"Essential" characters is what killed roleplaying in games like TES for me >_>
Anyway, they could do that but they don't need to and shouldn't. You're playing as a predefined character, you don't have the freedom to do whatever you want, you can only do things that Geralt would do and he most definitely wouldn't go around murdering everyone he sees.
Geralt: "Uhh my *sword* slipped..."
Random NPC:"Uhhggg put your penis back in it's scabberd man...This isn't Flotsam.."
OT:I would be fine with a headhunter coming after the player if he does something stupid but I don't really feel all that atracted to the idea of Geralt being able to assault every single npc in the world because it would be a lore and immersion breaker for me.In any case I think we'll be so consumed by the story and killing monsters that we won't really care about cutting some random peasants head off for looking at us funny and,as you all know,monsters don't have to be 12 ft giants with horns on their heads...
....so if you want to take your emotions out on the human race you'll most certanly have an opportunity to do so.
The first thing I did in both Oblivion and Skyrim was to remove the "Essential" status for every NPC.The dragons killed most of the population of Skyrim after that but atleast it was realistic (albeit very annoying).I loved that in Morrowind you could essentially break the whole game (story) by killing just one npc.
