How Witcher 3 Breaks all the Rules

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

How [i]Witcher 3[/I] Breaks all the Rules

One of the things we've come to accept in video games is that we're never going to get another big-budget, dialog-heavy RPG like we used to get in the old days.

Read Full Article

Gonna have to disagree on that combat bit.

The Witcher 3 is brilliant, but its combat is okay at best. Most of the time I was doing horseback charges, since it made the fights go by faster, and was actually way more fun. Compared to what it used to be though, it's a godsend.

Guys, I think Shamus ran out of his meds. He is talking to himself again!

But then to save money they will just give you a digital manual instead of a real one with the physical purchase.

Actually, The Witcher III: Wild Hunt not only gives you a manual. There's a thank you card and stickers etc.

But then they must make up that money by nickel and diming you with microtransactions.

Actually, The Witcher III: Wild Hunt gives you over a dozen pieces of DLC for free that, while small, would be charged for by other companies

Well then to protect their investment the PC version must be loaded with always online DRM and such.

Actually, The Witcher III: Wild Hunt can be purchased from CDProjekt Red's digital platform, GOG, which provides DRM-free versions of the game.

FoolKiller:
But then to save money they will just give you a digital manual instead of a real one with the physical purchase.

Actually, The Witcher III: Wild Hunt not only gives you a manual. There's a thank you card and stickers etc.

But then they must make up that money by nickel and diming you with microtransactions.

Actually, The Witcher III: Wild Hunt gives you over a dozen pieces of DLC for free that, while small, would be charged for by other companies

Well then to protect their investment the PC version must be loaded with always online DRM and such.

Actually, The Witcher III: Wild Hunt can be purchased from CDProjekt Red's digital platform, GOG, which provides DRM-free versions of the game.

I like how you think.

I think the move toward voice acting is a mistake for every single game. I see it all the time though. You get these small studios that make a great game but it isn't voice acted, and all you see in comments section is wining about there not being voice actors. It's madness. Especially when most games have a conversation that involves two people standing there.

Maybe this isn't the norm, but I can read and understand a conversations much faster than someone can read it to me. Voice acting is novel, but the novelty quickly wears off. I turn on the subtitles and skip through conversations. Even in a game with very short conversations, I skip through most of the spoken dialog because I read it much faster.

FoolKiller:
But then to save money they will just give you a digital manual instead of a real one with the physical purchase.

Actually, The Witcher III: Wild Hunt not only gives you a manual. There's a thank you card and stickers etc.

But then they must make up that money by nickel and diming you with microtransactions.

Actually, The Witcher III: Wild Hunt gives you over a dozen pieces of DLC for free that, while small, would be charged for by other companies

Well then to protect their investment the PC version must be loaded with always online DRM and such.

Actually, The Witcher III: Wild Hunt can be purchased from CDProjekt Red's digital platform, GOG, which provides DRM-free versions of the game.

The Steam version is actually DRM free as well. All you have to do is go to the directory and access the exe. It should just start right up.

Serious talk then.. what does The Witcher 3 do wrong? Anything? Nothing is perfect so it must have flaws of some sort. Is it.. is it Gwent? Is Gwent the flaw?

(I really don't get into Gwent, anyway)

I'd be fascinated to see what CD projekt RED's secret is if they can manage to do all these things so much better than other AAA develops can.

Good communication? Longer pre-production? A genius project manager? Slave labour? Selling their souls to the devil?

K12:
I'd be fascinated to see what CD projekt RED's secret is if they can manage to do all these things so much better than other AAA develops can.

Good communication? Longer pre-production? A genius project manager? Slave labour? Selling their souls to the devil?

Genuine respect for the Witcher universe and not being dependant on a soulless western publisher...EASEGASOFT

...tho I wouldn't rule out a dark pact with some polish witch coven...

Took the words right out of my mouth. I really do feel the same about this game, it's magical

K12:
I'd be fascinated to see what CD projekt RED's secret is if they can manage to do all these things so much better than other AAA develops can.

Good communication? Longer pre-production? A genius project manager? Slave labour? Selling their souls to the devil?

