The Witcher 3 - DAT TRAILER THO edition *NOW WITH GAMEPLAY FROM E3AND IGN*

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

This game is going to be perfect.

Tywin Lannister as Emrhys? Brilliant, graphics looks amazing too and the story will be intriguing, can't wait to get some actual gameplay footage next week.

Ey.

I really, really, really wish I could like these games.

Ah well. I doubt that my poor long-suffering PC would be able to run it anyway.

It's a shame that The Witcher 2 was such a disappointment for me. The Witcher 1 was clearly a labor of love for CD Projekt, despite limited resources and funds. The game came out at a time that there was a serious lull in PC RPG's and it really filled a nice niche until the release of Dragon Age 1. Yeah, it had wonky as hell combat, "meh" graphics, and a semi-bland storyline (based on it's Vanilla Powerfantasy McBland main character), but it was reasonably fun.

The Witcher 2, however, I just can't do it. I tried, very hard. The graphics are heavily improved, the game is much more detailed, and yet... so many things that *I* as a gamer, can't deal with anymore. The quest hub area right at the beginning of the game with the hours and hours of absolutely story irrelevant (but sorta required to progress) side quest bullshit. The incredibly under-written Geralt. The complete disconnect of Geralt now traveling around with Triss, but still being... err... Geralt (I guess they have an "understanding?" That makes her really significantly less interesting than in the prior game).

The potion mechanic. Oh god, the potion mechanic. Honestly, The Witcher 2, for me, did a lot of things well. I couldn't get into the boring side quests and I found the story and main character sadly unengaging. The combat was trying very hard to be deep and complex (something it isn't) and ended up just feeling more tedious than the prior game. However, the potion mechanic was just unforgivably bad. Bad, bad, bad. Whoever designed the entire potion/potion drinking system for The Witcher 2 needs to be fired and banished from the games industry entirely.

It's depressing for me. The Witcher 3 looks like it has some good stuff. Those graphics are really beautiful. If the combat is more engaging than the last trip around, well, maybe it'll be worth a look. It's a shame that we're still shackled to Geralt, the settings least interesting character.

the potion drinking "mechanic" in the Witcher series is "a point of lore" and is a concession to the fact that in this game you are actually playing the role of a predefined character in a predefined world.

they are about as likely to change it as they are the two swords thing...and for exactly the same reasons.

i find it eyebrow raising you complain of "Vanilla McBland" and then you request much the same from the games mechanics.

it's not supposed to be a Diablo/Dark Alliance/WoW/spam potion buttons = live through near anything game.

the narrative proposition that "potions" are preparatory and that you have to learn of your foes and think and plan ahead is, imo, a perfectly justifiable and arguably "realistic" even excluding the fact it is deeply rooted in the wider context.

alternatively...it's just plain ole "buffing"...\(_o)/

I keep throwing money at the screen, but nothing is happening! February get here sooner! I'm so damned hype but also largely depressed because I know my computer doesn't have a chance of running this bad boy. Looks like I'm getting the PS4 version... yeah.

Sleekit:
they are about as likely to change it as they are the two swords thing...and for the same reasons.

What is up with the two swords thing anyway?

Okay, so he uses a special silver sword for killing monsters. Apparently harpies and shit have internal organs that are immune to being stabbed. Fine, whatever, they're mythical monsters, it's magic. I guess their organs are magic too... because magic. Gotcha.

But why exactly does he need a not-special-silver sword for stabbing people? Surely the silver one could do that too? Like, he stabs a dude through the throat with the silver sword and they'll just be like, "You have severed my windpipe and multiple blood vessels, but you used the wrong kind of metal, noob! So I'm not dead!"

Trailer looks pretty good.

Not sure bringing Ciri into the game is a good thing though. Sure, people who read the books know who she is, but in W1/2 up till now there was no mention of her whatsoever, and in W1 she was outright replaced by that retarded copy-pasted Alvin boy, who everybody wanted to get rid off. Up till now games worked fine for those who hadn't read books, but now you
have to read them to actually understand what this new Ciri character is all about...

Zhukov:

Sleekit:
they are about as likely to change it as they are the two swords thing...and for the same reasons.

Okay, so he uses a special silver sword for killing monsters. Apparently harpies and shit have internal organs that are immune to being stabbed. Fine, whatever, they're mythical monsters, it's magic. I guess their organs are magic too... because magic. Gotcha.

But why exactly does he need a not-special-silver sword for stabbing people? Surely the silver one could do that too? Like, he stabs a dude through the throat with the silver sword and they'll just be like, "You have severed my windpipe and multiple blood vessels, but you used the wrong kind of metal, noob! So I'm not dead!"

