The Witcher 3 GOTY Edition

[Zombra]

By that logic every game with saves is trivial.

Yes. In all these games, every single protagonist survives to the end, which means they overcame every obstacle and defeated every enemy along the way.

And if the game relies on RNG and save scumming is possible, you can beat it on any difficulty, even if your character is vastly inferior to enemies.

No protagonist is inferior to the enemies they defeat. They win; therefore they are superior.

But this is diverting far from my original question about Geralt's level being reset to 1 in each sequel.

The number does not mean anything in the fiction. Geralt never says out loud, "Oh no, that bandit is 2 levels higher than me. I need to grind xp to max hp and it wouldn't hurt to save scum drops on the Type C loot table."
If it helps, you can mentally add 2000 levels to that "1" in Witcher 2, making him "level 2001", and 30000 levels in Witcher 3, making him "level 30001". It is still going to be a story about a guy cutting up doods with a sword and never losing.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

The number does not mean anything in the fiction. Geralt never says out loud, "Oh no, that bandit is 2 levels higher than me. I need to grind xp to max hp and it wouldn't hurt to save scum drops."
If it helps, you can mentally add 2000 levels to that "1" in Witcher 2, making him "level 2001", and 30000 levels in Witcher 3, making him "level 30001". It is still going to be a story about a guy cutting up doods with a sword and never losing.

You're overlooking that Geralt loses many skills/spells/items he just had.

 

[Zombra]

The number does not mean anything in the fiction. Geralt never says out loud, "Oh no, that bandit is 2 levels higher than me. I need to grind xp to max hp and it wouldn't hurt to save scum drops."
If it helps, you can mentally add 2000 levels to that "1" in Witcher 2, making him "level 2001", and 30000 levels in Witcher 3, making him "level 30001". It is still going to be a story about a guy cutting up doods with a sword and never losing.

You're overlooking that Geralt loses many skills/spells/items he just had.

"Just had"? Don't these stories take place years apart?

He still knows all those spells, he's just a little - forgive me - rusty. You'll notice he doesn't have to go back to wizard school to learn Axii again. He just picks it up again after a little time in the field. As for items, you remember that sweater you wore all the time 5 years ago? When was the last time you saw it? You don't remember throwing it away but somehow it's just gone. Same deal here.

 

[Arbiter]

By that logic every game with saves is trivial.

Yes. In all these games, every single protagonist survives to the end, which means they overcame every obstacle and defeat every enemy along the way.

And if the game relies on RNG and save scumming is possible, you can beat it on any difficulty, even if your character is vastly inferior to enemies.

No protagonist is inferior to the enemies they defeat. They win; therefore they are superior.

Eventually Geralt gains levels and can defeat anyone if you play the game in a correct order. That does not change to fact that Geralt starts as level 1 character and before gaining levels is weaker than most mobs in the game. I am referring to the starting level in this thread.

But this is diverting far from my original question about Geralt's level being reset to 1 in each sequel.

The number does not mean anything in the fiction. Geralt never says out loud, "Oh no, that bandit is 2 levels higher than me. I need to grind xp to max hp and it wouldn't hurt to save scum drops on the Type C loot table."
If it helps, you can mentally add 2000 levels to that "1" in Witcher 2, making him "level 2001", and 30000 levels in Witcher 3, making him "level 30001". It is still going to be a story about a guy cutting up doods with a sword and never losing.

You can rename level 1 to level 1000, but that does not change the fact that most mobs in the game are stronger than the starting character. At the end of a previous game the Witcher could defeat any opponent and yet he starts the next game as a weak character that can be killed by a few wild dogs.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

The number does not mean anything in the fiction. Geralt never says out loud, "Oh no, that bandit is 2 levels higher than me. I need to grind xp to max hp and it wouldn't hurt to save scum drops."
If it helps, you can mentally add 2000 levels to that "1" in Witcher 2, making him "level 2001", and 30000 levels in Witcher 3, making him "level 30001". It is still going to be a story about a guy cutting up doods with a sword and never losing.

You're overlooking that Geralt loses many skills/spells/items he just had.

"Just had"? Don't these stories take place years apart?