One point that comes to mind, which surprisingly enough I don't think I've seen mentioned in many discussions of how the Witcher 3 manages to be so massive and yet so consistently good, is that costs are bound to be far lower when making games in a place such as Poland, rather than places like the USA, Canada, or most of Western Europe. And I do believe the entirety of the developement team is still based in Poland.

Taking a gander at the average mothly wages, we find a value of $4,537 for the USA, and only $1,753 for Poland.[1] So for every employee in the USA, you can hire approx. 2.5 in Poland. Assuming these employees are of a similar quality as their western counterparts, it's no wonder they are able to create such big games. They have a huge advantage in costs, allowing them to work with far more manpower. And they still sell the game at regional prices (e.g. 60 dollars in the USA) so their revenue is the same as that of western developers.

In fact, an interview with one of the directors confirms this: "The industry must be able to readapt internally, and there is no textbook solution for that. We can't all move to smaller countries to do cheaper games there - I'm talking mainly about American developers, as the costs of hiring specialists in the US are very high. We have a way better situation with Poland being a 'cheaper' country, where we pay less to our employees than in the US - that's a fact. We gain some money from that, and we have a chance to make bigger games. Besides, RPGs are rarely released, so we operate within a niche."[2]

It doesn't make their game any less impressive, but it seems like this is often overlooked. It almost doesn't seem fair to criticize Western studios for not being able to keep up with the sheer size of The Witcher 3.

[1] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage UNECE 2011 statistics. I chose this data-set since it seems like a better representation of the cost of an employee to the employer, rather than the living expenses, while still taking into account some of the costs of labor regulations.

Fat_Hippo:

K12:
I'd be fascinated to see what CD projekt RED's secret is if they can manage to do all these things so much better than other AAA develops can.

Good communication? Longer pre-production? A genius project manager? Slave labour? Selling their souls to the devil?

One point that comes to mind, which surprisingly enough I don't think I've seen mentioned in many discussions of how the Witcher 3 manages to be so massive and yet so consistently good, is that costs are bound to be far lower when making games in a place such as Poland, rather than places like the USA, Canada, or most of Western Europe. And I do believe the entirety of the developement team is still based in Poland.

Taking a gander at the average mothly wages, we find a value of $4,537 for the USA, and only $1,753 for Poland.[1] So for every employee in the USA, you can hire approx. 2.5 in Poland. Assuming these employees are of a similar quality as their western counterparts, it's no wonder they are able to create such big games. They have a huge advantage in costs, allowing them to work with far more manpower. And they still sell the game at regional prices (e.g. 60 dollars in the USA) so their revenue is the same as that of western developers.

In fact, an interview with one of the directors confirms this: "The industry must be able to readapt internally, and there is no textbook solution for that. We can't all move to smaller countries to do cheaper games there - I'm talking mainly about American developers, as the costs of hiring specialists in the US are very high. We have a way better situation with Poland being a 'cheaper' country, where we pay less to our employees than in the US - that's a fact. We gain some money from that, and we have a chance to make bigger games. Besides, RPGs are rarely released, so we operate within a niche."[2]

It doesn't make their game any less impressive, but it seems like this is often overlooked. It almost doesn't seem fair to criticize Western studios for not being able to keep up with the sheer size of The Witcher 3.

So my suggestion of slave labour wasn't a million miles off.

[1] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage UNECE 2011 statistics. I chose this data-set since it seems like a better representation of the cost of an employee to the employer, rather than the living expenses, while still taking into account some of the costs of labor regulations.

K12:
So my suggestion of slave labour wasn't a million miles off.

Hah, well I'm sure the wages are very fair by polish standards. After all, if wages are lower, prices will usually also be lower. And people with technical skills tend to have enough prospects that they don't need to take jobs they don't want. But in a sense, yes, it's a question of manpower.

Fat_Hippo:

K12:
I'd be fascinated to see what CD projekt RED's secret is if they can manage to do all these things so much better than other AAA develops can.

Good communication? Longer pre-production? A genius project manager? Slave labour? Selling their souls to the devil?

