The Witcher 3 Pre-Expansion Thread

[Deleted member 7219]

Oh, and BTW, this is one of my favorite tracks, unfortunately it's not included in the official soundtrack.

Wow, thanks for this. Been looking for some of these missing tracks, why were they left out? My favourite is this, another missing track:



It is the Witcher 2 soundtrack all over again, they left out Blue Mountains and a few others and didn't add them in for something like a year.

 

[SumDrunkGuy]

Okay I officially want to have sex with Ciri.



Like, that wouldn't be frowned upon, right? It's not like she's blood, she's ADOPTED. That makes it totally alright, right?

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

Like, that wouldn't be frowned upon, right? It's not like she's blood, she's ADOPTED. That makes it totally alright, right?

Since you are not actually Geralt of Rivia why give a shit?

 

[cw8]

I'm still only in the White Orchard area so this may be rather pre-mature but does anyone have a feeling of the graphics being somewhat... erm... I dunno, overdone?

Is there a good mod for toning some of that shit down, like the colors in sunsets and so forth? There are like a million up on the nexus so a bit hard to choose.

You're not the only one. I like the graphics but dislike the deep saturated orange, red hues for sunsets. It hurts the eyes so I normally meditate past sunsets into the morning or night.

 

[RK47]

That's what sunset look like in Poland. It's accurate.

 

[Dreaad]

Both Witcher 2 and 3 have used this bizarrely intense form of red/orange that feels like your eyes are being stabbed with needles.

 

[RK47]

Both Witcher 2 and 3 have used this bizarrely intense form of red/orange that feels like your eyes are being stabbed with needles.

Meanwhile, in Poland...

 

[AetherVagrant]

Meanwhile, in Poland...

Dayum, nice screenshot. So thats what Novigrad looks like on Ultra.

 

[Perkel]

I just killed 6 level higher Arch Gryphon. Best fight in the game so far. Suxors gonna suck.

It's not about whether you can kill them or not, you stupid shit, because everything can be killed in this game relatively easily if you have the twitch skill, it's about arbitrary stat bloat that makes those 6+ level higher enemies take half a year to kill. When an enemy is marked with a skull, it gets like 10 times more total HP and its damage is blown up to the stratosphere, but all that immediately vanishes the moment you get up a level and the skull is removed. This is just stupid design, period.

DPS problem.

You go from 20-40 damage lvl1 with steel sword to 130-150 lvl7-10 and that is before buffs like skills etc.

Overall like i said in earlier post game needs flatter stats for everything, from swords damae to monster life etc.

 

[made]

Like, that wouldn't be frowned upon, right? It's not like she's blood, she's ADOPTED. That makes it totally alright, right?

Since you are not actually Geralt of Rivia why give a shit?

As the Witches tell Geralt when they see right through him, "If she's comely, what does it matter?"

 

[Commissar Draco]

Angry Joe, goshing over TW3:
10/10

Strong Fiery Independynt Womyn LOL... moar like typical Anglo entilted bitch; Shani>Triss>Yenefier.

 

[TheEntitledOne]

Okay I officially want to hug Ciri.

Hugs, not fucks.

 

[cw8]

Meanwhile, in Poland...

Dayum, nice screenshot. So thats what Novigrad looks like on Ultra.

Those boats sure look different on Ultra. I'm only on high:

 

[Tigranes]

I just killed 6 level higher Arch Gryphon. Best fight in the game so far. Suxors gonna suck.

It's not about whether you can kill them or not, you stupid shit, because everything can be killed in this game relatively easily if you have the twitch skill, it's about arbitrary stat bloat that makes those 6+ level higher enemies take half a year to kill. When an enemy is marked with a skull, it gets like 10 times more total HP and its damage is blown up to the stratosphere, but all that immediately vanishes the moment you get up a level and the skull is removed. This is just stupid design, period.

DPS problem.

You go from 20-40 damage lvl1 with steel sword to 130-150 lvl7-10 and that is before buffs like skills etc.