He still knows all those spells, he's just a little - forgive me - rusty. You'll notice he doesn't have to go back to wizard school to learn Axii again. He just picks it up again after a little time in the field. As for items, you remember that sweater you wore all the time 5 years ago? When was the last time you saw it? You don't remember throwing it away but somehow it's just gone. Same deal here.

Witcher 3 takes place a few months after Witcher 2.
The beginning part of Witcher 3 actually takes place before Witcher 1. But things in the dream did not happen e.g., Triss was there, not Yennefer.

 

[Arbiter]

Witcher 3 takes place a few months after Witcher 2.

That's right, when you meet Triss she specifically mentions that it has been 6 months since she met you at Loc Muinne.

 

[Zombra]

Eventually Geralt gains levels and can defeat anyone if you play the game in a correct order. That does not change to fact that Geralt starts as level 1 character and before gaining levels is weaker than most mobs in the game. I am referring to the starting level in this thread.

You don't get it. You don't understand the difference between the game world and the game mechanics, yet you are asking for a game world justification of the game mechanics.

Demonstrate that you comprehend the difference and we can talk.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Eventually Geralt gains levels and can defeat anyone if you play the game in a correct order. That does not change to fact that Geralt starts as level 1 character and before gaining levels is weaker than most mobs in the game. I am referring to the starting level in this thread.

You don't get it. You don't understand the difference between the game world and the game mechanics, yet you are asking for a game world justification of the game mechanics.

Demonstrate that you comprehend the difference and we can talk.

I want mechanics that are influenced by the game world, not a game world that is influenced by mechanics.
The reason Geralt has his progression reset is for reasons.

 

[Zombra]

The reason Geralt has his progression reset is for

reasons.

Of course the game design of a video game is influenced by the fact that it is a video game with a design. It's still very explainable in the fiction, particularly if one doesn't cling to idiotic notions like "But the bandit has a 389287 and Geralt only has a 223887! Therefore Geralt is weak!" That's just not what those numbers mean.

 

[Arbiter]

Eventually Geralt gains levels and can defeat anyone if you play the game in a correct order. That does not change to fact that Geralt starts as level 1 character and before gaining levels is weaker than most mobs in the game. I am referring to the starting level in this thread.

You don't get it. You don't understand the difference between the game world and the game mechanics, yet you are asking for a game world justification of the game mechanics.

Demonstrate that you comprehend the difference and we can talk.

Have you ever heard about ludonarrative dissonance?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

The reason Geralt has his progression reset is for reasons.

Of course the game design of a video game is influenced by the fact that it is a video game with a design. It's still very explainable in the fiction, particularly if one doesn't cling to idiotic notions like "But the bandit has a 389287 and Geralt only has a 223887! Therefore Geralt is weak!" That's just not what those numbers mean.

It's what they mean to me, because it's how I see the game when I'm playing it.
If they want to tell a different story, actually do that or go write a book.

 

[Zombra]

It's what they mean to me, because it's how I see the game when I'm playing it.

Fair enough. When I play, I see Geralt doing backflips and killing a bunch of bandits with a sword.

Even if he dies, that is a "non-canon" outcome. I reload the game and try again until he prevails, and that story is the "canon".

Have you ever heard about ludonarrative dissonance?

Yes, and the fact that you have seen a fancy word is not a display of your comprehension of the difference between story and mechanics.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Even if he dies, that is a "non-canon" outcome. I reload the game and try again until he prevails, and that story is the "canon".

What if you manage to just barely beat a single rat after a prolonged fight and that's your canon outcome?
Geralt the witcher who almost gets beaten by a single rat?

Not a hypothetical due to how witcher 3's red skull level scaling works.

 

[Arbiter]

Have you ever heard about ludonarrative dissonance?

Yes, and the fact that you have seen a fancy word is not a display of your comprehension of the difference between story and mechanics.

I will explain without resorting to any gameplay mechanics numbers like "level 1", "level 10" or "level 1 000 000".

Narrative: at the end of Witcher 2 Geralt was one of the most powerful warriors in the world, capable of defeating dragons, mages and entire groups of armored soldiers. Witcher 3 takes place 6 months after the events of Loc Muinne.
Gameplay: At the beginning of Witcher 3 Geralt can be killed by a pack of wild dogs.

What is the explanation for that?

 

[covr]

Have you ever heard about ludonarrative dissonance?