One point that comes to mind, which surprisingly enough I don't think I've seen mentioned in many discussions of how the Witcher 3 manages to be so massive and yet so consistently good, is that costs are bound to be far lower when making games in a place such as Poland, rather than places like the USA, Canada, or most of Western Europe. And I do believe the entirety of the developement team is still based in Poland.

Taking a gander at the average mothly wages, we find a value of $4,537 for the USA, and only $1,753 for Poland.[1] So for every employee in the USA, you can hire approx. 2.5 in Poland. Assuming these employees are of a similar quality as their western counterparts, it's no wonder they are able to create such big games. They have a huge advantage in costs, allowing them to work with far more manpower. And they still sell the game at regional prices (e.g. 60 dollars in the USA) so their revenue is the same as that of western developers.

In fact, an interview with one of the directors confirms this: "The industry must be able to readapt internally, and there is no textbook solution for that. We can't all move to smaller countries to do cheaper games there - I'm talking mainly about American developers, as the costs of hiring specialists in the US are very high. We have a way better situation with Poland being a 'cheaper' country, where we pay less to our employees than in the US - that's a fact. We gain some money from that, and we have a chance to make bigger games. Besides, RPGs are rarely released, so we operate within a niche."[2]

It doesn't make their game any less impressive, but it seems like this is often overlooked. It almost doesn't seem fair to criticize Western studios for not being able to keep up with the sheer size of The Witcher 3.

Thank you. It is surprising how often this gets ignored. Also since they have a second source of revenue (GOG), The Witcher 3's scope makes so much more sense.

[1] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage UNECE 2011 statistics. I chose this data-set since it seems like a better representation of the cost of an employee to the employer, rather than the living expenses, while still taking into account some of the costs of labor regulations.

Fat_Hippo:
Snip

That said, circa 25% of their workforce (and we are not talking low-level QA etc) are from "international" pool - which also means "international money", even when accounting for lower living costs (ehh, though not necessarily so obvious in metropolitan area) and they had to relocate as well. Not everybody is going to treat it purely as investment into their resume.

Shamus Young:
Except Witcher 3 has loads of choice. It arguably has more choice than your average BioWare game, and certainly more than a Bethesda game.

That is true only if you limit "choice" to the branching possibilities of the plot. Overall, the Witcher 3 has considerably less choice than your typical Bethesda game.

I love the Witcher 3 and think it's an absolutely stunning masterpiece. There is no question that CDPR has created an incredible game of truly epic proportions. But from a technical standpoint it's important to realize that the game is extremely and very well focused on just two features: the fluid combat system and the plot, as conveyed through the cutscenes and dialogue. These two extremely well made things are what 80% of the game is about.

For comparison, a typical Bethesda game, like Skyrim, has many more systems, like detailed crafting, deeper interaction with the world, such as sitting and sleeping, buying property, faction systems, detailed NPC stats and inventories, every item being a real object in the world, real and more complex NPC schedules, a leveling system, more varied magic and equipment systems, player customization, etc. From a technical standpoint, a Bethesda game is a much more complex beast, and the much broader spectrum of systems make them less focused and not as flawlessly executed as the two main features in the Witcher 3. So I think its not entirely fair to directly compare the two and ask Bethesda why they can't do something on the same level of awesome.

For me, the Witcher 3 is an amazing adventure game. But its not very good to roleplay in, as you are stuck in your Geralt role and there isn't really much you can do in the world besides going on with the plot and completing contracts. For the freedom of roleplay, nothing beats a Bethesda game.
I wish the Witcher 3 were a better roleplaying game. Then it would be simply mind-blowing.

Yeah I was going to add that in earlier, the differences in wages between Poland and North America/Western Europe probably pay a big factor.

But I think CD Projekt RED still deserves a whole lot of credit here. While a AAA dev has to pay higher wages in NA, while they will employ a lot of talented people there's also likely a lot of strain & overhead tacked on from working under a massive corporate umbrella.

Analyzing them by their finished work, this is a dev team that's worked on one series and produced 3 games over around 10 years. They also have a clear level of progression from The Witcher 1 to The Witcher 3, not everyone can successfully navigate going from a solid niche title to mass market (see: the Gothic series). They started within their means and improved in size & scope as they went along. This sounds to me like a dev studio full of talented people under effective & involved leadership with little corporate overhead & oversight.

Errickfoxy:
Serious talk then.. what does The Witcher 3 do wrong? Anything? Nothing is perfect so it must have flaws of some sort. Is it.. is it Gwent? Is Gwent the flaw?

(I really don't get into Gwent, anyway)

The UI sucked. It was really bad at the start, a massive clusterfuck. They have patched it a bunch but it is still way worse than it needs to be. Also, the itemization isn't great. The game has a million craftable weapons/armor and drops in the world and 99% of them are going to be worthless trash that won't ever be worth using.

In general, everything involving equipment is almost entirely without consequence. You can go most of the game and totally ignore it, even on Death Marches. They could have definitely focused on that more to improve it, either by streamlining it into a system of sidegrades or give it a more proper loot system with an actual progression.

Besides that though, the game is pretty damn perfect.

Errickfoxy:
Serious talk then.. what does The Witcher 3 do wrong? Anything? Nothing is perfect so it must have flaws of some sort. Is it.. is it Gwent? Is Gwent the flaw?

(I really don't get into Gwent, anyway)

The Flaw is that much of the gameplay outside of combat in The Witcher 3 is rather superficial, since it consists almost exclusively of going to waypoints and using Witcher Sense once you get there or following trails in Witcher Sense instead of going directly to the waypoint. The politicking done in the Witcher is also almost exclusively tied to making certain dialogue choices or forking paths in Quest lines (ie. getting the key for Djikstra or getting the location of Dandelion) and isn't really the result of some long time planning on Geralts/the players part. Some of the side quests are also rather fetchy and even some of the Witcher Contracts become little more then "go there, use witcher sense, murder mini-boss(es) and come back for reward".

All that being said though, the Witcher 3 is so proficient in world building that these flaws are easily forgiven or even easy to forget. All the factions you meet feel realistic and internally consistent and all get plenty of fleshing out, all the major and most of the minor characters also get a lot of characterization or at least effective characterization. Even if most side quests are "use witcher sense, fight something, return" the world building makes it feel like an important task and less of a repetitive chore then it really is.

Errickfoxy:
Serious talk then.. what does The Witcher 3 do wrong? Anything? Nothing is perfect so it must have flaws of some sort. Is it.. is it Gwent? Is Gwent the flaw?

(I really don't get into Gwent, anyway)

Gwent is fine. Some people just don't like it because they're completionists but also don't want to play a card game to complete everything, more of a self-imposed dislike than the fact its actually bad. Its 100% optional in game even.

Combat in the game is also rather simple and lacking depth, mostly due to balance issues more than anything. Using the shield and then fighting normally allows you to overcome all enemies in game with ease, even if they're twice your level.
There's also just so much stuff its fairly easy to get fatigued. Some interface elements are also clunky, as is the horse, and certain design mistakes, some of which have been fixed like the no stash to store your stuff, made playing painful at times.

Otherwise, by and large most things it does right, and more right than other companies. Its why its so acclaimed. Doesn't mean it is the sort of game everyone will enjoy, but what it does it does damn well.

K12:
I'd be fascinated to see what CD projekt RED's secret is if they can manage to do all these things so much better than other AAA develops can.

Good communication? Longer pre-production? A genius project manager? Slave labour? Selling their souls to the devil?

For one, true passion for their work. They are probably treated quite well by the company, and The Witcher series is part of Polish Heritage in a way, so it is something they are probably fairly invested in, and want to bring to the world.
Some other Developers have this, however what I feel also contributes to separating CD PR from the rest of the games market is the combination of AAA backing and experience, with the understanding and goal of creating a niche product, rather than a flavour-of-the-month product that most AAA studios try to push out.
This allows them to focus on making a polished, cohesive experience, and gives them to desire to do so. Companies like Bioware have had the passion before, and at times have wanted to either make a niche game but lacked AAA backing, or had AAA backing but no longer wanted to make a niche game. Additionally, technology marches ever forward, and what we know about game design, and the tools game designers have and gamers have to play these games on are far more advanced than what was around when, say, Baldur's Gate or Mass Effect were made.

Tiamat666:
That is true only if you limit "choice" to the branching possibilities of the plot. Overall, the Witcher 3 has considerably less choice than your typical Bethesda game.

I love the Witcher 3 and think it's an absolutely stunning masterpiece. There is no question that CDPR has created an incredible game of truly epic proportions. But from a technical standpoint it's important to realize that the game is extremely and very well focused on just two features: the fluid combat system and the plot, as conveyed through the cutscenes and dialogue. These two extremely well made things are what 80% of the game is about.

For comparison, a typical Bethesda game, like Skyrim, has many more systems, like detailed crafting, deeper interaction with the world, such as sitting and sleeping, buying property, faction systems, detailed NPC stats and inventories, every item being a real object in the world, real and more complex NPC schedules, a leveling system, more varied magic and equipment systems, player customization, etc. From a technical standpoint, a Bethesda game is a much more complex beast, and the much broader spectrum of systems make them less focused and not as flawlessly executed as the two main features in the Witcher 3. So I think its not entirely fair to directly compare the two and ask Bethesda why they can't do something on the same level of awesome.

For me, the Witcher 3 is an amazing adventure game. But its not very good to roleplay in, as you are stuck in your Geralt role and there isn't really much you can do in the world besides going on with the plot and completing contracts. For the freedom of roleplay, nothing beats a Bethesda game.
I wish the Witcher 3 were a better roleplaying game. Then it would be simply mind-blowing.

Eh, had this sort of discussion before and I think we'll have to agree to disagree, but Bethesda games suck for Role Playing. They're great for sandbox, like an actual sandbox is, but as good for roleplaying as an empty sandbox all alone as well.

In Bethesda games, there's no feedback. There's no opportunities to allow you to really define your character, or have the world at all recognise who your character is. It is much like playing a game of Dungeons and Dragons where the DM refuses to acknowledge your character's existence. You can kill all the goblins you want, but that's about it. You can boast to the guard and try and be a really arrogant prick, he'll still just say "I used to be an adventurer like you, then I took an arrow to the knee".
Games like Witcher or Bioware allow you more roleplaying in that you get to actually define your character somewhat, and the world will react to it. Decide to be a highly pragmatic Shepard? You'll be faced with choices as to whether you save the Council or not, whether to kill the terrorist or save civilians - ect. I allows you to express your character, rather than just imagine them. In the Witcher you can define who Geralt is as a person. Is he merciless and cruel like Witchers supposedly are, is he more human and cares more. Where does he draw the line. There are times when you are given the chance to show this, and even though he is a pre-made character, you can still role-play him well, as roleplay doesn't mean to just imagine something happening, it means to put yourself in the shoes of a character - maybe you made them up, maybe you didn't - and take on their role, making their decisions as them, not yourself.

To me its the difference between lying in bed imagining you're someone else and doing things, and playing a game of D&D where the DM will throw things at your character that force you to make a decision, and then have the others in the game react to what you did. Of course, D&D is great because it has the perfect freedom of a sandbox, like Bethesda games, as well as the depth and ability to respond to your characters, like Bioware/Witcher. All in all though, both games only have one side of this in full, so I don't really think you can call out Bethesda as being the better Role Playing Games, or offering more choice. Neither really gives the full role playing experience, which half of it you prefer is more to personal tastes than an objective measure.

On the systems side of things, I'd say Witcher's crafting is more detailed than, say, Skyrim. Neither of them are especially deep or complex to be quite honest.
Sleeping is in Witcher in the form of Meditation.
Witcher in my experience has as much of a faction system as Skyrim, which is to say next to none.
Both have real and complex NPC schedules, I would not at all call Skyrim's better in this regard.
Both have a levelling system, Witcher's IMO contains more depth due to the inclusion of Mutagens and how you use them.
Equipment system is not more varied in Skyrim, it is more varied in Witcher 3.

There are a couple of extra systems in the likes of Skyrim, but there are also some systems Witcher has that Skyrim doesn't - such as Witcher senses, or Gwent. On the technical side of things, I'd have to say Witcher is probably the more complex technically, as in addition to its extra gameplay systems, the extra graphics systems in play also would take a lot of complexity to make. The big reason Bethesda aren't able to do something like Witcher is 1. No-one at Bethesda can write dialogue at an at all respectable level, and 2. They refuse to leave the Gamebryo engine, even if they do update and rebrand it every now and then, which has been showing its limitations for a decade, without doing a ton of work to update it, and 3. Even when they do update it, their programmers are a bunch of apes, and as a company they're renowned for how buggy their releases are.

I hope their upcoming cyberpunk game is just as fully fleshed out and nuanced as Witcher 3 is. They have set themselves a pretty high bar with their last game.

I think we're past the point where voice acting has a significant negative impact on story-driven games any more. The Witcher 3 is the most triumphant example of this, but it's far from the first. In fact, I'd say most non-Bethesda RPGs and sandboxes have been able to get away with it. I never found the voice acting to be a problem in Bioware RPGs or the GTA games for example, which both feature a fairly large pool of voice-acted extras, if not to the degree of Witcher.

If anything, I think it's good that the limitations of VA encourages developers to cut down on words and map size, since it can potentially stop them going overboard with sheer quantity.

Errickfoxy:
Serious talk then.. what does The Witcher 3 do wrong? Anything?

It needs a lot more Agatha Christie and the possibility of failure even if we got all the clues. And more Witcher Contracts.

i think the thing where one voice actor has a lot of roles has a slightly odd charm to it. it was quite funny to walk around a post apocalyptic mojave desert that was 40% inhabited by Sasuke Uchiha (or in the case of the brotherhood of steel closer to 50% sasuke uchiha)

008Zulu:
I hope their upcoming cyberpunk game is just as fully fleshed out and nuanced as Witcher 3 is. They have set themselves a pretty high bar with their last game.

If it is the world may never see me again.

The Witcher 3 does actually cheat on some of these due to its (superior to the games) book origins.

But yeah. It aint STALKER but it is great. Sure it is shite compared to the books but then again all video games are. It is just our young art form still maturing... and some cuts being made not to rustle gamer only/non book reader jimmies.

I will say that some choices arent really correctly done or lack depth despite how deep they may seem. And that the world is not perfect and is kind of static most of the time. But all open world games except STALKER are like that so big deal.

Still for everyone who liked the game - Read. The. Books.
If you played the game and liked it... that is the next and bigger, better step.

I did do my own checking, and apparently it did make a 75%(ish) profit, so my original theory was off.

I'm guessing marketing (which I don't really recall much of, certainly not the announcement/pre-release/live action/gameplay/release/tv spot/etc trailer spam over years), and solid project management would account for most of it. Being confined to one country probably helps too, as much as AAA companies like to spread out all over the world to sound impressive, you're losing time sending your stuff all over like that, and probably money in exchange rates.

Possibly other small subtleties as well. In a contrasting case, Destiny, for instance, apparently takes hours to load a single map for a design to work on, which a)is insanely slow, b)means you're paying the map design guy to play Angry Birds on his phone or something while it loads. Streamlining your tools can do a lot for you.

Charcharo:
Sure it is shite compared to the books but then again all video games are.

Not sure what books you've been reading, but for me the game script is the superior one. Might be the problem of translation, but apart from The Last Wish, everything else just felt underwhelming. It's great at some individual scenes, but as a whole it just doesn't give me that warm and fuzzy feeling.

Errickfoxy:
Serious talk then.. what does The Witcher 3 do wrong? Anything? Nothing is perfect so it must have flaws of some sort. Is it.. is it Gwent? Is Gwent the flaw?

(I really don't get into Gwent, anyway)

The protagonist is Geralt, instead of something fun like a naked demon-killing catgirl.

Spushkin:

Charcharo:
Sure it is shite compared to the books but then again all video games are.

Not sure what books you've been reading, but for me the game script is the superior one. Might be the problem of translation, but apart from The Last Wish, everything else just felt underwhelming. It's great at some individual scenes, but as a whole it just doesn't give me that warm and fuzzy feeling.

Must be the translation then. I hear the EN ones are not that good. The Spanish and Bulgarian ones are great.

The difference is gigantic. CDPR can not even come close when it comes down to thematic coherence, focus, characters and plotline. It is good fan fiction at best.

Tiamat666:
That is true only if you limit "choice" to the branching possibilities of the plot. Overall, the Witcher 3 has considerably less choice than your typical Bethesda game.

I love the Witcher 3 and think it's an absolutely stunning masterpiece. There is no question that CDPR has created an incredible game of truly epic proportions. But from a technical standpoint it's important to realize that the game is extremely and very well focused on just two features: the fluid combat system and the plot, as conveyed through the cutscenes and dialogue. These two extremely well made things are what 80% of the game is about.

For comparison, a typical Bethesda game, like Skyrim, has many more systems, like detailed crafting, deeper interaction with the world, such as sitting and sleeping, buying property, faction systems, detailed NPC stats and inventories, every item being a real object in the world, real and more complex NPC schedules, a leveling system, more varied magic and equipment systems, player customization, etc. From a technical standpoint, a Bethesda game is a much more complex beast, and the much broader spectrum of systems make them less focused and not as flawlessly executed as the two main features in the Witcher 3. So I think its not entirely fair to directly compare the two and ask Bethesda why they can't do something on the same level of awesome.

THANK YOU! I've seen way too much Bethesda-bashing around here and it's really just unfair. Witcher is a much more focused experience than TES. That's all there is to it. And it gains some things and loses some from doing so but either way, comparing TES to the Witcher is just ridiculous. Two RPG's with very different goals.

Baresark:

FoolKiller:
But then to save money they will just give you a digital manual instead of a real one with the physical purchase.

Actually, The Witcher III: Wild Hunt not only gives you a manual. There's a thank you card and stickers etc.

But then they must make up that money by nickel and diming you with microtransactions.

Actually, The Witcher III: Wild Hunt gives you over a dozen pieces of DLC for free that, while small, would be charged for by other companies

Well then to protect their investment the PC version must be loaded with always online DRM and such.

Actually, The Witcher III: Wild Hunt can be purchased from CDProjekt Red's digital platform, GOG, which provides DRM-free versions of the game.

The Steam version is actually DRM free as well. All you have to do is go to the directory and access the exe. It should just start right up.

Honest question because I actually don't know the answer, but can you get the installation files from Steam, and then install and run the game on a computer that doesn't even have Steam installed, or doesn't even have an internet connection? If not, then it's not DRM free.

Charcharo:
The difference is gigantic. CDPR can not even come close when it comes down to thematic coherence, focus, characters and plotline. It is good fan fiction at best.

I disagree, but never ye mind. The important thing is that I agree everyone who likes the game should read the books. As it happens, the books are much more accessible if you've played the games, and I don't think I can claim the same in the other direction, but that goes for every book vs film vs game ever :)

Blackbird71:

Baresark:

FoolKiller:
But then to save money they will just give you a digital manual instead of a real one with the physical purchase.

Actually, The Witcher III: Wild Hunt not only gives you a manual. There's a thank you card and stickers etc.

But then they must make up that money by nickel and diming you with microtransactions.

Actually, The Witcher III: Wild Hunt gives you over a dozen pieces of DLC for free that, while small, would be charged for by other companies

Well then to protect their investment the PC version must be loaded with always online DRM and such.

Actually, The Witcher III: Wild Hunt can be purchased from CDProjekt Red's digital platform, GOG, which provides DRM-free versions of the game.

The Steam version is actually DRM free as well. All you have to do is go to the directory and access the exe. It should just start right up.

Honest question because I actually don't know the answer, but can you get the installation files from Steam, and then install and run the game on a computer that doesn't even have Steam installed, or doesn't even have an internet connection? If not, then it's not DRM free.

I don't think you can get the install files from Steam. You should be able to copy the installed files and play them on any computer though, which will come with some weirdness of course.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here