Overall like i said in earlier post game needs flatter stats for everything, from swords damae to monster life etc.

So one of you is talking out of his arse, can people confirm which one? I did fight some skull'd monsters but I rarely went back after just 1 level if I couldn't kill it, so hard to say.

I do think all the 'bosses' could have their health cut by 1/3, it can be a bit tedious since combat like TW3 doesn't have much resource management. And if that means cutting Geralt's health in 1/3 that's good too.

 

[Whisky]

Both Witcher 2 and 3 have used this bizarrely intense form of red/orange that feels like your eyes are being stabbed with needles.

Meanwhile, in Poland...

Can't be Novigrad, no hooligans on street corners muttering "Pam-pam-param"

 

[Cromwell]

I just killed 6 level higher Arch Gryphon. Best fight in the game so far. Suxors gonna suck.

It's not about whether you can kill them or not, you stupid shit, because everything can be killed in this game relatively easily if you have the twitch skill, it's about arbitrary stat bloat that makes those 6+ level higher enemies take half a year to kill. When an enemy is marked with a skull, it gets like 10 times more total HP and its damage is blown up to the stratosphere, but all that immediately vanishes the moment you get up a level and the skull is removed. This is just stupid design, period.

DPS problem.

You go from 20-40 damage lvl1 with steel sword to 130-150 lvl7-10 and that is before buffs like skills etc.

Overall like i said in earlier post game needs flatter stats for everything, from swords damae to monster life etc.

So one of you is talking out of his arse, can people confirm which one? I did fight some skull'd monsters but I rarely went back after just 1 level if I couldn't kill it, so hard to say.

I do think all the 'bosses' could have their health cut by 1/3, it can be a bit tedious since combat like TW3 doesn't have much resource management. And if that means cutting Geralt's health in 1/3 that's good too.

Bonescraper is, he just shoot himself in the foot before running a marathon and then proclaims everyone sucks who thinks it is a stupid Idea to do so. And Perkel is right, the difference between starting and endgame weapons in the second game was less than it is between a sword on your level and five level higher in w3, which also sucks and makes the finest weapons (lore wise, like crachs for example) garbage. This Stat explosions on weapons and yourself (through mutagens) also is one of the reasons they needed the stuff roxor is talking about.

 

[Azarkon]

http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2015/06/04/witcher-3-and-diversity/

Anyone has seen this shit?




Fucking TRIGGERED

What's ironic about all this is that CD Projekt actually tried to be quite 'progressive' in their treatment of women in this game. Not just with Ciri, but with that whole Cerys plotline in Skellig, as well as the armorsmith quest at Baron's. I went in thinking these potatoes unbound by American-style feminism were going to actually subvert the 'women are just as great/greater than men' trope, but no, they play it straight. Between the domineering 'career woman' Yennefer, the 'princess who needs no rescuing' Ciri, the 'takes-no-shit-from-men' Cerys, and all the other strong women characters put besides the boorish, idiotic, and brutish men you find scattered across Velen and Skellige, this game is in a lot of ways feminist heaven.

But instead of paying attention to such characters, modern SJWs turn to complaining about boobs and revealing lingerie and peasants making sex jokes creating a 'hostile environment' for women gamers.

:incloosive:

 

[Cowboy Moment]

For the average player, it makes no difference if you can't kill a high level monster at a low level because the monster naturally has a high defense stat or because it gets a huge bonus due to the level difference. The end result is that they can't kill the monster, period. However, the first option usually allows a smart player to utilize the game's systems in order to somehow do more damage than what is expected at their level, and win that way. I don't remember what the case was in Witcher 2 or Gothic, but this is very much how beating the Souls games at level 1 works - you abuse certain features of the game that let you perform better than your level normally allows. It is possible to beat those games at level 1 without doing this, but the experience isn't that different from fighting "skull" monsters in W3 - pretty fucking tedious.