Monsters are sort off allergic to silver in this universe, and wounds inflicted by steel weapons regenerate on most of them. Unfortunately silver is a relatively soft metal, and looses its edge pretty quickly. Sure you can kill a guy in armor with it, maybe even 2 guys, but afterwards it would dull. Good luck cutting that hypothetical harpy with a dull sword...

Sleekit:
the potion drinking "mechanic" in the Witcher series is "a point of lore" and is a concession to the fact that in this game you are actually playing the role of a predefined character in a predefined world.

they are about as likely to change it as they are the two swords thing...and for exactly the same reasons.

i find it eyebrow raising you complain of "Vanilla McBland" and then you request much the same from the games mechanics.

it's not supposed to be a Diablo/Dark Alliance/WoW/spam potion buttons = live through near anything game.

the narrative proposition that "potions" are preparatory and that you have to learn of your foes and think and plan ahead is, imo, a perfectly justifiable and arguably "realistic" even excluding the fact it is deeply rooted in the wider context.

alternatively...it's just plain ole "buffing"...\(_o)/

I understand that "Witchers" must meditate to drink potions in the books. This is one of those *really rare* examples where I'll say that it does not remotely translate to good gameplay and should have been discarded. It comes off as a terrible game mechanic. It may work for the books. It does not work for gameplay.

Nowhere did I ask for bland gameplay. I do think asking for potions to be useable in combat or as combat initiates, based on your enemy, is perfectly reasonable. They are potions, not buffs. Also, most buffs could be cast in combat in most games. Potions wear off and take time and resources to prepare, which means wasted time for wasted potions.

You'll notice I never complained about the two swords thing. It's nonsensical yes, but it's part of the lore and doesn't damage the gameplay, so I really don't mind it.

Zhukov:

Sleekit:
they are about as likely to change it as they are the two swords thing...and for the same reasons.

What is up with the two swords thing anyway?

Okay, so he uses a special silver sword for killing monsters. Apparently harpies and shit have internal organs that are immune to being stabbed. Fine, whatever, they're mythical monsters, it's magic. I guess their organs are magic too... because magic. Gotcha.

But why exactly does he need a not-special-silver sword for stabbing people? Surely the silver one could do that too? Like, he stabs a dude through the throat with the silver sword and they'll just be like, "You have severed my windpipe and multiple blood vessels, but you used the wrong kind of metal, noob! So I'm not dead!"

Monsters are tougher than humans but have an adverse reaction to silver whether for magical or physical reasons, so to effectively damage them you need to use a sword made of a silver alloy. You can use a normal sword, but due to their natural armour/resilience it isn't as effective.

Silver would generally be a bit too soft to use in weapons, a silver alloy blade will probably be weaker than a pure steel one, and also might not hold an edge as well. So whilst you can hurt human enemies with the silver sword, its not as sharp when meeting bare flesh and not really made for piercing armour either.

That's my interpretation anyway.

Alarien:

Sleekit:
the potion drinking "mechanic" in the Witcher series is "a point of lore" and is a concession to the fact that in this game you are actually playing the role of a predefined character in a predefined world.

they are about as likely to change it as they are the two swords thing...and for exactly the same reasons.

i find it eyebrow raising you complain of "Vanilla McBland" and then you request much the same from the games mechanics.

it's not supposed to be a Diablo/Dark Alliance/WoW/spam potion buttons = live through near anything game.

the narrative proposition that "potions" are preparatory and that you have to learn of your foes and think and plan ahead is, imo, a perfectly justifiable and arguably "realistic" even excluding the fact it is deeply rooted in the wider context.

alternatively...it's just plain ole "buffing"...\(_o)/

I understand that "Witchers" must meditate to drink potions in the books. This is one of those *really rare* examples where I'll say that it does not remotely translate to good gameplay and should have been discarded. It comes off as a terrible game mechanic. It may work for the books. It does not work for gameplay.

Nowhere did I ask for bland gameplay. I do think asking for potions to be useable in combat or as combat initiates, based on your enemy, is perfectly reasonable. They are potions, not buffs. Also, most buffs could be cast in combat in most games. Potions wear off and take time and resources to prepare, which means wasted time for wasted potions.

You'll notice I never complained about the two swords thing. It's nonsensical yes, but it's part of the lore and doesn't damage the gameplay, so I really don't mind it.

I actually quite liked the potion mechanic and found it was far better then the ones do in let's say The Elder Scrolls series. I actually need them to help out with fights instead of them just being there and wasting inventory space.

weirdo8977:
YO I NEED THAT MUSIC USED IN THE TRAILER. fucking cant wait for this. WHY YOU NO COME OUT SOONER. D:

There you go.

