Game News The Witcher 3: Blood and Wine Expansion Released

[cvv]

I think you guys are definitely romanticizing your memories of TW1.

I think you missed the point where we don't talk about the actual combat mechanics.

If we did, I'd agree. The combat itself in TW1 was pretty fucking terrible. But the way char.dev. and levelling and skillsets and combat preparation worked was superior to the total failure that's TW3.

 

[muds_animal_friend]

I also don't think that relying on stats and avoiding reflex-based systems is what defines a good "genuine" RPG. To me it's all about interactions, choices and consequences and more in generally having a world that reacts in a convincing way to your inputs.

You're in luck then as interactive movies is precisely what AAA gaming is aiming for.

 

[CyberWhale]

Interactive movies where nothing happens besides a single action scene repeating over the whole 2 hour duration.

 

[Carrion]

The shittiness of TW1's mechanics is often greatly exaggerated. The combat system itself is something you either hate or tolerate, but the different systems in the game tie into each other neatly (the alchemy system adds a strategic layer to combat, for example), there are some cool little ideas, and overall the mechanics really aren't all that shabby despite some obvious balancing issues and piss-easy endgame combat (like in every RPG ever). The alchemy system is great, character development is alright if a bit unspectacular, itemization is nice and lore-friendly, and even the minigames are integrated into the game very neatly. Pretty much everything makes sense and serves some actual function in the game world, and the game also successfully deviates from the norm by making you spend your hard-earned money on things like alcohol, books and gambling instead of just a new sword or a piece of armor, which shows that there was some actual thought put into the mechanics. All in all, it gets the job done and is very fitting for a witcher game.

I don't think going for a more actiony combat system was a bad thing in itself, but mechanically the games undoubtedly declined after the first one. With TW2 they started to include some rather nonsensical elements, like those weird perks that you gain for doing very specific stuff (help an injured guy walk up some stairs, get a huge boost to carry weight for the entire game), items with seemingly random magical properties, and Geralt being able to carry enough stuff to run a convenience store. They also watered down many of the good parts of TW1, the dumbed-down alchemy system being probably the biggest though by no means the only crime, and the balance issues regarding combat are even more glaring despite them fruitlessly trying to fix them with every patch.

TW3 visibly was an attempt to rectify some of that, as for example alchemy is once again required and a bit more involving, but it comes at the cost of nothing really making sense, from the leveling system to completely weightless crafting components and from potions that can be instantly consumed and which infinitely refill themselves to mutagens and skills that can be swapped at any time and can become ridiculously powerful when combined appropriately. Even some of the most basic things in the world are completely fucked up — you might think that beating up a guy in a fistfight with a wager or ten crowns would give you twenty crowns, but no, you might instead get sixty or a hundred. It's just a huge mess as far as the game mechanics are concerned, almost like every person in the development team had a different idea of how things should actually work.

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

You're in luck then as interactive movies is precisely what AAA gaming is aiming for.

Nice try, but I'm not even sure where you see a direct correlation between "skill-based action combat" and "interactive movie".
For the record I have absolutely no issue with the former (even if tactical turn based is generally speaking my favorite flavor of combat) and I despise the latter.

It's also worth noting that "interactive movies" are pretty much the antithesis of what I was advocating for: highly interactive worlds, consistent and convincing reaction to your inputs, NPCs that acknowledge what you do and react appropriately, etc.

 

[cvv]

You're in luck then as interactive movies is precisely what AAA gaming is aiming for.

Nice try, but I'm not even sure where you see a direct correlation between "skill-based action combat" and "interactive movie".
For the record I have absolutely no issue with the former (even if tactical turn based is generally speaking my favorite flavor of combat) and I despise the latter.

Personally I don't mind interactive movies, as long as we're getting a couple of great cRPGs every year too (which we are). And as interactive movies go TW3 is probably the best there is.

 

[muds_animal_friend]

I'm not even sure where you see a direct correlation between "skill-based action combat" and "interactive movie".

I don't. But ...

I also don't think that relying on stats ... is what defines a good "genuine" RPG.

I do think that relying on stats is an absolute bare minimum prerequisite for an RPG. Without stats that meaningfully impact the gameplay all that's left is an action game and/or interactive fiction. As for world interactively, NPC reactions, and whatnot, that's just a bunch of window dressing that's nice to have, but of no real consequence without solid game mechanics. I don't even see the point of C&C unless it's heavily stat/attribute based. If choices aren't tied to the PC build then it's merely interactive fiction, which is all that 99.9% of the C&C in the Witcher series is.

And as interactive movies go TW3 is probably the best there is.

I also had fun playing watching it. It's the best FMV game since Phantasmagoria. Piss poor RPG though.

