I don't agree with the above post lol.However I would like more armor. You only get like 4 different types of armor in the whole game, thats kinda blahsay. Try at least 30.Make it so you can add custom armor/weapons/potions.Co-op in rpgs is always kind of broken and added as an afterthought, so don't bother with that.Make it a PC exclusive, The Witcher in Isometric mode is really fun. The story was good, but go with better voice acting and progression, because in the beginning it seems rather weak.Don't change anything about the combat, I like it just the way it is.
-no linearity-greater areas-highter difficulty level-Nilfgaardians 
First of all: a topless Geralt 8)Then... a deeper choice & consequence impact regarding the major quest and minor quests as well. This was done well in The Wichter 1 ;D but actually the only difference was that Geralt was on the side of the Scoia'tael, the Order or neutral but it hasn't changed much of the gamestroy. And (which is almost of the same importance as the first one): pleeeease no pets, this is kitsch and mainstream :dead:
I really think you're missing the point. In Neverwinter you had umpteen million different types of armour. Did it make it a better game? No. In The Witcher, there are effectively only three. Does is make it a better game? Heck yes. Less is more, in this case.If you get stronger armour, then either you have to have bigger and tougher monsters or the game gets too easy just as you're getting more experienced anyway. Having an arms race in the game just makes it pointless and detracts from the story telling. Yes, you could take The Witcher and strip out all the stuff which makes it special and turn it into yet another generic RPG, but why on earth would you want to?Gvaz said:
But Geralt _is_ the Witcher, it's implausible to have an other char then... or maybe someone else from the brotherhood of Witchers.
Geralt isn't the Witcher, he is a witcher. Personally, I didn't really see the point of having Geralt as the player character, other than to appeal to the readers of the books. I think The Witcher would have been a better game if Geralt hadn't been the protagonist. It just stunted the roleplaying.
I don't agree - at all. I think the stength of The Witcher is strength in story telling, and that that strength in story telling comes from the one strong single character. I think we get better, not worse, role-playing in The Witcher than we've had in previous generic RPGs with highly customisable characters.Pidesco said:
Geralt is [glow=red,2,300]The Witcher [/glow] ========= you can have other witchers ========= but [glow=red,2,300]GERALT[/glow] is [glow=red,2,300]THE WITCHER [/glow] without him, me, I,us {or how you like to refer yourself in this great story game } the game wouldn't be the great game it is without Geralt figure as the main character Please give the lovely witcher ladies here at least a topless Geraltfor as armor and other weapons not needed really ========== Geralt does just fine with what he has ============= maybe could use the CHAIN as in the intro ======== would be a cool idea IMHOas for being able to run everywhere no need as far as I can see ---------- except maybe to be able to go back and forth between areas as needed would be nice ======= just in case it's late and you forget to do something { like I did }[glow=red,2,300]Happy Witching[/glow]Pidesco said:
I agree with this completely. In other RPG's, I've had to compulsively search all of the boxes and chests and crap, just in case there was a better weapon out there. Having to continually evaluate weapons and armor and infinitesimally upgrade was a pain. Oh, this sword does 4 - 6, but this one does 5 - 7, so I'll trade up. Now there's one that does 6 - 8, oh, wait, here's another that does 7 - 9. Boring! Boring, boring, boring. I want to solve problems, right wrongs, kill monsters, make the world safe for the little people. Searching for the next sword pales in comparison to all that. When Geralt needs a better weapon, a quest gives him one. I love that -- I think that makes equipment improvements part of the story and not a constant grubbing for stuff.People need rewards for accomplishing things, sure. That's what experience points are for. Opening up a new area to explore is also a great reward. If people need STUFF to feel like they've been rewarded, and I guess some people do, then how about additional inventory space? Geralt could get a bigger satchel or a small bag in addition to the satchel. I wouldn't suggest gems to put on the sword or medals to put on the armor, because that's just SO not Geralt's style. Hmm. Maybe some extra-aged wine or a night with the world's most famous courtesan or something -- those sound about Geralt's speed.SimonBrooke said:
