The Witcher 3 Pre-Release Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

Assassin's Creed 2 implemented a couple additions to combat to make it more like Arkham Asylum namely kill streaks. While combat in Arkham series is definitely better than asscreed; it is every bit as easy, there was a youtube video of a guy playing one of the challenges rooms blindfolded and only using one hand to mash x and y and he cleared the room pretty quickly with little damage received.

Just because the game's combat was well done and could be very fluid does not mean it was not easy enough to complete via button mashing.

 

Design was fine but if you didn't feel the need to combo flawlessly you should't partake in discussions about combat quality in action games.

And witcher 2 definetly tried to copy that system, just didn't get there. You could get some flow going if you practiced a fight long enough but the broken animations and mini bugs with using spells/items fast made it extremely annoying.

 

So adventure games have shit design because you can't play them without reading the text.

Of course you can play a game wrong, and it has nothing to do with design.

 

In order to be better prepared for the, you'll be required to gather information about the monsters you hunt. The more you know about a given beast, the better your chances. So, by the time you attack this griffon, you should know what potions to use, anyway. The information in the inventory serves as a quick reminder, it seems. And I'd imagine, it won't be there if you didn't study the beast enough.

If you look closely, all the bloodstains from the griffon, and even its claw prints can be seen without using the witcher senses mode. You can even see the blood dripping from the monster, when it's flying. This means that, if you don't want to, you won't be forced to use this handholding mechanism.

It's obviously scripted. Thay had limited time for the presentation and wanted to end it with sth, that believed, was spectacular.

 

Guyse the game is hard if you force some challenges on you, like playing it with a blindfold or while having a dildo up your butt :ehue:
The win state of a Batman Arkham game (at least in Asylum) is either by evading capture with piss-easy but cool stealth, or defeating all the enemies on screen. Chaining combos is an optional challenge and it's in no way required for you to defeat 90% of the mobs on the screen, where simply mashing the attack button and timing the counter attacks when the danger is visibly telegraphed seconds before works just fucking fine. I remember that I could count on my hands the amount of enemies who were able to resist my counter attacks in Arkham Asylum. Compare that with a game like PoP Warrior Within for example, where even simple mooks are able to survive against button mashing. Nevermind talking about the Souls games, DMC series, Rune or Severance.
So no, combat that shows its mild complexity only if you're an achievement hunter is not well-designed. Thief wasn't suddenly a badly-designed game just because you didn't play it on Expert or ghosting through all the levels.

 

guise ps:t had a shit story 'cause u could just skip-click past dialogue

 

So guys how's the alchemy gonna work, anybody knows?

 

You use herbs and stuff to make elixirs and stuff.

 

It's EXACTLY the same thing as the hard to reach objects in 2d platformers. You can finish the game without them while getting to them can be challenging and fun. If you pass through the game without giving 2 fucks you're playing the wrong type of game for you.

 

Download link for the HD video of E3 demo gameplay:

http://www.gamersyde.com/download_t...t_microsoft_conference_demo_lq_-32264_en.html

 

So you say there are no well designed games.

 

Apparently the crossbow effects will be toned down, UI is still a WIP and they dialed the difficulty down to super easy for this presentation.

 

Shit comparison because you can't actually do that. You can't finish PT by just clicking the first option and not reading anything, the engaging dialogue gives you clues on how to solve quests, reacts to the choices you make in the dialogue tree and is dependent on your character's stats. A shit (interactive) story would be like in World of Warcraft, where talking with NPCs gives you long-winded exposition and your only dialogue choice is to accept the quest he gives you.

Except in this case the combo system is not a side objective, but a main objective that's badly implemented into the main game and doesn't provide much challenge. In this game, combos are meant to give you more experience and allow you to upgrade your tools. Which would be neat if the game:
1. gave you mobs where the usage of combos paid off or was even necessarily
2. didn't shower you with experience points because you chained the simplest attack/counter combo
3. had tougher enemies for which the upgrades were worth purchasing

Seriously, you people are arguing that the "proper" way to play Call of Duty is by NOT sitting in cover and waiting for the regenerating health to kick in, not following the arrow that tells you where to go and not aiming through the sights. That probably makes those games harder but doesn't change the fact that it has shitty design as default.
Again, maybe the sequels have more enemy variety and challenges, bosses that require more than "dive + batarang" and so on. If an RPG had a great crafting system and interesting swords with various advantages and disadvatanges, but you can kill virtually all the enemies in that game with the banal weapon you get at the beginning of the game, does that make good gaming design?