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

I do think that relying on stats is an absolute bare minimum prerequisite for an RPG

Aaaand I don't.
I have no particular problem with stats (in fact, to this day I still have only awful things to say about all the wannabe modern designers who have some clever criticism about how "obsolete" D&D is and then can't come up with something that works actually better in practice), but I'm also fairly sure you can have a game filled with the most elaborate stats and rules top to bottom and it could be a incredibly dull RPG (as most JRPG easily prove) while you could have a stat-free (or at least stat-light) game with a lot of hidden depth.

EDIT - It should probably be clarified that when I say I don't value stats much I'm speaking about giving a lot of visible stats to compare/alter directly to the player. It should go without saying that the system behind the curtain needs to be solid and well thought to have a good game that makes sense (or just works) mechanically.
That said I have no problem to concede that a lot of "stat-light systems" going around these days in gaming are simply awful and as dull as it gets. Mass Effect and Dragon Age come to mind.

As for world interactively, NPC reactions, and whatnot, that's just a bunch of window dressing that's nice to have

No, no, NO. I couldn't disagree more. That's not "dressing" for shit. That's THE CORE of the experience (beside combat, which is typically the other central piece.).
That's what makes (to different degrees) games like Ultima, Gothic, Fallout or Torment what they are.
Stats are there to serve the system, not the other way around.

EDIT 2: re-reading this exchange I've got the feeling we are diverging from the original point, so let me summarize my point.
I'm not saying I don't like stats nor I'm advocating for stat-free RPGs in general.
I'm simply arguing against the assumption that the quality of a computer RPG is tied to how stat-heavy it is.
You COULD have a game with barely any [visible] stat that offers a lot more freedom and depth of a stat-heavy title, in principle.

Back to TW3, regardless of how you classify it for what it is, it's a good example of how stripping it down of some unnecessary subsystems could have helped it to be better, as some of us were already arguing. "Levels" don't seem to have any useful place in this one, beside creating some fairly artificial and immersion-breaking weirdness, for instance.

 

[cvv]

I do think that relying on stats is an absolute bare minimum prerequisite for an RPG

Aaaand I don't.

That's a bummer since the entire point of an RPG is to give players a system of evolving and developing the stats of their character(s), not their own twitch abilities.

That said I have no problem to concede that a lot of "stat-light systems" going around these days in gaming are simply awful and as dull as it gets. Mass Effect and Dragon Age come to mind.

From the sad sack of stat-light games you've just fished out two of its best examples, actually.

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

From the sad sack of stat-light games you've just fished out two of its best examples, actually.

In what way? They are embarrassingly oversimplified without even achieving something that makes remotely sense.

The whole system is built around ramping up numbers for the player and then scaling them for the enemies as well in an equal manner, which makes the existence of these levels pointless in the first place. Even money and exp-per-kill scale in a perfectly proportionate way to the player's level, which leads to some laughable practical consequences.

That's a bummer since the entire point of an RPG is to give players a system of evolving and developing the stats of their character(s), not their own twitch abilities.

There's a lot of ways to achieve the same result without going through the whole "more visible numbers and also bigger numbers!".
Unlocking unique talents and perks, special items, etc.
Progression systems that establish how good you are at doing different things aren't even a RPG exclusive. A lot of action adventures (especially in the Zelda-like and metroidvania subgenres) were built around them.

 

[Joni Odin von Hassenstein]

Fisted for this part:

As for world interactively, NPC reactions, and whatnot, that's just a bunch of window dressing that's nice to have

No, no, NO. I couldn't disagree more. That's not "dressing" for shit. That's THE CORE of the experience (beside combat, which is typically the other central piece.).
That's what makes (to different degrees) games like Ultima, Gothic, Fallout or Torment what they are.
Stats are there to serve the system, not the other way around.

EDIT 2: re-reading this exchange I've got the feeling we are diverging from the original point, so let me summarize my point.
I'm not saying I don't like stats nor I'm advocating for stat-free RPGs in general.

 

[vivec]

I also don't think that relying on stats and avoiding reflex-based systems is what defines a good "genuine" RPG. To me it's all about interactions, choices and consequences and more in generally having a world that reacts in a convincing way to your inputs.

You're in luck then as interactive movies is precisely what AAA gaming is aiming for.

Not really. The thing is, the two can co-exist its just that good designers for Computer games are rare. Get in some of them together with the good writers and we have a game.

It's not that people have given up on good design. It's just that we don't have it anymore.

 

[cvv]

Not really. The thing is, the two can co-exist

They absolutely can. Right now I'm playing Lords of Xulima and TW3. Those games are like wolves and dolphins - genetically related on some remote level but in practice they're worlds apart. And I'm enjoying both tremendously.