Simon also says:[quote author=Simon Brooke]I don't agree - at all. I think the stength of The Witcher is strength in story telling, and that that strength in story telling comes from the one strong single character. I think we get better, not worse, role-playing in The Witcher than we've had in previous generic RPGs with highly customisable characters.[/QUOTE]Again, I agree completely. Being Geralt was MUCH more fun than being Some Generic Tolkeinesque Character. I don't drink. I don't fistfight. I don't have one-night stands with women I don't know. You'd think all of these would be a barrier to my becoming immersed in Geralt's character, and perhaps they even were. But I was WAY more into playing Geralt than I've been into characters I created myself in other RPG's. Keep Geralt. Keep the Witcher world. Keep the focus on storytelling. Why give up your strengths, after all? As for what I'd like to see in a sequel, of course I want to know the end of the story that was in this Witcher. Who brought Geralt back from the dead and why, who is the assassin, is there more to do to make sure the witcher secrets aren't used for evil? But in addition to all that, I'd like to know more about Geralt's training years. He's such an impressive guy that I'd love to see the training program that produced such a person. He started as a kid, and it seems as if making a witcher out of a child is essentially a program of creative child abuse (sort of like turning Ender into the ultimate general was), and I'm wondering how they did that, and what the lasting effects on his psyche were, and how Vesemir manages to do what's necessary and stay sane. One of the things I found interesting about the opening movie was the part where Geralt takes a potion, and the toxicity is dramatized. I liked it that they included a nod to the fact that being a witcher is not without cost. What were the other costs, and how did Geralt survive them? And why was he the ONLY one to survive the advanced, experimental stuff? We've already seen that destiny is wrapped around this man -- show us more about that, both in the past and in the future.I'll spare myself (and everyone else) a full blown quote of Corylea's excellent post and just say that I fully agree. The Witcher is such a great game precisely because CDPR had the guts to go out and design the game as they thought it should be - without caring about the mainstream. I freely admit that in other RPGs I am something of a pack rat (heck, in Titan Quest I have over half a dozen characters I don't play, just for storing stuff). But this game is different, and that's what I like about it. I don't miss dozens of different armours or weapons because I have great characters and an immersive story instead. So please, stick with this concept. The main reason why I was so disappointed with Gothic 3 was that they gave up the original strengths of the game and tried to "beat" Oblivion at all costs. They failed, and what we got in the end was a lame story full of holes, characters that don't really deserve the name (and which are barely recognisable for people who played the first two parts), and a world that just doesn't feel "real". I won't even mention the myriad bugs. Again, please, don't repeat that mistake. Just give us more of the same, and I for one shall be perfectly happy
Again, I agree completely. Being Geralt was MUCH more fun than being Some Generic Tolkeinesque Character. I don't drink. I don't fistfight. I don't have one-night stands with women I don't know. You'd think all of these would be a barrier to my becoming immersed in Geralt's character, and perhaps they even were. But I was WAY more into playing Geralt than I've been into characters I created myself in other RPG's. Keep Geralt. Keep the Witcher world. Keep the focus on storytelling. Why give up your strengths, after all?Corylea said:
As for what I'd like to see in a sequel, of course I want to know the end of the story that was in this Witcher. Who brought Geralt back from the dead and why, who is the assassin, is there more to do to make sure the witcher secrets aren't used for evil? But in addition to all that, I'd like to know more about Geralt's training years. He's such an impressive guy that I'd love to see the training program that produced such a person. He started as a kid, and it seems as if making a witcher out of a child is essentially a program of creative child abuse (sort of like turning Ender into the ultimate general was), and I'm wondering how they did that, and what the lasting effects on his psyche were, and how Vesemir manages to do what's necessary and stay sane. One of the things I found interesting about the opening movie was the part where Geralt takes a potion, and the toxicity is dramatized. I liked it that they included a nod to the fact that being a witcher is not without cost. What were the other costs, and how did Geralt survive them? And why was he the ONLY one to survive the advanced, experimental stuff? We've already seen that destiny is wrapped around this man -- show us more about that, both in the past and in the future.[/QUOTE]The point of having a customizable character is that you can make that character be whatever you want. If you want your character to be a Geralt type character, you should be able to, if you want to make a "generic Tolkienesque character"(whatever that is) you should be able to. The point is to give the player options to roleplay however he sees fit. A character as well defined as Geralt is doesn't really allow that.The point of having a customizable character is that you can make that character be whatever you want. If you want your character to be a Geralt type character, you should be able to, if you want to make a "generic Tolkienesque character"(whatever that is) you should be able to. The point is to give the player options to roleplay however he sees fit. A character as well defined as Geralt is doesn't really allow that.