The Witcher 3 Pre-Expansion Thread

[AetherVagrant]

'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.

 

[adddeed]

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?

Why are you looking for logic in fantasy role playing computer generated images? You can beat a legendary monster with a lvl1 characters becayse why the hell not.

 

[Dreaad]

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.

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.

Thing is.... neither the protagonist in the Witcher series or the Dark Souls series is a 'peasant' by any stretch of the imagination. They are already the chosen one in terms of lore long before they even grow a level.

 

[toro]

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.

The value of exploration is to find shit which will make your life easier in the game. The thing is DaS lvl1 is not trivial and I don't know if it's really possible in Gothic. Neither one of the games were designed for lvl1 players and it's really an achievement for whoever is capable to pull it off.

To be honest, I cannot answer your question. You are right on some points but I don't see the reason why the most skilled players should be gimped by the combat system? In the end Lvl1 peasant or Lvl99 peasant are doing the same shit but usually with different gear.

And talking about plausibility and design, I have to mention the first fight with Letho from Witcher 2. That's basically an extreme example for what you are asking. It did not work and it was a clusterfuck.

 

[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.

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.

Thing is.... neither the protagonist in the Witcher series or the Dark Souls series is a 'peasant' by any stretch of the imagination. They are already the chosen one in terms of lore long before they even grow a level.

I don't think this contradicts what I said.

Rather, it deals with the separate issue of why these 'chosen one' bad asses are hamfisted into level 1 starts?

Give characters the levels they ought to have in your game world, under your rubric. This is what I think a lot of DMs & NWN mods did well, while mainstream developers are bound to this invisible rule whereby players have to start at level 1 regardless of their character's background, unless it's a sequel. Sadly, in Witcher's case, even when it's a sequel.

But even starting Geralt at, say, level 25, I still don't think you ought to be able to take down end game bosses, then and there, without exploits.

There has to be room - and motivation - for progression in a game, especially one with open world exploration. There ought to be a stage in the game when the player looks back and thinks, 'man, I've come a long ways.' The journey has to have value. Nobody ought to think, 'why didn't I just go to the end boss's lair at the beginning of the game and kill him? Is it just because I'm bad at games?' Because that cheapens the process of getting there.

 

[Athelas]

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.

You must be confusing 'every player' with 'a small contingent of the most devoted fans with extensive meta-game knowledge'.

Also, the protagonist of Dark Souls is effectively immortal, so besting their opponent through patience and trial and error makes perfect sense.

 

[Azarkon]

The plausibility doesn't concern the protagonist but rather his opponents. Why are his opponents, supposed to be various demons, spirits, undead, gods, etc., idiots who never learn the weaknesses of their own attack patterns, despite experiencing combat with the protagonist and his online predecessors a million times, etc.? I'm not even asking for advanced AI. Just an explanation for why these gigantic monsters with godly powers don't know how to fight a guy with a shield.

Besides which, Dark Souls is an action game at the end of the day. It was designed from the ground up to require a lot of reloads and meticulous execution. It barely has any RPG progression. In case that's your cup of tea, and you want to see it emulated in every other game, then I don't know what you even look for in RPGs.

 

[Dreaad]

 

[Athelas]

It barely has any RPG progression. In case that's your cup of tea, and you want to see it emulated in every other game, then I don't know what you even look for in RPGs.

We are talking about action-RPG's. By necessity, they have to compromise on the RPG aspect. Even so, there are good and bad ways to design them. Dark Souls handles the RPG progression better than most others in the action-RPG genre.

 

[Azarkon]

It barely has any RPG progression. In case that's your cup of tea, and you want to see it emulated in every other game, then I don't know what you even look for in RPGs.

We are talking about action-RPG's. By necessity, they have to compromise on the RPG aspect. Even so, there are good and bad ways to design them. Dark Souls handles the RPG progression better than most others in the action-RPG genre.

Action RPGs by necessity have to focus on the action side of character progression, but considering how even classic RPGs tend to focus on combat to the exclusion of other character progression, I don't think there's as big of a compromise as you think.

Consider the Diablo series. Diablo II still has one of the best character progression & itemization systems in all of action RPGdom. Lots of depth, lots of choices, highly addictive - all the hallmarks of great design.

By contrast, the character progression system in Dark Souls is skeletal. But it serves its purpose of emphasizing the action side of the game, rather than the RPG side. I don't have a problem with action games. Indeed I enjoy them. But I don't believe Dark Souls's way of doing character progression supports its case as a RPG. This isn't just about semantics, either - I consider Dark Souls a very different game from Diablo II, with a completely different emphasis and therefore appeal.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Azarkon, you're essentially asking either for the kind of level-gating Witcher 3 has, or for an expotential power curve - the first of which just kinda sucks in a game with a lot of open-ended exploration, while the second tends to cause lots of balance problems. I think that if you have a good action combat system and linear character progression, being able to kill things way above your "level" is an almost unavoidable consequence. And honestly, if it is a flaw, it's a rather small one. You can complete Dark Souls at level 1, but nobody will do so in their first playthrough, few will try in the second, and most will never even attempt it. Does it also upset you that you can finish Fallout in 7 minutes?

 

[bonescraper]

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

Yes it compares witcher 3 to the second part of the game.iam talking about witcher 1.It fails to even compare the quests or c&c to the first game since it is said that witcher 3 is a return to the original game.This review is no different when compared to AAA reviews.10/10 GOTY

It's a return to the original game, atmosphere-wise, that's it. Everything else is just far better, quests, writing, characters, C&C, combat. Even TWitcher 2 had better writing, C&C and characters than the first game.

 

[SumDrunkGuy]

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?

LARPin yo.

 

[Perkel]

'Realistic to the bone marrow' is a pretty big exaggeration, don't you think?

No. Every woman in books who you meet is a product of world she inhabits.

Wives, peasant women are weak generally weak toward violence. There are only few woman warriors in books and all of them are ruthless. Sorceresses on other hand are dozen but they all have power and because they have power they don't fear anyone and they often are cruel toward anyone or think of themselves as higher caste than anyone.

There isn't any woman in books that works as stereotype of "strong woman" because of reasons.
That is the whole point.

No one have problem with strong characters being either man or woman if their foundation is good.
Everybody have problem if those strong characters were build on fickle foundation.

Mantra of "new design" by critics and progressive designer is to give women roles because they are equal not because of their merit or how world would behave toward them in those positions.

This is why i used Cassandra from DAI as an example. She is not fit to be commander and i don't think any man would fallow her into battle. She only exist as commander because "teh strong womyn !"

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Perkel, "fallow" means "of pale yellowish-brown color". "Falb" in German. http://en.pons.com/translate/german-polish/falb
The word you're looking for is "to follow". See? A fine but significant difference.

 

[Surf Solar]

For christs sake Perkel you're doing this intentionally aren't you? It's FOLLOW!

Edit: Ninjaed by vod

 

[Perkel]

Perkel, "fallow" means "of pale yellowish-brown color". "Falb" in German. http://en.pons.com/translate/german-polish/falb
The word you're looking for is "to follow". See? A fine but significant difference.

For christs sake Perkel you're doing this intentionally aren't you? It's FOLLOW!

Edit: Ninjaed by vod

yeah mistake. It is follow naturally. I don't know why i write fallow often. Probably some weird thing when i learned how to type on keyboard without looking at it.

 

[Commissar Draco]

Perkel, "fallow" means "of pale yellowish-brown color". "Falb" in German. http://en.pons.com/translate/german-polish/falb
The word you're looking for is "to follow". See? A fine but significant difference.

Location: Deutschland

 

[you know what time it is]

Had a couple of hours to burn and decided to give it another shot, gave up on combat 30 minutes in. How this abomination was conceived is beyond me. Even with gamepad it's unplayable.

I don't even know why i'm so butthurt about this game, it just feels like with a few tweaks it could have been a very enjoyable experience. But all you get is pointless open world, completely retarded combat and whenever something interesting comes up story-wise you are forced to track down a fucking goat instead.

 

[Veelq]

As for the lvl 1 character that can beat the game - in games like arpgs its fine because to make it happen you need to exploit game mechanics and use all the meta knowledge that you gathered through many other playthroughs. Its similar for me to speedrunners and im fine with them as well. If you want to experience the game in a way that you immerse yourself in it, you will never do that ( and first, prolly blind playthrough is that kind of experience ). At the end doing what speedrunners do makes the game live longer for them ( replayability etc ).

 

[J_C]

gave up on combat 30 minutes in. How this abomination was conceived is beyond me. Even with gamepad it's unplayable.

completely retarded combat

Why?

 

[cvv]

gave up on combat 30 minutes in. How this abomination was conceived is beyond me. Even with gamepad it's unplayable.

completely retarded combat

Why?

everythingisshit.jpg

 

[Doktor Best]

Actiongames are not for everyone. The combat is no revellation but its also definitely not shit.

 

[LESS T_T]

 

[Cowboy Moment]

They expected 7 million by the end of the year, doesn't look very likely unless the game has unusually long legs on consoles.

Still, I can't imagine how it wouldn't be wildly profitable for them with 4m, especially since the game is completely self-funded.