OT: The trailer was fantastic, I really can't wait for the game. I've been hyped since its announcement, I loved the first 2 and I'm sure I will love this one just as much, probably more.

Kungfu_Teddybear:

weirdo8977:
YO I NEED THAT MUSIC USED IN THE TRAILER. fucking cant wait for this. WHY YOU NO COME OUT SOONER. D:

There you go.

OT: The trailer was fantastic, I really can't wait for the game. I've been hyped since its announcement, I loved the first 2 and I'm sure I will love this one just as much, probably more.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!! God this music is just the best thing ever.

I actually loved the potion mechanic in Witcher games... It's the pretty much the only game I actually used potions in O_o

Zac Jovanovic:
I actually loved the potion mechanic in Witcher games... It's the pretty much the only game I actually used potions in O_o

same for me (besides for HP and MP potions)

Alarien:

Sleekit:
the potion drinking "mechanic" in the Witcher series is "a point of lore" and is a concession to the fact that in this game you are actually playing the role of a predefined character in a predefined world.

they are about as likely to change it as they are the two swords thing...and for exactly the same reasons.

i find it eyebrow raising you complain of "Vanilla McBland" and then you request much the same from the games mechanics.

it's not supposed to be a Diablo/Dark Alliance/WoW/spam potion buttons = live through near anything game.

the narrative proposition that "potions" are preparatory and that you have to learn of your foes and think and plan ahead is, imo, a perfectly justifiable and arguably "realistic" even excluding the fact it is deeply rooted in the wider context.

alternatively...it's just plain ole "buffing"...\(_o)/

I understand that "Witchers" must meditate to drink potions in the books. This is one of those *really rare* examples where I'll say that it does not remotely translate to good gameplay and should have been discarded. It comes off as a terrible game mechanic. It may work for the books. It does not work for gameplay.

Nowhere did I ask for bland gameplay. I do think asking for potions to be useable in combat or as combat initiates, based on your enemy, is perfectly reasonable. They are potions, not buffs. Also, most buffs could be cast in combat in most games. Potions wear off and take time and resources to prepare, which means wasted time for wasted potions.

You'll notice I never complained about the two swords thing. It's nonsensical yes, but it's part of the lore and doesn't damage the gameplay, so I really don't mind it.

That and you know..the potions that they are drinking are toxic according to the lore. That's why they (witchers) need preparation beforehand before using them.

The reason of being so few witchers around is that the initiation "Trial of the Grasses" requires them to mutate their body and endure the toxicity of these potions. The majority of the initiates don't manage to endure it and they die..the others live and become witchers.

Dat trailer indeed. Holy fuckballs. I know you shouldn't get hyped but if The Witcher 2 is anything to go by CD Projekt RED can deliver in leaps and bounds. The game is greatly improved since launch even, right now i would say in it's finalized state it's one of the most stunning achievements in the RPG genre.

If anything this game is going to look freaking sweet, at the very least we are not going to see a visual downgrade from the promotional material. I adored the first game because it took me by surprise and i think the second game really improved every aspect of the game and showed a level of commitment to aftermarket support that was admirable.

They need to take their time on this one though. If The Witcher 2 had released in the state it is in now i think it would have been less divisive. After people clamoring for hard games like Dark Souls i think The Witcher games fit better in the current gaming landscape now than they did a couple of years ago. I find it odd that there is this united wave of support behind Dark Souls but The Witcher continues to be quite divisive.

Alarien:

Sleekit:
the potion drinking "mechanic" in the Witcher series is "a point of lore" and is a concession to the fact that in this game you are actually playing the role of a predefined character in a predefined world.

they are about as likely to change it as they are the two swords thing...and for exactly the same reasons.

i find it eyebrow raising you complain of "Vanilla McBland" and then you request much the same from the games mechanics.

it's not supposed to be a Diablo/Dark Alliance/WoW/spam potion buttons = live through near anything game.

the narrative proposition that "potions" are preparatory and that you have to learn of your foes and think and plan ahead is, imo, a perfectly justifiable and arguably "realistic" even excluding the fact it is deeply rooted in the wider context.

alternatively...it's just plain ole "buffing"...\(_o)/

I understand that "Witchers" must meditate to drink potions in the books. This is one of those *really rare* examples where I'll say that it does not remotely translate to good gameplay and should have been discarded. It comes off as a terrible game mechanic. It may work for the books. It does not work for gameplay.