That said, it's really the incredibly boring loot that makes going after higher level enemies a complete waste of time. That. and the very mediocre combat system and enemy design.

 

[HiddenX]

RPGWatch review by Maylander

 

[HiddenX]

Another overrated review of witcher 3 ignoring the comparison with witcher 1 and instead comparing it to the retarted Skybore

Learn to read - it is starting with a comparison to earlier Witcher games.

Joined: Saturday

 

[Perkel]

What's ironic about all this is that CD Projekt actually tried to be quite 'progressive' in their treatment of women in this game. Not just with Ciri, but with that whole Cerys plotline in Skellig, as well as the armorsmith quest at Baron's. I went in thinking these potatoes unbound by American-style feminism were going to actually subvert the 'women are just as great/greater than men' trope, but no, they play it straight. Between the domineering 'career woman' Yennefer, the 'princess who needs no rescuing' Ciri, the 'takes-no-shit-from-men' Cerys, and all the other strong women characters put besides the boorish, idiotic, and brutish men you find scattered across Velen and Skellige, this game is in a lot of ways feminist heaven.

But instead of paying attention to such characters, modern SJWs turn to complaining about boobs and revealing lingerie and peasants making sex jokes creating a 'hostile environment' for women gamers.

:incloosive:

Difference here is that Sapkowski is not retard where most of modern game designers and critics are retards.

Sapkowski take on women is realistic to the bone marrow.

All women in TW saga are strong characters.
Not because writer was trying to "empower" them but because they are products of world they live in. They are not strong because some retard has vagina lips for their eyes but because there is reason why certain "she" became such character in lore.

Woman warrior ?

Cassandra in DAI: Retard who somehow manages to lead soldiers.
Black Raila in TW saga: Ruthless woman who leads men with charisma.


As for Cerys. She is not ideal ruler. She is just different ruler and choosing her leads to civil war and problems (and farming).

Hjalmar is actually ideal choice as he has support of all clans and continues superior riding economy.

 

[you know what time it is]

All women in TW saga are strong characters

TW saga

saga

 

[Azarkon]

1) You can beat Gothic/Dark Souls at lvl 1 but you cannot cheese it. You are free to take on any mob and win if you are good enough. Each defeat is caused solely by your own mistakes. This favors exploration.

I don't see how. What's the value of exploring when you don't need to do it to accomplish your goal? Think back to BG 2. Unless they $-gated that rescue Imoen quest, what was your incentive for even exploring Amn?

Sure, there are people who explore for the sake of exploration, but even then I'd get annoyed at the idea that I'm able to beat whatever I come across 'as long as I'm not bad at games.' That's actually the functional equivalent of level scaling in the scale-down direction because you're basically telling the player that wherever he goes at level 1, the opponents are beatable and he never has to level because the game is designed so that levels are optional.

In fact, the basic issue I have with Gothic/Dark Souls design philosophy is that it doesn't make sense that a level 1 peasant is able to beat legendary monsters just by dodging/blocking their attacks. How the fuck is that logical? So you're telling me that these all-powerful beings are actually so terrible at fighting they can get beat by a level 1 peasant with a pitch fork provided the peasant knows how to dodge? Why don't these legendary monsters have sure-hit abilities? How did they ever survive without them? What's so threatening about end game bosses when they have such obvious attack patterns that a naked level 1 dude can exploit them to death?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of hard level gating ie the functional equivalent of 'you must be level 10 before you're allowed through this door!' I'm all for allowing players to come up with ways to beat vastly higher level monsters. But I think enemies ought not be designed with a 'you can beat this at level 1 provided you're skilled at games' philosophy in mind. They ought to be designed with plausibility in mind.

That is to say, I'm willing to accept that a level 1 peasant is able to dodge his way to victory vs. a lumbering ogre, but not a fucking demon knight from the ninth abyss. The demon knight ought to fuck your level 1 peasant so hard your ass ought to hurt from behind the monitor. Intelligent all-powerful monsters ought to see through your lame attack/defense pattern abuses and force you to get on their level. Not every encounter ought to be beatable at level 1.