[/QUOTE]But that's exactly the point. How all the NPCs respond to your character needs to be appropriate to who your character is. The writers can't predict what customised character you will dream up, so the more flexibility you have to create your own character, the more generic and bland all the NPCs scripts have to be. For example, all the female characters in The Witcher respond in some way or other to the fact that Geralt is sexually edgy. If you played as a female half-orc, none of those scripts would work. If you played as a male dwarf, some of them would be pretty odd. Fixing the hero character means that the NPCs can be much more richly scripted, much more characterful. The story-telling can be much richer. And frankly, having played both the 'mix and match your hero from Heinz 57 varieties' type RPG and The Witcher, I know which is better.Pidesco said:Again, I agree completely. Being Geralt was MUCH more fun than being Some Generic Tolkeinesque Character. I don't drink. I don't fistfight. I don't have one-night stands with women I don't know. You'd think all of these would be a barrier to my becoming immersed in Geralt's character, and perhaps they even were. But I was WAY more into playing Geralt than I've been into characters I created myself in other RPG's. Keep Geralt. Keep the Witcher world. Keep the focus on storytelling. Why give up your strengths, after all?Pidesco said:
Aren't Witchers always male and human?When I say the ability to create your own character in a Witcher game I'm talking about creating a Witcher. Creating your own character doesn't necessarily have to mean going The Elder Scrolls way. Game design isn't an all or nothing thing. Anyway, character customization doesn't necessarily mean blander writing, it can mean more and better writing. Look at Torment, for example. Just because a lot of RPG developers couldn't write their way out of a cardboard box, doesn't mean everyone is like that. And I'd like to think CDProjekt isn't like that.
@ Coryleaare you a lawyer ? if not you should be ======== hell I would let Jack The Ripper off after that defence seriously the fact that Geralt is who he is makes the story as far as I'm concerned played enough games where you have unlimited and limited options for your character ====== and have made a few really good ones ==== only the story and them didn't always sync (if you know what I mean) where as in a RPG paper game would work cause you can adjust as you go alongif CD RED stays with what they got and flash it out before now and after the current game I belieave they will do just fineI for one would pay their game[glow=red,2,300]Happy Witcher[/glow]
seriously the fact that Geralt is who he is makes the story as far as I'm concerned played enough games where you have unlimited and limited options for your character ====== and have made a few really good ones ==== only the story and them didn't always sync (if you know what I mean) where as in a RPG paper game would work cause you can adjust as you go alongif CD RED stays with what they got and flash it out before now and after the current game I belieave they will do just fineI for one would pay their game[glow=red,2,300]Happy Witcher[/glow]Geralt should be the main character in any and all sequels. This is not to say they can't add friends that adventure with him but he is iconic. Yes he s over the edge in many ways but thats what makes him so interesting. On a side note, he is unique amongst witchers for reasons I dont want to spoil for those who have not read the books. A "normal" witcher would be quite frankly...boring. I guess it would all depend how closely to the IP the Dev's wish to make any sequel. What I would like to see is of course is either a continuation or closure of the original story. (IE the assassin at the end, what happened to the various NPCs etc). Another way to go would be to maybe make it a prequel, how did he die? When did he meet all these interesting people that show up in the original game?What I don't want to see is standard D&D uberloot. A witcher is not made of +76 sword of pwnz and Armor of L33t but the skills he is trained in and his potions.
very well stated ============== love D&D but this is [glow=red,2,300]The Witcher [/glow] ==================== leave D&D to itself and [glow=red,2,300]The Witcher [/glow] to itself ================= I'll play the one I want at that time ---- not at the same timeGubnillec said:
[glow=red,2,300]Happy Witching[/glow]*giggle* Thanks to you and to Nimue for your nice comments on my post. Actually, I'm a clinical psychologist in real life; I can't imagine why a therapist would want to know how Geralt came to be who he is, could you?RedDragon1313 said:@ Coryleaare you a lawyer ? if not you should be ======== hell I would let Jack The Ripper off after that defence
Exactly!RedDragon1313 said:
While you're listening...What I'd really, really like to see in a sequel is NO AREA TRANSITIONS - a single, seamless world. I know that probably can't be done with the Aurora engine, so that in the short term expansion packs and extra modules will still have area transitions. And I know the Aurora engine is quite nice in a lot of ways - particularly what you have done with it. But the area transitions are a big, ugly, artifact. It surely must be possible to load new areas in the background as the player character runs towards and area boundary, so that when he gets to it he can just run straight across with no pause and no loading screen.Those loading screens are the biggest remaining thing undermining immersiveness, in my opinion.Eriash said: