The Witcher 3 GOTY Edition

[Tyrr]

It seems a Russian studio was tasked with the next-gen update and CDPR stopped working with them because of the war.

 

[Wunderbar]

https://www.gamesradar.com/the-witc...versions-arent-in-development-hell-cdpr-says/

In an investors call today, CD Projekt's senior vice president of business development, Michał Nowakowski, pushed back against the use of the word indefinite to describe the delay, which he argues evokes an undeserved degree of uncertainty around the project's fate.

"I've been looking at the headlines that popped up here and there over the internet, and I've seen one that really drew my attention, which is, 'Witcher 3 next-gen delayed indefinitely,' which sounds like the game is in some sort of development hell," Nowakowski said. "I want to state this is not the fact."

:D

gee, i wonder why people don't feel optimistic towards another project from CDPR.

 

[Wunderbar]

btw, after a "successful release" of Cyberpunk 2077 and an ensuing exodus of staff, russian programmers from Saber Interactive probably know how to work with RED Engine better than CDPR themselves. They did a Switch port, which AFAIK was really good.

It was a mistake to cut ties with them. Especially since Saber is not entirely russian company - their headquarters are located in USA.

 

[Paul_cz]

btw, after a "successful release" of Cyberpunk 2077 and an ensuing exodus of staff, russian programmers from Saber Interactive probably know how to work with RED Engine better than CDPR themselves. They did a Switch port, which AFAIK was really good.

From what I read the switch port was done by scandinavian branch of saber.

 

[Semiurge]

It seems a Russian studio was tasked with the next-gen update and CDPR stopped working with them because of the war.

Nothing good was lost or gained. Maybe the confirmed polish-ing includes some even more nuclear sunsets, more depth of field, sharper tectures etc. Nothing mods won't do better, as with Skyrim.

 

[Robotigan]

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.

I think it's fair to ask why an RPG where you're orders of magnitudes stronger at the end of the game than the start is the proper way to tell the story of someone who's already one of the biggest badasses on the planet. That the mechanics are so divorced from the story seems like a serious flaw with the game as a cohesive experience.

 

[Zombra]

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.

I think it's fair to ask why an RPG where you're orders of magnitudes stronger at the end of the game than the start is the proper way to tell the story of someone who's already one of the biggest badasses on the planet. That the mechanics are so divorced from the story seems like a serious flaw with the game as a cohesive experience.

Ugh. Geralt has always been the biggest badass on the planet. At no time does he cry about how he's afraid of rats. That's you the player fucking up. Think hard and one day you will realize the difference between the game mechanics and the story being told.

 

[Robotigan]

Ugh. Geralt has always been the biggest badass on the planet. At no time does he cry about how he's afraid of rats. That's you the player fucking up. Think hard and one day you will realize the difference between the game mechanics and the story being told.

There are areas with ordinary wolves and bandits that the player Geralt is soft-locked out of--reduced to grindy chip damage--without the prerequisite leveling. The player Geralt cannot even equip certain items without the appropriate level. I think it's fair to critique Witcher 3 as a game and a story rather than a singular artistic vision. It's also something seemingly every other game series at least tries to rationalize "Oh Shepard was killed in space then resurrected" or "Kratos was kicked into the Underworld and lost his super weapon". Witcher 3 is honestly one of the most egregious examples I can think of in this respect.

 

[Zombra]

Ugh. Geralt has always been the biggest badass on the planet. At no time does he cry about how he's afraid of rats. That's you the player fucking up. Think hard and one day you will realize the difference between the game mechanics and the story being told.

There are areas with ordinary wolves and bandits that the player Geralt is soft-locked out of--reduced to grindy chip damage--without the prerequisite leveling. The player Geralt cannot even equip certain items without the appropriate level. I think it's fair to critique Witcher 3 as a game and a story rather than a singular artistic vision. It's also something seemingly every other game series at least tries to rationalize "Oh Shepard was killed in space then resurrected" or "Kratos was kicked into the Underworld and lost his super weapon". Witcher 3 is honestly one of the most egregious examples I can think of in this respect.

All of this is obvious and none of it contradicts my point. Your reference to "the player Geralt" shows astonishing lack of comprehension that the two are separate entities, with very different boundaries.

 

[Robotigan]

All of this is obvious and none of it contradicts my point. Your reference to "the player Geralt" shows astonishing lack of comprehension that the two are separate entities.

I understand that, my contention is that the game doesn't even try to resolve this dissonance. To just accept it when so many other games do it better seems odd to me.

 

[Zombra]

My contention is that the game doesn't even try to resolve this dissonance.

Finally, a sensible statement on the subject. I don't disagree here.

In my opinion it doesn't need to. Any player who recognizes the difference between the player experience and the character experience should recognize that the dissonance is his shallow impression only, and doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I recognize that it still bugs some people, and making it so it doesn't bug some people might be a good idea ... personally I am sick to death of bullshit amnesia tropes, especially when they only exist to appease the intellectually lazy.

 

[Robotigan]

My contention is that the game doesn't even try to resolve this dissonance.

Finally, a sensible statement on the subject. I don't disagree here.

In my opinion it doesn't need to. Any player who recognizes the difference between the player experience and the character experience should recognize that the dissonance is his shallow impression only, and doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I recognize that it still bugs some people, and making it so it doesn't bug some people might be a good idea ... personally I am sick to death of bullshit amnesia tropes, especially when they only exist to appease the intellectually lazy.

But they had artistic license to do whatever they wanted. There's no reason they had to create a game with leveled wolves and bandits everywhere. They could have set the entire game during an ongoing Wild Hunt crisis and made Wraiths the standard enemy Geralt has to fight. Heck, not every enemy needs to be part of challenge anyhow. Perhaps the bandits are all OHKO pushovers. They aid the setting by emphasizing how much of a badass Geralt is and how intimidating the Wild Hunt must be if they give even a powerful Witcher a tough time. This just one idea that took me all of a couple minutes to think up, there are any number of ways they could have addressed this. As things stand, it feels like the designers blindly followed RPG convention rather than thinking how they could modify mechanics to elevate and distinguish their own game. A great game is a game I can play and think "Man, I would have never thought of/figured out how to do that."

 

[Zombra]

But they had artistic license to do whatever they wanted. There's no reason they had to create a game with leveled wolves and bandits everywhere. They could have set the entire game during an ongoing Wild Hunt crisis and made Wraiths the standard enemy Geralt has to fight. Heck, not every enemy needs to be part of challenge anyhow. Perhaps the bandits are all OHKO pushovers. They aid the setting by emphasizing how much of a badass Geralt is and how intimidating the Wild Hunt must be if they give even a powerful Witcher a tough time. This just one idea that took me all of a couple minutes to think up, there are any number of ways they could have addressed this. As things stand, it feels like the designers blindly followed RPG convention rather than thinking how they could modify mechanics to elevate and distinguish their own game. A great game is a game I can play and think "Man, I would have never thought of/figured out how to do that."

Sure. Doing something moldbreaking and creative instead of rats to bandits to ghosts to dragons again would have been great. No argument here. But this has nothing to do with the discussion about dissonance.

 

[Robotigan]

But this has nothing to do with the discussion about dissonance.

An example of how Witcher 3 could have avoided dissonance has nothing to do with a discussion about dissonance?

 

[Zombra]

But this has nothing to do with the discussion about dissonance.

An example of how Witcher 3 could have avoided dissonance has nothing to do with a discussion about dissonance?

Yes. The original argument was that the game mechanics make no sense with the story. They make perfect sense. It's just hard for stupid people to wrap their heads around it because they don't know the difference between a player and a character.

 

[Lim-Dûl]

No, he can't. Because if the dogs kill him, you reload the game

What if you don't reload?

 

[Zombra]

No, he can't. Because if the dogs kill him, you reload the game

What if you don't reload?

Then you've chosen to tell a non-canon story about Geralt dying, which again has nothing to do with the conversation about the power levels making no sense.

 

[Harthwain]

Yes. The original argument was that the game mechanics make no sense with the story. They make perfect sense. It's just hard for stupid people to wrap their heads around it because they don't know the difference between a player and a character.

I do understand that the game needs the player to have progression (for the sake of progression), but how does this "make perfect sense" for Geralt to fight wolves in TW3? Maybe I am forgetting something, but the amnesia - which could explain the loss of skill - had happened in TW1. And I do get that the player is simply animating the skin of Geralt, and the open world isn't really part of Geralt's story, because it exists purely as the playground for the player, but this only confirms that the game mechanics, involving the player, are separate from the story.

Compare that to Death Stranding, where even the most insane stuff is in fact part of the gameplay.

 

[Lim-Dûl]

No, he can't. Because if the dogs kill him, you reload the game

What if you don't reload?