 

Yes.

 

Actually, you can. The first time I finished Torment, I didn't understand a word of English. In fact, my class was switched to Thief for reasons I never understood until at a later age. I finished it just after Baldur's Gate 1. All both games required was idiot kid persistance (i.e. clicking until shit worked and progress was made).

So it's a perfectly valid comparison. You can finish Torment shittily without reading anything, just like you can finish Batman without actually testing yourself against some pretty well-designed mechanics. Is a Lamborghini a shitty car because you can drive it to your destination in 1st gear? (in before "no it's a shitty car because xyz")

 

Ah, sweet memories - playing story-heavy rpgs understanding only "sword" and "kill" in English. These chests in Betrayal at Krondor were quite a challange (dialogs you could always click randomly).

 

I wouldn't be surprised if nothing of that actually ended up in the game, that was the case with presentations for both previous games.

 

No, but a Lamborghini where the gears 2 to 6 give you the same speed would be shitty. Again, you're not making the greatest analogies.

Same with Planescape Torment. Okay, you can click your way through the dialogue. You will probably fight many more mobs and NPCs that way, have your class suddenly changed, random weird characters will start following you or leaving you, wander around the maps not knowing what do and so on. But if you play the game while reading the dialogues and understanding the rules, things DO change. That's the main difference in here.
Mashing buttons or doing elaborate combos in Batman AA produce the same outcome, with minimal and unimportant difference in the amount of experience points you gain. It's basically doing cool tricks and flips with a sword versus shooting the dude with a gun. I remember at some point playing this game that I wanted to use the special attacks but I was constantly putting down all the enemies with the normal attack/counter moves before I could even attempt it

Again, look at a game like Dark Souls. In that game, pretty much every mechanic matters and changes the outcome. Stats matter, rolling matters, normal attacks matter, block, parry and riposte, backstabing, range weapons, bombs, spells, weapon modifications, summons, all these things have a point and help you play the game, and I'm not talking about episodic moments either. Mashing your way through or not paying attention IS the WRONG way to play the game, because said game actually rewards when you use its systems and pay attention. See this comic for typical example

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

In Batman, there is no different outcome for the YOLO guy and the careful guy.

 

This doesn't make sense. Batman doesn't play exactly the same when you're stacking up combos and when you're just scraping by.

Batman is not a game about reactivity. It's a game about testing your skills through various challenges. These challenges reward you with scores based on how successfully you complete them. Fuck, they even give you extra XP, so they're actually ahead of old-style arcade challenges in terms of recognizing skill level via rewards.

Isn't one of the "best" strategies in Dark Souls to hold on to your starting gear throughout the game? Anyway, not important. I'm not sure which point you're trying to make. That Dark Souls has an even better reward structure? I guess, kudos to Dark Souls. Better doesn't mean Arkham doesn't have one though. My point is that Arkham has well-designed combat where you can clearly see the difference between players of different skill levels, and those skill levels are rewarded differently.

I'm not sure why you think THE ONE AND ABSOLUTE ONLY reward-structure that matters is whether you unlock story-sequences or not.

Except there is. It's just not tied to story advancement. You know, like in a ton of other arcade action games.

 

There is a difference between fun and hard. The Arkham games are fun without being very hard. Just like Fallout or Deus Ex.

 

It's probably fun if you feel like turning your brain off and larping Batman, but it's a horrible game. There's no punishment for failure, marginal rewards for playing well, and a very low skill ceiling. The combat looks cool but you barely have any real control over what the character is doing, it's just tapping a couple buttons in rhythm. The Impossible Game on Xbox live was a more interesting game. It's obviously a perfect fit for casual console players who want to feel awesome with zero effort, but I can't believe there are people arguing that The Witcher games should be moving further in that direction.

 

Describing Arkham or The Witcher 1? You be the judge.

 

Witcher 3 now on ign