Who said it has to be about combat? There is nothing wrong with the subject of the underwater world or discussing it.
I don't have to try it to dislike it. It's not because the gameplay, not at all. It's just an immersion breaker for me. In the Witcher world I have in my head Geralt doesn't like water or the open sea at all and he would prevent accessing it at all costs. Obviously other people don't have problems with that but FOR ME it's a big issue.
Btw all that personal stuff aside, diving in full armour and two swords on the back should be an immersion breaker for everyone....
Last edited:
Well I think you will have that option, you can decline all water based side quests and only travel on the sea when you travel to skellige. It's a win win if they let you do that
. Plus would you deny the option for the people that do want the feature?On your second point please tell that to my Pathfinder GM.
Me: "I'm wearing full plate mail and carrying 200lbs worth of gear and your telling me to swim for 2 miles down a river."
Her: "Oh yeah no problem you can just take 20."
I'm not expecting huge krakens, or megalodons. I think we will see mermaids and other smaller threats. I even doubt that there will be an underwater ecosystem.
Well, I hope they make the whole water/underwater sections optional. But I doubt it. Why should they even make something like that, working on an underwater world if it's kind of meaningless to go there? You will likely at least find valuable treasures there (like ingredients, swords, armour) so they might indirectly force or motivate me to explore the water but I fear there will also be quests involving swimming or diving. That's the core problem: I want the water to be as meaningless as possible, others want it to be meaningful (they even talk about whole underwater cities and stuff). You cannot simply combine these opinions with an "options are good" statements imo...Well I think you will have that option, you can decline all water based side quests and only travel on the sea when you travel to skellige. It's a win win if they let you do that
True, but I make a difference between "hidden" immersion breaks (like inventory) and "visible" immersion breaks (like swimming in full armour). The visible and direct immersion break hits me much "harder" than the one laying in the systems.
Why not? It could end up being like GTA5 where it has a whole underwater world to explore but half the players don't even set foot down there. Of course we don't actually know until we play it I suppose. My personal opinion on the subject is that a few things can be compromised in the name of fun. So I won't be upset so long as they make underwater fun. I don't speak for anyone else of course, and everyone else's opinion is not mine. So yeah I believe options are good. But I don't deny they could have gotten away with excluding water all together either.
I could live with a more or less meaningless (under)water world (although I think that it would benefit the game if resources would be put into something else...) Personally, I just don't want any high incentive or even requirement to enter the (under)water world, e.g. by quests.
Hey since this thread involves water monsters, I thought id ask if anyone has ever noticed the loch ness monster in the concept art. Nessi is on the right side of the image in the water.
http://cdn.gamerspack.com/gpEN/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/the-witcher-3-art-4.jpg
I also noticed theres another version of this picture where Nessi is clipped out.
http://cdn.gamerspack.com/gpEN/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/the-witcher-3-art-4.jpg
I also noticed theres another version of this picture where Nessi is clipped out.
Swimming in armour is quite possible if you can actually swim. It is easier in plate than in chainmail, and not significantly easier in bulky woollen clothing.Well, I hope they make the whole water/underwater sections optional. But I doubt it. Why should they even make something like that, working on an underwater world if it's kind of meaningless to go there? You will likely at least find valuable treasures there (like ingredients, swords, armour) so they might indirectly force or motivate me to explore the water but I fear there will also be quests involving swimming or diving. That's the core problem: I want the water to be as meaningless as possible, others want it to be meaningful (they even talk about whole underwater cities and stuff). You cannot simply combine these opinions with an "options are good" statements imo...
True, but I make a difference between "hidden" immersion breaks (like inventory) and "visible" immersion breaks (like swimming in full armour). The visible and direct immersion break hits me much "harder" than the one laying in the systems.
For me, the bigger immersion breaker is the carrying 200lbs of inventory. (Now admittedly I'm only small: on the order of 50kg, but I struggle to carry more than 10kg any distance if it is not carried on my back in a well-fitted rucksack, or in panniers on a bike I am riding... around 25kg is the maximum I'd want to "carry" even then on my back, and maybe 50kg for bike and luggage (15-35kg resp)...) Sure I can *lift* more than that ~ not sure exactly how much, but I know it is over 60kg... but I'd not want to hold it for more than a few seconds, nor carry it any distance.
I'm a life guard myself and I can tell you first hand that swimming in normal clothes is already incredibly hard and exhausting. A very well trained swimmer can bear it for a few minutes at the maximum. Now put 15-20kg of steel and even more clothing on top of it and you can imagine how well one could swim or dive with it...
Point is that nobody would voluntarily swim in heavy clothes or armor if it's avoidable. That would be just plain stupid and suicidal...
Aye, I second that. It is indeed hard to swim any longer stretch as the clothes soak up water and weigh you down, restrict movement etc. There are techniques of course, to make sure you don't wear yourself out too fast, but yeah, it's still exhausting.I'm a life guard myself and I can tell you first hand that swimming in normal clothes is already incredibly hard and exhausting. A very well trained swimmer can bear it for a few minutes at the maximum. Now put 15-20kg of steel and even more clothing on top of it and you can imagine how well one could swim or dive with it...
Point is that nobody would voluntarily swim in heavy clothes or armor if it's avoidable. That would be just plain stupid and suicidal...
Been swimming all my life, and training swimmers as well. A common exercise where I come from is to let everyone at some point swim in their clothes just to feel how exhausting it really is. This is demonstrated in the event they would find themselves in water while wearing clothes. It's not like you undress before accidentally falling into water.
Wearing any metal or leather armour made to withstand damage? You'd probably sink as a rock, and might as well walk the distance on the bottom and hope you have the lungs for the entire trek.
Then again Geralt isn't anybody is he? He's got the strength and endurance to swim in any armour, swords and all(well obviously). Wearing his entire inventory and trophies in his belt to boot. ^_^
That could be. I never even took that into consideration lol, its just that when you zoom in on the creature it looks surprisingly similar to a famous picture of Nessi. Here's a picture for comparison.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5e/Hoaxed_photo_of_the_Loch_Ness_monster.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5e/Hoaxed_photo_of_the_Loch_Ness_monster.jpg
That's the Loc Eskalott "monster" [sub]If ya know what I'm sayin'[/sub]
Apparently in the witcher world, some of the biggest monsters are in the ocean. Like the Kayran!
I am confused. How drowners can swin in so shallow water and not be visible??? I mean in that trailer Geralt is walking, water is so shallow but still there are drowners.
They're supernatural creatures... suspension of disbelief and all that.