 

[Doktor Best]

Cant really agree with one point of the review. I think the Choice and Consequence in Witcher 3 is far superior to Witcher 2, because its not so much about blatantly cutting out content but heavily modifying it. Witcher 2 had this second act that was completely different based on who you sided with, and i get what the game was shooting at (Gothic), but this type of CNC didnt feel really rewarding to me. Maybe because i felt like i was tied to one side rather than trying to work my way through the game not taking any

In Witcher 3 your choices are more connected and interwoven and dont come across as artificial and restrictive as the faction choice in witcher 2 You dont have clear allegiances towards one side but rather build up reputations with several reoccuring important characters which heavily influences storyoutcomes. CDPR seems to have learned from Alpha Protocol in that regard, only that they did it better and managed to wrap it into a game that is actually enjoyable.

Also you have all these little conclusions to sidequests when you come back after a while to see how your decisions played out. With a game of that size, this is goddamn impressive.

 

[Azarkon]

What's ironic about all this is that CD Projekt actually tried to be quite 'progressive' in their treatment of women in this game. Not just with Ciri, but with that whole Cerys plotline in Skellig, as well as the armorsmith quest at Baron's. I went in thinking these potatoes unbound by American-style feminism were going to actually subvert the 'women are just as great/greater than men' trope, but no, they play it straight. Between the domineering 'career woman' Yennefer, the 'princess who needs no rescuing' Ciri, the 'takes-no-shit-from-men' Cerys, and all the other strong women characters put besides the boorish, idiotic, and brutish men you find scattered across Velen and Skellige, this game is in a lot of ways feminist heaven.

But instead of paying attention to such characters, modern SJWs turn to complaining about boobs and revealing lingerie and peasants making sex jokes creating a 'hostile environment' for women gamers.

:incloosive:

Difference here is that Sapkowski is not retard where most of modern game designers and critics are retards.

Sapkowski take on women is realistic to the bone marrow.

All women in TW saga are strong characters.
Not because writer was trying to "empower" them but because they are products of world they live in. They are not strong because some retard has vagina lips for their eyes but because there is reason why certain "she" became such character in lore.

Woman warrior ?

Cassandra in DAI: Retard who somehow manages to lead soldiers.
Black Raila in TW saga: Ruthless woman who leads men with charisma.


As for Cerys. She is not ideal ruler. She is just different ruler and choosing her leads to civil war and problems (and farming).

Hjalmar is actually ideal choice as he has support of all clans and continues superior riding economy.

'Realistic to the bone marrow' is a pretty big exaggeration, don't you think? Women in medieval Europe were not exactly 'I can do everything men do and extra' types; quite the opposite. The stereotypical idea that women are inferior held through much of European history, and while there were the odd woman warrior and politician from time to time, it was in no way as it is in Witcher where every other major female character is a bad ass.

In fact, I'd argue that CD Projekt/Sapowski actually went out of their way to portray 'strong women' and that it does jar with the rest of the world they've built. For example, there's this typical theme running throughout the game that women ought to stay at home and get ploughed, which is manifest in the sexism you see from the soldiers, peasants, etc., who are all basically male - thereby staying 'in-era'. But the game narrative actively contradicts this idea through throwing one strong woman character after another at you, such that your personal experience as Geralt/Ciri is a walking contradiction of the sexist theme - thereby siding with the 'progressive' side of modern sexual politics that challenges traditional roles/perceptions of weak, stay-at-home women.

By contrast, there are very few actual 'damsels-in-distress' in the game, and I think this does have to do with Sapowski's own sentiments because one of his main tools of the trade is the deconstruction of medieval fairy-tale tropes eg the pure & chaste maiden, the princess waiting for her prince, etc. Those tropes, in Sapowski's world, become facades under which hides quite a modern sensibility, in my opinion, about women and their abilities.