Then you've chosen to tell a non-canon story about Geralt dying, which again has nothing to do with the conversation about the power levels making no sense.

Your Gerald died because he was a baby back bitch who was too weak to defeat a low level monster. The power levels make no sense, regardless of your failed mental gymnastics.

 

[Zombra]

[How does this "make perfect sense" for Geralt to fight wolves in TW3?

Huh? Why would he not fight wolves? Does Geralt ever say, "No more wolves for me!" Does he ever say, "Oh, my skin is immune to wolf bites now." No. He's the same guy he always was. If wolves try to bite him, he stabs them. Not sure how this is read as a sudden lack of skill.

Your Gerald died because he was a baby back bitch who was too weak to defeat a low level monster. The power levels make no sense, regardless of your failed mental gymnastics.

So ..... you don't understand the argument at all. Cool. You can stop talking now.

 

[Lim-Dûl]

[How does this "make perfect sense" for Geralt to fight wolves in TW3?

Huh? Why would he not fight wolves? Does Geralt ever say, "No more wolves for me!" Does he ever say, "Oh, my skin is immune to wolf bites now." No. He's the same guy he always was. If wolves try to bite him, he stabs them. Not sure how this is read as a sudden lack of skill.

Your Gerald died because he was a baby back bitch who was too weak to defeat a low level monster. The power levels make no sense, regardless of your failed mental gymnastics.

So ..... you don't understand the argument at all. Cool. You can stop talking now.

You have no real argument. It is obvious in this game that the relevant mechanics are supposed to represent Geralt's capabilities and actions. The power levels are unreasonable when it takes Geralt a great deal of grunting and limp blocking and way too many strikes to kill a random thug in a tavern, or when a polo shirt provides more protection than the starting armor. It's especially counterintuitive to make the argument that what you see doesn't represent what is actually happening since there is little room for abstraction in the way some of the mechanics are visually clearly represented in this game. When the hp bar becomes empty, the character dies. Even if the character doesn't say "oh no, I'm dead." Players who aren't bent on making everything consistent with how it's supposed to be in the story implicitly understand this.

 

[Lim-Dûl]

Also, when you think your character didn't die because you reload the game after he dies, what is actually happening is that your character did die, and you are pretending that he didn't for your entertainment.

 

[Zombra]

It is obvious in this game that the relevant mechanics are supposed to represent Geralt's capabilities

No. This fundamental assumption is where you fail.

When the hp bar becomes empty, the character dies.

lol. So the "hit point bar" is part of the story? "Watch out, vampire! I have 563 hit points!" is something Geralt never said.

Also, when you think your character didn't die because you reload the game after he dies, what is actually happening is that your character did die, and you are pretending that he didn't for your entertainment.

Wrong again. In my save file (and in yours), Geralt has 100% survival rate. He never died, because if he died he would be dead and the story would be over. In the fiction, Geralt did not die 100 times and magically rewind every time. That is a game mechanic. Story and mechanics are two absolutely different sets of rules.

 

[Storyfag]

It is obvious in this game that the relevant mechanics are supposed to represent Geralt's capabilities

No. This fundamental assumption is where you fail.

You haven't sufficient;y explained why anyone WOULDN'T make this assumption.

 

[Lim-Dûl]

It is obvious in this game that the relevant mechanics are supposed to represent Geralt's capabilities

No. This fundamental assumption is where you fail.

When the hp bar becomes empty, the character dies.

lol. So the "hit point bar" is part of the story? "Watch out, vampire! I have 563 hit points!" is something Geralt never said.

Also, when you think your character didn't die because you reload the game after he dies, what is actually happening is that your character did die, and you are pretending that he didn't for your entertainment.

Wrong again. In my save file (and in yours), Geralt has 100% survival rate. He never died, because if he died he would be dead and the story would be over. In the fiction, Geralt did not die 100 times and magically rewind every time. That is a game mechanic. Story and mechanics are two absolutely different sets of rules.

When a game's mechanics aren't consistent with the accompanying story, it simply means that the game is not consistent with the accompanying story; it does not mean that the mechanics actually don't mean what they unequivocally show because the accompanying story contradicts them. If we were to assume that a goal of the game was to be consistent with the story, then the fact that the mechanics are inconsistent with the story would mean a failure to achieve that goal. Your arguments ignore what can be clearly observed in the game when it conflicts with how you feel the game ought to be interpreted.