Yes, and the fact that you have seen a fancy word is not a display of your comprehension of the difference between story and mechanics.

I will explain without resorting to any gameplay mechanics numbers like "level 1", "level 10" or "level 1 000 000".

Narrative: at the end of Witcher 2 Geralt was one of the most powerful warriors in the world, capable of defeating dragons, mages and entire groups of armored soldiers. Witcher 3 takes place 6 months after the events of Loc Muinne.
Gameplay: At the beginning of Witcher 3 Geralt can be killed by a pack of wild dogs.

What is the explanation for that?

Dogs got stronger?

 

[Zombra]

Narrative: at the end of Witcher 2 Geralt was one of the most powerful warriors in the world, capable of defeating dragons, mages and entire groups of armored soldiers. Witcher 3 takes place 6 months after the events of Loc Muinne.
Gameplay: At the beginning of Witcher 3 Geralt can be killed by a pack of wild dogs.

No, he can't. Because if the dogs kill him, you reload the game; so he didn't get killed by them. If you get killed by the dogs 100 times in a row, that is your failure as a player, not Geralt's failure to be unbeatable.

What if you manage to just barely beat a single rat after a prolonged fight and that's your canon outcome?
Geralt the witcher who almost gets beaten by a single rat?

That's a better question, but still answerable. What does it look like to "barely beat" the rat? Your hit point bar is low at the end? The hit point bar is not part of the story.

 

[Arbiter]

Narrative: at the end of Witcher 2 Geralt was one of the most powerful warriors in the world, capable of defeating dragons, mages and entire groups of armored soldiers. Witcher 3 takes place 6 months after the events of Loc Muinne.
Gameplay: At the beginning of Witcher 3 Geralt can be killed by a pack of wild dogs.

No, he can't. Because if the dogs kill him, you reload the game; so he didn't get killed by them.

By that logic all outcomes of actions taken by players are meaningless: whatever happens you can simply reload or restart. For example, there is no point in discussing game difficulty: it does not matter if you finish a game in one continuous playthrough or with thousands of reloads after dying. Only a game that cannot be beaten is truly difficult. Dark Souls is as easy as Skyrim.

If you get killed by the dogs 100 times in a row, that is your failure as a player, not Geralt's failure to be unbeatable.

Basically you are saying that player character's abilities are meaningless and only player's skills dictate the outcome of any action (an amusing conclusion to a decades old question: "What is an RPG?"). By that logic the concept of character advancement should be removed from games because it is meaningless.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Narrative: at the end of Witcher 2 Geralt was one of the most powerful warriors in the world, capable of defeating dragons, mages and entire groups of armored soldiers. Witcher 3 takes place 6 months after the events of Loc Muinne.
Gameplay: At the beginning of Witcher 3 Geralt can be killed by a pack of wild dogs.

No, he can't. Because if the dogs kill him, you reload the game; so he didn't get killed by them.

By that logic all outcomes of actions taken by players are meaningless: whatever happens you can simply reload or restart. For example, there is no point in discussing game difficulty: it does not matter if you finish a game in one continuous playthrough or with thousands of reloads after dying. Only a game that cannot be beaten is truly difficult. Dark Souls is as easy as Skyrim.

If you get killed by the dogs 100 times in a row, that is your failure as a player, not Geralt's failure to be unbeatable.

Basically you are saying that player character's abilities are meaningless and only player's skills dictate the outcome of any action (an amusing conclusion to a decades old question: "What is an RPG?"). By that logic the concept of character advancement should be removed from games because it is meaningless.

I'm not entirely sure if he's doing it intentionally, but he's poking a hole in the overreliance of games on save & loading mechanics which are frequently treated as not part of game design by game designers, despite actually heavily influencing how people play games.
If, for example, I get defeated in a game like Outward there is no rewinding time, the game continues to play.
Planescape Torment is probably the primary example of an RPG designed around such a feature. Whereas Morrowind is a complete counterexample -- there are NPCs in the game aware that you're a PC capable of saving and loading to alter time/reality, this is part of the game's lore itself.

 

[Arbiter]

I'm not entirely sure if he's doing it intentionally, but he's poking a hole in the overreliance of games on save & loading mechanics which are frequently treated as not part of game design by game designers, despite actually heavily influencing how people play games.
If, for example, I get defeated in a game like Outward there is no rewinding time, the game continues to play.
Planescape Torment is probably the primary example of an RPG designed around such a feature. Whereas Morrowind is a complete counterexample -- there are NPCs in the game aware that you're a PC capable of saving and loading to alter time/reality, this is part of the game's lore itself.

This is a valid point, but how did we get from character downgrade in Witcher 2 and 3 to save games?

 

[Zombra]

By that logic all outcomes of actions taken by players are meaningless: whatever happens you can simply reload or restart. For example, there is no point in discussing game difficulty: it does not matter if you finish a game in one continuous playthrough or with thousands of reloads after dying. Only a game that cannot be beaten is truly difficult. Dark Souls is as easy as Skyrim.

Correct. Game difficulty is indeed not "meaningful" to the story. If you remove the mechanical dissonance caused by the use of saves and reloads, which have nothing to do with the story, an Easy playthrough will look much the same as a Nightmare playthrough. In terms of story, Dark Souls and Skyrim are indeed equally difficult (although DS is much more angsty, dramatic, and well-paced). The real difference lies in the gameplay.

Basically you are saying that player character's abilities are meaningless and only player's skills dictate the outcome of any action (an amusing conclusion to a decades old question: "What is an RPG?"). By that logic the concept of character advancement should be removed from games because it is meaningless.

Again: in terms of the story, this is absolutely correct. The story does not care how many hit points you gain after completing 3 quests. In terms of gameplay, obviously it makes a huge difference to the player experience. Absolutely no one is suggesting that mechanics should be removed from games - that's called a movie.

How did we get from character downgrade in Witcher 2 and 3 to save games?

It is directly related. When looking at "character downgrade" in terms of story, the subject was repeatedly brought up that "Geralt gets killed all the time at low levels." Obviously the story is not about someone who gets killed a lot; it's about a guy who prevails over obstacles. The mechanics of expressing that story are heavily influenced by the save game system.

-------

The takeaway here should be: a game's setting and story can make sense parallel to the mechanics without one having to explicitly explain the other.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

it's about a guy who prevails over obstacles.

Not true though.
You don't have to die to lose. e.g., Geralt is clearly beaten at the battle of Kaer Morhen, the price paid for defeat is the death of Vesemir.

 

[Zombra]

I'm not entirely sure if he's doing it intentionally, but he's poking a hole in the overreliance of games on save & loading mechanics which are frequently treated as not part of game design by game designers, despite actually heavily influencing how people play games.
If, for example, I get defeated in a game like Outward there is no rewinding time, the game continues to play.
Planescape Torment is probably the primary example of an RPG designed around such a feature. Whereas Morrowind is a complete counterexample -- there are NPCs in the game aware that you're a PC capable of saving and loading to alter time/reality, this is part of the game's lore itself.

I wasn't specifically attacking save game systems, except to observe that they are a mechanic that exists outside of the story (in most games). We are not supposed to believe that Geralt got bitten by dogs, touched his magic ring to rewind time, and then killed the dog without being bitten. All that matters is the outcome we chose to continue from. At the end of the game, the ending is not based on every decision we made ever, before and after loading and choosing all exclusive paths of a dialogue for example. There is only one saved throughline of what happened - and in that throughline, Geralt was a badass who never lost a fight.

It is very cool when games make the effort to marry mechanics and story, such as in Planescape, or more recently the Middle Earth: Shadow games, about a guy possessed by a ghost that won't let him die. But we shouldn't expect that every game ties every mechanic to story in this way.

 

[Zombra]

it's about a guy who prevails over obstacles.

Not true though.
You don't have to die to lose. e.g., Geralt is clearly beaten at the battle of Kaer Morhen, the price paid for defeat is the death of Vesemir.

Well sure. I don't have all the unfavorable story beats memorized. (I never finished Witcher 3. I got bored.) Correct me if I'm wrong - this defeat is not a result of Geralt "being level 1" but simply being overcome by bad odds. It's OK for a guy who killed a dragon once to be outgunned by a bunch of super soldiers later, and this certainly doesn't ruin the story. Being high level is not the same thing as becoming Green Lantern.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

When I play, I see Geralt doing backflips and killing a bunch of bandits with a sword.

What the hell, you mid the game and still got bored?

 

[ferratilis]