Nowhere did I ask for bland gameplay. I do think asking for potions to be useable in combat or as combat initiates, based on your enemy, is perfectly reasonable. They are potions, not buffs. Also, most buffs could be cast in combat in most games. Potions wear off and take time and resources to prepare, which means wasted time for wasted potions.

You'll notice I never complained about the two swords thing. It's nonsensical yes, but it's part of the lore and doesn't damage the gameplay, so I really don't mind it.

I think you're looking for a different game. There's more to the Witcher than just combat. There's obviously also the relationships and politics. There's also the research and preparation.

You have to gather knowledge about certain creatures. Using that knowledge you go to the market and try to track down more info, and maybe some recipe for a potion, oil or bomb that will make your job easier.
If you know you're facing a big group of ethereal creatures, you go searching for the recipes and ingredients you need to make cat potions to see them in the darkness and spectre oil to make your attacks more potent. If you're fighting something rather flammable, pack some incendiary bombs and take a potion to increase your stamina for igni signs.

Taking a potion is opposed to mean something in this game. They aren't that hard to make, but if you're missing an ingredient, there's an investment of time. Not to mention deciding on the right choices for each fight. Further more, the potions are in fact toxic, even to witchers in high enough doses. There's a reason, Geralt doesn't just down them and jump into the fray. He has to prepare his body and his mind to endure the abuse he intends to give it.

Think of it like choosing a Loudoun in shooters or other combat games. You choose your Loudoun based on what you expect, then change it accordingly if you fail. The difference is the game gives you the information needed to make the right choices first time.

Preparation is a key aspect of the game, if you don't like it that's fine, but its wrong to call it a design flaw when its something that is:
A) A matter of taste
B) Contributes to the lore and intended feel of the game world
And C) Thoroughly endorsed by many gamers who aren't you

Also worth noting there's nothing nonsensical about the 2 swords, there's plenty of real world mythology which supports the idea of silver (or other materials) causing more damage to evil creatures, and a silver alloy would not make an effective weapon for general use against humans who don't share that weakness.

Zhukov:

Sleekit:
they are about as likely to change it as they are the two swords thing...and for the same reasons.

What is up with the two swords thing anyway?

Okay, so he uses a special silver sword for killing monsters. Apparently harpies and shit have internal organs that are immune to being stabbed. Fine, whatever, they're mythical monsters, it's magic. I guess their organs are magic too... because magic. Gotcha.

But why exactly does he need a not-special-silver sword for stabbing people? Surely the silver one could do that too? Like, he stabs a dude through the throat with the silver sword and they'll just be like, "You have severed my windpipe and multiple blood vessels, but you used the wrong kind of metal, noob! So I'm not dead!"

Silver is not a physical damage weapon. Silver is used for magic creatures made of magic, like a hellhound or ghost. Its like stabbing someone with a silver butter knife meant to kill ghosts. The sharpness isn't what gives the silver sword its power. The metal does the damage, not its sharpness. The metal is awful for physical damage.

Steel does physical damage. Its meant to cut. It has no magical properties so it will go right through a ghost. However for some monsters like a drowner, a walking human corpse, steel works best.

I think its also referenced that the steel witcher swords are made for monsters and not humans, but I can't remember if that's true.

Understand?

Alarien:

Sleekit:
the potion drinking "mechanic" in the Witcher series is "a point of lore" and is a concession to the fact that in this game you are actually playing the role of a predefined character in a predefined world.

they are about as likely to change it as they are the two swords thing...and for exactly the same reasons.

i find it eyebrow raising you complain of "Vanilla McBland" and then you request much the same from the games mechanics.

it's not supposed to be a Diablo/Dark Alliance/WoW/spam potion buttons = live through near anything game.

the narrative proposition that "potions" are preparatory and that you have to learn of your foes and think and plan ahead is, imo, a perfectly justifiable and arguably "realistic" even excluding the fact it is deeply rooted in the wider context.

alternatively...it's just plain ole "buffing"...\(_o)/

I understand that "Witchers" must meditate to drink potions in the books. This is one of those *really rare* examples where I'll say that it does not remotely translate to good gameplay and should have been discarded. It comes off as a terrible game mechanic. It may work for the books. It does not work for gameplay.

Nowhere did I ask for bland gameplay. I do think asking for potions to be useable in combat or as combat initiates, based on your enemy, is perfectly reasonable. They are potions, not buffs. Also, most buffs could be cast in combat in most games. Potions wear off and take time and resources to prepare, which means wasted time for wasted potions.

You'll notice I never complained about the two swords thing. It's nonsensical yes, but it's part of the lore and doesn't damage the gameplay, so I really don't mind it.

