Interview Witcher 3 Interview at Forbes: No multiplayer, no QTEs, no DRM

[abnaxus]

Good thing these guys with their half-baked action games are no longer relevant with Kickstarter.

 

[norolim]

I think TW1 combat was quite good for an action RPG. Attacking required more than mindless button mashing and the signs, bombs and potions actuallly gave you some tactical choices (again, in an action RPG context). I didn't play TW2 yet, but from what I've seen the combat system in it looks like full on action click fest. How does that make it better than TW1?

 

[Infinitron]

I think TW1 combat was quite good for an action RPG. Attacking required more than mindless button mashing and the signs, bombs and potions actuallly gave you some tactical choices (again, in an action RPG context). I didn't play TW2 yet, but from what I've seen the combat system in it looks like full on action click fest. How does that make it better than TW1?

Because it's not a rhythm game?

 

[aris]

Witcher 1 combat was very simplistic without much depth, when to change between the three stances was overly obvious and really just mindless busy work. The witcher 2 combat had a LOT more potential, but it was unfortunately somewhat poorly implemented.

 

[Metro]

Reasonable post from gaudaost? End is nigh.

 

[Roguey]

TW2 is nothing like Arkham combat. Arkham is about racking up combos while avoiding damage (as your combo meter resets when you are hit) so that you can spend the combos on finishers. Dealing straight damage is actually on the backburner.

They both focus on the presentation of awesomely detailed context-sensitive animations.

 

[norolim]

Witcher 1 combat was very simplistic without much depth, when to change between the three stances was overly obvious and really just mindless busy work. The witcher 2 combat had a LOT more potential, but it was unfortunately somewhat poorly implemented.

And where does the potential in TW2 come from? From what I know, it's just strong attack/weak attack/roll button mashing. I didn't play it, so it'd be great if someone could explain.

And stances where not the only areas of choice in TW1. Mind you TW2 didn't even have that.

Because it's not a rhythm game?

It's a RT action game, where combat involves a lot of swordsmanship. And rythm is a very important element of swordsmanship/fencing.

 

[cvv]

From what I know, it's just strong attack/weak attack/roll button mashing. I didn't play it, so it'd be great if someone could explain.

It's no retarded button mashing Kingdom of Amalur style. If u just button mash, u dead soon.
Problem is in order to survive on higher difficulties and with higher-level enemies, you have to spam barrel roll and that sucks.
CDPR claim they're aware of it and will eliminate it in W3, so let's just wait and see.

 

[tuluse]

Witcher 1 combat was very simplistic without much depth, when to change between the three stances was overly obvious and really just mindless busy work. The witcher 2 combat had a LOT more potential, but it was unfortunately somewhat poorly implemented.

And where does the potential in TW2 come from? From what I know, it's just strong attack/weak attack/roll button mashing. I didn't play it, so it'd be great if someone could explain.

And stances where not the only areas of choice in TW1. Mind you TW2 didn't even have that.

Because it's not a rhythm game?

It's a RT action game, where combat involves a lot of swordsmanship. And rythm is a very important element of swordsmanship/fencing.

TW2 also has blocking, parrying and riposting.

But seriously, with TW1 you just find the right stance and click M1 when the sword is orange and that's it. The only hard fight is the Barghest boss and that's because you can't stun lock it to death.

 

[DraQ]

They should stop fucking around and just embrace TB combat. TW games beg for it.

Except TB is bad for rapid reactivity (and rapid reactions pretty much *make* a witcher) and completely superfluous for solo game.

'F' for fail.

 

[villain of the story]

'T for Trying Too Hard. TB is what you make of it. Unless you mean a Witcher game should exclusive be a game of twitch, then I'd simply disagree.

 

[Grunker]

Except TB is bad for rapid reactivity (and rapid reactions pretty much *make* a witcher)

You continue to be my favourite village idiot.

 

[norolim]

I played TW1 on Hard difficulty setting, so I didn't have any colour hints on when to hit LMB. It's true that some enemies could be easily defeated by stunning them, but they were mostly trash mobs that were easy anyway, at that point.

Ok, thanks for info on TW2. I will probably have to check its combat myself.

 

[aris]

Witcher 1 combat was very simplistic without much depth, when to change between the three stances was overly obvious and really just mindless busy work. The witcher 2 combat had a LOT more potential, but it was unfortunately somewhat poorly implemented.

And where does the potential in TW2 come from?

It could have been dark souls combat, which is highly praised, and rightly so.

Except TB is bad for rapid reactivity (and rapid reactions pretty much *make* a witcher)

You continue to be my favourite village idiot.

Quoted this for no particular reason.

 

[DraQ]

'T for Trying Too Hard. TB is what you make of it.

No. TB is a discrete time system and depends on its discretization step. If different activities differ a lot in terms of time required, there may be no step length that's good for both.

Besides, a discrete time system is only needed if the game itself is abstract discrete time kind of game or if there is a lot of serial input that needs to be parallelized (translation: you command many party members in sequence to do a lot of shit at the same time).

Except TB is bad for rapid reactivity (and rapid reactions pretty much *make* a witcher)

You continue to be my favourite village idiot.

Have you even read the fucking books?

Go shitpost in /gd/.

 

[villain of the story]

That's just bullshit, DraQ. Your understanding of TB systems and the things you attribute to them are very premature.

 

[Grunker]

Have you even read the fucking books?

As a matter of fact I'm re-reading them right now while updating the GURPS conversion I wrote for a Witcher P&P RPG and preparing to run another campaign in the universe. This one will be set in Cintra and Nilfgaard, I think. The first one I ran is one of the most succesful P&P campaigns I've run, if I may be so frank. Fortunately, my players have no problems with abstractions, like you so obviously have, spewing your 1:1, 360 degree simulationist bullshit in every thread.

I shiver at the thought of having a player who cannot process quick reactions into a turn-based environment. Why, most every campaign I run would be doomed!

"Witcher has quick reactions so game must be twitch-based." Hah.

Oh, and I actually like the video games, somewhat. That doesn't stop me from pointing out the obvious fallacies in your posts, though.

 

[Metro]

Lol @ anyone who thinks CD Projekt would make turn-based games. Witcher series = multiplatform mentality.

 

[Roguey]

Lol @ anyone who thinks CD Projekt would make turn-based games. Witcher series = multiplatform mentality.

Isn't CD Projekt looking into making a mobile Witcher game? That could possibly be turn-based.

 

[Grunker]

Lol @ anyone who thinks CD Projekt would make turn-based games.

I don't think a single person here has stated that he thinks CD Projekt would.

 

[Gerrard]

Because there are no TB games on consoles.

 

[Jaesun]

Lol @ anyone who thinks CD Projekt would make turn-based games.

I don't think a single person here has stated that he thinks CD Projekt would.

They should stop fucking around and just embrace TB combat. TW games beg for it.

Yeah it's vots but whatever. r00fles!

 

[DraQ]

Have you even read the fucking books?

As a matter of fact I'm re-reading them right now while updating the GURPS conversion I wrote for a Witcher P&P RPG and preparing to run another campaign in the universe. This one will be set in Cintra and Nilfgaard, I think. The first one I ran is one of the most succesful P&P campaigns I've run, if I may be so frank. Fortunately, my players have no problems with abstractions, like you so obviously have, spewing your 1:1, 360 degree simulationist bullshit in every thread.

I have no problem with abstroactions if they work, are actual abstractions (unlike, say HP attrition everyone seem to love so) and, first and foremost serve purpose.For example I consider TB or phase based pretty much obligatory for a proper party based game.

So humour me, what could possibly be the purpose of TB in a non-PnP, single player, solo RPG?

I shiver at the thought of having a player who cannot process quick reactions into a turn-based environment. Why, most every campaign I run would be doomed!

"Witcher has quick reactions so game must be twitch-based." Hah.

Ok, try to port GURPS 1s TB combat to a highly visual medium which is what Witcher 3 is going to be and what any modern witcher game should be. Let's if if you won't end up with disjointed, drawn out mess.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong and it would work out just fine - GURPS is actually much more simulationist than pretty much every cRPG I know about ( so much for "abstraction" ), so it would definitely have its upsides for me.

Oh, and I actually like the video games, somewhat. That doesn't stop me from pointing out the obvious fallacies in your posts, though.

Would help if you'd actually, you know, point those fallacies out.

 

[villain of the story]

Lol @ anyone who thinks CD Projekt would make turn-based games.

I don't think a single person here has stated that he thinks CD Projekt would.

They should stop fucking around and just embrace TB combat. TW games beg for it.

Yeah it's vots but whatever. r00fles!

Well, I didn't, did I? Why are you so butthurt over every single post I make anyway?

 

[Grunker]

Lol @ anyone who thinks CD Projekt would make turn-based games.

I don't think a single person here has stated that he thinks CD Projekt would.

They should stop fucking around and just embrace TB combat. TW games beg for it.

Yeah it's vots but whatever. r00fles!

You know he's not saying CD Projekt is going to right? You know he's specifically saying they *should* at the same time implying they *won't*, right? Not one to defend vots, but the question remains who Metro was talking about. I don't think anyone is mentally retarded enough to claim CD Projekt is suddenly going to go "Oh yes, Witcher 4 will be a turn-based party RPG!"

(unlike, say HP attrition everyone seem to love so)

Nope, not going there, your retardation is well known regarding this subject and it's not like anything I will say is going to change your mind.

So humour me, what could possibly be the purpose of TB in a non-PnP, single player, solo RPG?

I didn't say I wanted TW to be turn-based. I laughed at your arrogant and ill-conceived attempt to say that abstractions in a turn-based environment cannot be used to impart a sense of quickness of reaction. Let me refresh your memory:

Except TB is bad for rapid reactivity (and rapid reactions pretty much *make* a witcher)

You continue to be my favourite village idiot.

Ok, try to port GURPS 1s TB combat to a highly visual medium which is what Witcher 3 is going to be and what any modern witcher game should be.

It would be quite easy.

Let's if if you won't end up with disjointed, drawn out mess.

Taking the lethality of GURPS combat into account and the fact that every turn consists of you choosing a single maneuver, I'm actually quite confident that the length of fights, if that was your focus, could easily be as short or even shorter than fights from TW1/2. Just have basic maneuver choices and then have active defenses being calculated passively. Single combat could literally be over within 20 seconds.

GURPS is actually much more simulationist than pretty much every cRPG I know about

That depends entirely on which assets of the system you use. The grace of GURPS is that it can be used in everything from contrived, tactical, gamist scenarios to the ultimate simulation.

Would help if you'd actually, you know, point those fallacies out.

You are narrow-minded, and on top of this, argue with blind arrogance. Hence my amusement. I wasn't really interested in debating this at length, it's pretty clear there's no way I'm going to change your mind anyway. This discussion seems like an exertion of futility.