You are asking for the witcher to lose its identity and nerf it to be generic.

If you don't like it, fine, but don't demand the devs cut out the lore so you can have your "gameplay."

What next, akimbo shotguns in the Elder Scrolls? Because COD did it? That's exactly what you're asking.

Witcher is a directly translated book series, and unique gameplay. Just because its not generic and canned doesn't make it bad. It means you aren't the audience for the game.

I never had any problem with how potions worked in these games because they don't work the same way they work in other games. The "health" potions in this game just speed up your health regen, just like "mana" potion speed up stamina recovery. Everything else in generally a buff of some sort.

The game emphasized preparation, and it was pretty obvious when you'd be bound for an encounter, so taking 30 seconds to dope up wasn't a big deal. The forest or dark looking cave you are about the enter is bound to have monster so intuitively, you would dope up.

I like how they try to remain true to the lore, and in the end it's not a bad thing at all, just a different approach to the norm. Witchers may be super humans, but at the end of the day, they are still mortal and frail enough to be struck down with a proper strike. I've always liked how their supreme badness is still kept at some realistic level instead of being some sort of uber jedi thing that's unstoppable.

Ultratwinkie:

Zhukov:

Sleekit:
they are about as likely to change it as they are the two swords thing...and for the same reasons.

What is up with the two swords thing anyway?

Okay, so he uses a special silver sword for killing monsters. Apparently harpies and shit have internal organs that are immune to being stabbed. Fine, whatever, they're mythical monsters, it's magic. I guess their organs are magic too... because magic. Gotcha.

But why exactly does he need a not-special-silver sword for stabbing people? Surely the silver one could do that too? Like, he stabs a dude through the throat with the silver sword and they'll just be like, "You have severed my windpipe and multiple blood vessels, but you used the wrong kind of metal, noob! So I'm not dead!"

Silver is not a physical damage weapon. Silver is used for magic creatures made of magic, like a hellhound or ghost. Its like stabbing someone with a silver butter knife meant to kill ghosts. The sharpness isn't what gives the silver sword its power. The metal does the damage, not its sharpness. The metal is awful for physical damage.

Steel does physical damage. Its meant to cut. It has no magical properties so it will go right through a ghost. However for some monsters like a drowner, a walking human corpse, steel works best.

I think its also referenced that the steel witcher swords are made for monsters and not humans, but I can't remember if that's true.

Understand?

"Witchers are known to carry two blades. A silver blade for monsters and steel for humans."
"Both are for monsters."

That's that quote you are alluding to. It's primarily a metaphor for one of the underlying themes of the series in what actually defines a monster, and how appearances can mean very little.

that aside, you got it right about the lore and utility of why they carry two swords. Silver has always been one of those metals from folklore to contain some sort of anti-occult/demonic properties.

It looks phenomenal, but will probably have the same shitty controls and completely emotionless delivery of The Witcher 2.

It's already been said, but I wish I could like these games, since they seem very deep and intricate.

Casual Shinji:
It looks phenomenal, but will probably have the same shitty controls

Witcher 2 had excellent controls in my opinion. it also had one of the best combat systems. reminded me of mount and blade except you don't get butt fucked if you face more then one or two enemies.

Ultratwinkie:

Silver is not a physical damage weapon. Silver is used for magic creatures made of magic, like a hellhound or ghost. Its like stabbing someone with a silver butter knife meant to kill ghosts. The sharpness isn't what gives the silver sword its power. The metal does the damage, not its sharpness. The metal is awful for physical damage.

Steel does physical damage. Its meant to cut. It has no magical properties so it will go right through a ghost. However for some monsters like a drowner, a walking human corpse, steel works best.

I think its also referenced that the steel witcher swords are made for monsters and not humans, but I can't remember if that's true.

Understand?

You do realize that everything you just said there is complete nonsense, right? Yes, ok, *everyone EVER* gets that magical creatures are allergic to silver. It's a tried and true basic story point in pretty much every horror myth... ever.

No one's arguing that silver for monsters is bad.

What is objectively absurd is the idea that silver weapons would not equally harm a non-magical being. If you make a dagger out of silver and stab someone with it, they are going to bleed. It's not going to deflect off of a person's skin, or a dog's skin, or a freaking BEAR'S skin because it's silver. It will still penetrate and do damage.

Silver is very much a physical damage weapon.

What you should be pointing out is that it is a sub-optimal weapon for non-magical creatures because steel can be made stronger and more flexible (carbon spring-steel) and is more likely to do damage and actually maintain it's integrity and edge. It's more efficient.

That said, I've never argued against the two-sword mechanic. I allow for it, because if you approach it in that manner, it makes some sense. What you just said, however, does not.

Ultratwinkie:

Alarien:
snip

You are asking for the witcher to lose its identity and nerf it to be generic.

If you don't like it, fine, but don't demand the devs cut out the lore so you can have your "gameplay."

What next, akimbo shotguns in the Elder Scrolls? Because COD did it? That's exactly what you're asking.

Witcher is a directly translated book series, and unique gameplay. Just because its not generic and canned doesn't make it bad. It means you aren't the audience for the game.

Nope, I did not ask for it to lose its identity. I asked it to lose a tedious gameplay element that makes gameplay clunky and unintuitive. I loved going into a cave for the first time and finding certain monsters that I did not predict were there and thinking "well, hell, I have to go find ingredients for the potions that will make this area easier now" and having to leave and come back. "Oh, and I need to remember to drink them prior to getting into a fight." You may enjoy that sort of time-wasting faffing about. I do not.

Ten minutes is a short buff and most of the potions in TW2 are 10 min max potions. If they were 20-30 min, it might make more sense in the sense of "I am proceeding into this area with a bunch of x monsters," let me buff up in a way that prepares me for that experience. Ten minutes however is "let me buff up for the next 2-3 fights, after which I'll need to stop and buff up again, I hope I have enough potions to get through this whole area." That's just eye-rollingly tedious.

And throwing COD around as an insult is going to be the next Godwin's Law, I swear. I don't play them because they are bad. Even if I did, the comment would still be just a cheap attempt to sound cool.

If you are a Witcher lore-hound who slavishly follows the books and you find the game's systems to be great for you, awesome. I did not. I found it so clunky and dull that I couldn't be bothered to care further. This is a video game interpretation of that world. It should follow as closely as possible, but should not do so when it becomes a drag on the experience, which, for me, it is.

weirdo8977:

Casual Shinji:
It looks phenomenal, but will probably have the same shitty controls

Witcher 2 had excellent controls in my opinion. it also had one of the best combat systems. reminded me of mount and blade except you don't get butt fucked if you face more then one or two enemies.

I freaking hated it. I hated having to prepare for combat beforehand with potions and shit, when most of the time I didn't even know when combat was going to occur.

That trailer is marvelous. Having just started reading the fourth book, I'm extremely looking forward to this.

Far off release does not bother me. I still need to finish the first game and start/finish the second >.>

I'm excited. If Witcher 3 is nearly as much of a step up from their previous work as Witcher 2 was to 1, then we're in for a real treat. So far it seems like CDProjekt have only been getting better and better with time and experience, with any luck the third game will continue that trend.

Casual Shinji:

weirdo8977:

Casual Shinji:
It looks phenomenal, but will probably have the same shitty controls

Witcher 2 had excellent controls in my opinion. it also had one of the best combat systems. reminded me of mount and blade except you don't get butt fucked if you face more then one or two enemies.

I freaking hated it. I hated having to prepare for combat beforehand with potions and shit, when most of the time I didn't even know when combat was going to occur.

Eh, they last for ten minutes, which is kinda forever, and you find resources for them all over the place, so you're never going to run out. Just pretty much drink them whenever you're going to leave town.

That said, you don't really need them all that much. As long as you dodgeroll all over the place and stab people in the back you're fine. Seriously the dodgeroll is extremely broken.

My savegame is ready!

I really hope the action and open world doesn't take away from the monster investigation quests though. What I always loved about the Witcher games is how many side-questlines feel like an episode of Supernatural, where you search for clues and stuff on the monster first, and then figure out what to do, including actually good, grey-grey moral choices.

Alarien:
*le snip*

i would concede that the reducing length of the buffs from potions in the second game was, imo, a bad choice and for the reasons you suggest.

hopefully there is a better balance this time round :)

personally what i don't want to see is "in fight potion spamming" and, from a gameplay pov, i personally feel the preparation phase of a fight reinforces your nature "as a Hunter"...because it does basically kind of make you (yes "make you") have to sort of act like one rather than merely being a "Vanilla McBland" "keep on running" "action hero"...

also...in relation to people who say..."i was caught on the hop"...imo this game is somewhat "old school" in its "ye...you're probably gonna want to save...a lot...." if you catch my drift...and again i don't mind that...but then i am basically physically "old school" :)

but there are dialogue clues and books and the like...even quest rewards, cutsceens and plot points...deliberately put in the games to aid you in figuring out when and where you're likely to meet specific foes however...and ofc if, after that, you're not thinking about what'll be in this dark cave/ruin you're just about to sprint into[1]...well...

as for the swords thing that's been brought up..."both are for monsters"...but this is not merely just a philosophical comment as the iron one is supposedly specifically "meteorite iron" due to its supposed properties etc, etc...the use of both metals ties in with a lot of long standing legends and folklore and the like (even recently we see Maleficent borrowing from this in relation to the use of iron)...in game you can hurt with either on the wrong target...just to varying degrees of efficiency...i doubt there's anyone who's played the game who hasn't accidentally "used the wrong sword" and yet still bludgeoned a foe to death with it at some point...

sometimes maybe even deliberately...

[1] like maybe "dark" for a start...

If those were real time PC graphics I will jizz my pants in stereo 3D.

Sleekit:

Alarien:
*le snip*

i would concede that the reducing length of the buffs from potions in the second game was, imo, a bad choice and for the reasons you suggest.

hopefully there is a better balance this time round :)

personally what i don't want to see is "in fight potion spamming" and, from a gameplay pov, i personally feel the preparation phase of a fight reinforces your nature "as a Hunter"...because it does basically kind of make you (yes "make you") have to sort of act like one rather than merely being a "Vanilla McBland" "keep on running" "action hero"...

You see, I'm totally fine with this. I'm not a fan of in fight potion spamming either. I like the Souls mix of "if you can drink a potion, do it, but you'll probably get murdered trying." I'd also be ok with no potions in combat if you could maybe drink right before combat initiates or the potions lasted 100-200% longer. That would be good balance, in my opinion.

I'm also not a fan of the reliance on dodge-roll. I actually have a video series on Dark Souls II in which I make a point of avoiding dodge-rolling as much as possible.

I would have been a lot happier with TW2's combat system if it had focused more on a slightly more intuitive block/parry mechanic (the current one just doesn't work well enough, however, I have NOT tried the combat upgrade mod, so that might help a lot) instead of rolling around like an idiot. Let's face it, the idea of rolling around like a fool while fighting with a sword is stupid the point of immersion breaking. No one would ever do this.

Alarien:
*snip*

on the subject of rolling about a lot...personally i tend to use "CC" signs in combination with a sword spec to get the kinda gameplay i like out the game (which could maybe best be described as "cinematic swordplay")...i'm not big on the rolling about myself...you might wanna try it out if you haven't already and if you tend to instinctively head for heavy specialisation...there are some great "little bit here, little bit there" specs you can squeeze out Geralt (especially if you really have a handle on mutagens and where to find the best swords).

Alarien:
I like the Souls mix of "if you can drink a potion, do it, but you'll probably get murdered trying.

i can't remember if it was possible in the first or second game but in one of them im almost sure it was possible to trap mobs (i think some "specing into traps" was required) and (dare to) go into meditation and take some pots mid fight...i remember it cause i thought it was kind of "fung fu movie funny"...but also kinda cool.

need to replay again soon....also probably buy a new gfx card :s

Zhukov:

Sleekit:
they are about as likely to change it as they are the two swords thing...and for the same reasons.

What is up with the two swords thing anyway?

Okay, so he uses a special silver sword for killing monsters. Apparently harpies and shit have internal organs that are immune to being stabbed. Fine, whatever, they're mythical monsters, it's magic. I guess their organs are magic too... because magic. Gotcha.

But why exactly does he need a not-special-silver sword for stabbing people? Surely the silver one could do that too? Like, he stabs a dude through the throat with the silver sword and they'll just be like, "You have severed my windpipe and multiple blood vessels, but you used the wrong kind of metal, noob! So I'm not dead!"

Simplified from what's in the books. Been a while since I read them so I cold be completely misremembering but from what I remember the silver swords are for magical creatures and ones that can't be hurt by normal means. He doesn't use it for anything he doesn't have to because its expensive, not as strong and could break or get dents in it. In the books I think he even keeps it in padded locked box. He isn't fighting random monsters and ghosts all over the place. Monsters are actually pretty rare and many of them don't even really require a witcher (Geralt doesn't let you forget this because he whines about it a fair bit). When he fights them he is usually hunting them down and engaging them on purpose so he has time to prepare, has a good idea of what it is he is going to be fighting and he doesn't need to carry both swords around on his back all the time. The games have monster jumping you every time you take step outside city walls so its easier just to split it into monster = silver, human = steel and have him carry both.

Alarien:

Ultratwinkie:

Silver is not a physical damage weapon. Silver is used for magic creatures made of magic, like a hellhound or ghost. Its like stabbing someone with a silver butter knife meant to kill ghosts. The sharpness isn't what gives the silver sword its power. The metal does the damage, not its sharpness. The metal is awful for physical damage.

Steel does physical damage. Its meant to cut. It has no magical properties so it will go right through a ghost. However for some monsters like a drowner, a walking human corpse, steel works best.

I think its also referenced that the steel witcher swords are made for monsters and not humans, but I can't remember if that's true.

Understand?

You do realize that everything you just said there is complete nonsense, right? Yes, ok, *everyone EVER* gets that magical creatures are allergic to silver. It's a tried and true basic story point in pretty much every horror myth... ever.

No one's arguing that silver for monsters is bad.

What is objectively absurd is the idea that silver weapons would not equally harm a non-magical being. If you make a dagger out of silver and stab someone with it, they are going to bleed. It's not going to deflect off of a person's skin, or a dog's skin, or a freaking BEAR'S skin because it's silver. It will still penetrate and do damage.

Silver is very much a physical damage weapon.

What you should be pointing out is that it is a sub-optimal weapon for non-magical creatures because steel can be made stronger and more flexible (carbon spring-steel) and is more likely to do damage and actually maintain it's integrity and edge. It's more efficient.

That said, I've never argued against the two-sword mechanic. I allow for it, because if you approach it in that manner, it makes some sense. What you just said, however, does not.

Ultratwinkie:

Alarien:
snip

You are asking for the witcher to lose its identity and nerf it to be generic.

If you don't like it, fine, but don't demand the devs cut out the lore so you can have your "gameplay."

What next, akimbo shotguns in the Elder Scrolls? Because COD did it? That's exactly what you're asking.

Witcher is a directly translated book series, and unique gameplay. Just because its not generic and canned doesn't make it bad. It means you aren't the audience for the game.

Nope, I did not ask for it to lose its identity. I asked it to lose a tedious gameplay element that makes gameplay clunky and unintuitive. I loved going into a cave for the first time and finding certain monsters that I did not predict were there and thinking "well, hell, I have to go find ingredients for the potions that will make this area easier now" and having to leave and come back. "Oh, and I need to remember to drink them prior to getting into a fight." You may enjoy that sort of time-wasting faffing about. I do not.

Ten minutes is a short buff and most of the potions in TW2 are 10 min max potions. If they were 20-30 min, it might make more sense in the sense of "I am proceeding into this area with a bunch of x monsters," let me buff up in a way that prepares me for that experience. Ten minutes however is "let me buff up for the next 2-3 fights, after which I'll need to stop and buff up again, I hope I have enough potions to get through this whole area." That's just eye-rollingly tedious.

And throwing COD around as an insult is going to be the next Godwin's Law, I swear. I don't play them because they are bad. Even if I did, the comment would still be just a cheap attempt to sound cool.

If you are a Witcher lore-hound who slavishly follows the books and you find the game's systems to be great for you, awesome. I did not. I found it so clunky and dull that I couldn't be bothered to care further. This is a video game interpretation of that world. It should follow as closely as possible, but should not do so when it becomes a drag on the experience, which, for me, it is.

Silver is a soft metal. It would need to be diluted to stand a chance of not breaking or deforming. Why do you think silver swords were only for show and NEVER used in actual combat in history?

Because silver is a shitty metal that is only symbolic. Even copper beats it in both weight and strength. Its heavy, its too soft to hold its shape, and on top of that its expensive.

Whats nonsense is your continual demand to dumb down the Witcher. It has unique rules to set it apart from the generic fantasy fest, deal with it.

Not everyone is "dragged down" by different rules. You are whining because it isn't the same as every other game out there. If you don't like it, don't play it.

The Witcher does not need to copy the other bog standard RPGs. Because RPGs have been dumbed down to hell and back thanks to Bethesda. Even Bioware games are dumbed down after Dragon Age 1.

But don't lecture people who actually like the book and the game. Because its the same as criticizing Game of Thrones for having too many factions and too much story.

If you don't like it, don't play it. Don't come around demanding the devs conform to what YOU think they should do.

Because its you vs the millions who bought the witcher.

I also really liked the potion mechanics of the second game. Not only does it fit in with the lore, it also actually makes you feel like a professional, getting ready before a fight, and it makes battles that catch you unprepared all the more intense. I prefer that to just rushing in somewhere and then fumbling around with potions on the fly like an idiot. In a real battle, you'd never have time to whip out a bottle of liquid and chug it all down. As in Dark Souls, the enemy would take huge advantage of that.

Dandark:
Wasn't that bothered at first but im steadily getting more and more hyped for the The Witcher 3.

Can someone explain to me who Yennifer and Ciri are though? I've only played the second game once or twice and although they are mentioned briefly im not sure who they are.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked