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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

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!"

Because silver is a relatively soft metal that isn't suited for medieval combat. To put things in perspective, let's look at the Mohs scale of mineral hardness. Near the bottom with a hardness of 1 is Talc and near the top with a hardness of 10 is diamond. On that scale, Silver rates at a 2.5-3 along with Gold, Aluminum, and Magnesium. Low grade steel on the other hand rates at 4-4.5, with hardened steel at 7.5-8 along with Tungsten. Also keep in mind that Mohs is an ordinal scale and not proportionate, if we're using a proportionate scale the absolute hardness of Talc is 1 and the hardness of Diamond is 1600. Unless you were fighting a completely defenseless enemy (unarmed and unarmored) who also happened to be unconscious I would be surprised if you could finish a fight with a silver sword without it snapping or warping horribly out of shape, let alone keeping its edge.

Granted I've never played The Witcher or read the books so I can't really comment on the game's mechanics or the feasibility of using a silver alloy or silver edge (I'm assuming it needs to be pure silver to retain its effectiveness versus magical creatures), but the silver sword should probably do SOME damage against normal enemies. However, it should either be so miniscule or come with an upkeep cost so large (hey, silver swords are more expensive than steel ones) so as to discourage its continued use even accidentally.

Wow fantastic trailer, so hyped!! I want to replay W1+2 now

I might have pre-ordered the collector's edition.

Okay I totally pre-ordered the collector's edition.

I'll probably upgrade my PC to whatever this game needs as well. I WILL PLAY IT IN ALL ITS GLORY! FEEL THE HYPE!!

Able Seacat:
Wow that does look pretty cool. Never played a Witcher game though. Maybe I should look to rectify that. Are the previous two still worth picking up? Though after a quick search I could only find the 2nd one on consoles. Or is this one of those games that a lot of people say you shouldn't get if you don't play it on PC?

I own both versions and I'd say get the console version. It runs smoother and plays a lot better with a controller (IMHO of course). I'd only recommend the PC version if you have an absolute beast of a rig.

And did I seriously see Geralt breathing fire!? That's so metal.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Wow.

Wooooooooow.

I'm hyped.

You missed the hidden message:
image

hidden message:

We've missed you!
Today you got a look at the third trailer for The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. We hope you liked it!
There's so much more in this game that it's just impossible to show everything within two and a half minutes. Still we tried :)
More importantly we just showed you some of the main characters.
Geralt's close friends and some of the last witchers remaining in the world - Vesemir, Eskel and Lambert - will play a big part in the game, as well their famous fortress Kaer Morhen.
You also got a glimpse of the renowned bard Dandelion and the sorceress Triss Merigold.
Emhyr var Emreis, Emperor of Nilfgaard, the most powerful man in the world of The Witcher also made an appearance. Recognize his voice?
And then there was Ciri!
And Yennefer!
By the way, if you're new to the series, don't worry, the game will introduce you into all you need to know, and you'll start loving (and hating!) characters in no time!
Also, you've been asking us many questions about gameplay features and we're finally ready to answer some of them - so here it goes:
Yes, you will be able to fight while on horseback
The crossbow. Yup, Geralt can use ranged weapon. Because sometimes monsters fly and you can't reach them.
Remember swimming and sailing. You'll be able to dive and search for a lot of hidden stuff too. There's a whole underwater world to discover.
Horse racing anyone?
You also got to hear more music from the game. This particular track was composed by Marcin Przybyłowicz & Percival. We'd love to hear your feedback. Fire away in the comments or on the game's Facebook/Twitter/forums. Remember, we're always listening, even if we're not getting back to you.
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt Team
CD PROJEKT RED
PS. If you're still waiting for more (you are, right?), please be patient. We're just warming up.
PPS. Have you seen the Collector's Edition video? What do you think about the figure?
PPPS. We've just announced a closed multiplayer beta of The Witcher Adventure Game (?) & let the GOG.com guys (?) you.

That's right, UNDER WATER EXPLORATION! Holy shit this will kick Skyrim's ass and send Bethesda into a depression.

Ultratwinkie:
snip

Ok, so first of all, I bought the Witcher 2. I also bought the Witcher 1. I played through The Witcher 1 twice and enjoyed the experience.

You reference metals again. I guarantee you that if you make silver into a weapon, it will work on a human. It will not work great against armor or as a parrying blade, but it will work. That's not even an arguable point, so I'm not sure why you are bothering. I've already conceded that carbon spring steel is superior in all mundane situations. You are just hammering home a point that was never made in the first place. (there's an argument based word for this, but I won't use it as it's over used and misunderstood)

Let me also say that I think The Witcher 2 is a dumbed down console focused experience compared to Dragon Age 1, which is superior in almost every aspect of the game. Dragon Age's quests almost universally forwarded the story, or were at least interesting, after Lothering. I will, however, grant that Lothering involved some faffing about, however, an hour in Lothering is nothing compared to the 3-4+ hours in whatever that goddawful swamp town was in Chapter 2.

However, as far as CRPG's go, Dragon Age had interesting and varied combat based on play-style and class. The Witcher was roll-stab-roll-stab-roll-stab-roll-stab dull and more suited to controller rather than mouse and keyboard (much like Dragon Age 2). What The Witcher 2's combat boiled down to was a significantly LESS deep/complex version of the Souls games for me. Tedious, repetitive and only one efficient path to win.

And stop referencing other games/media that you think are going to make your point. They don't. Game of Thrones doesn't exist in my mind. A Song of Ice and Fire does, because Game of Thrones fundamentally changes character traits and story aspects for the TV audience. I would prefer Game of Thrones to be 3 times longer and follow the book characterizations more closely, however, I understand that the TV audience is impatient and generally dumb compared to the geeks and gamers that read Martin for years, so, that's fine, I just don't watch the show.

It's not about "dumbing down," so you can stop pretending to that argument. It's about "not fun, for me." I never said it couldn't be fun for you. If you love it, that's freaking awesome. I'm glad CD Projekt met your expectations. They disappointed me. I was hoping for a more interesting and dynamic version of The Witcher 1 that was still fundamentally CRPG experience with good M+K controls (sorry, I find it very hard to argue that the M+K is actually on par with the gamepad for Witcher 2, which depresses me) as well as a story that is consistently and constantly moving forward. Chapter 2 was so atrociously unrelated and boring for me that I couldn't be bothered to move on.

Alarien:

Ultratwinkie:
snip

Ok, so first of all, I bought the Witcher 2. I also bought the Witcher 1. I played through The Witcher 1 twice and enjoyed the experience.

You reference metals again. I guarantee you that if you make silver into a weapon, it will work on a human. It will not work great against armor or as a parrying blade, but it will work. That's not even an arguable point, so I'm not sure why you are bothering. I've already conceded that carbon spring steel is superior in all mundane situations. You are just hammering home a point that was never made in the first place. (there's an argument based word for this, but I won't use it as it's over used and misunderstood)

Let me also say that I think The Witcher 2 is a dumbed down console focused experience compared to Dragon Age 1, which is superior in almost every aspect of the game. Dragon Age's quests almost universally forwarded the story, or were at least interesting, after Lothering. I will, however, grant that Lothering involved some faffing about, however, an hour in Lothering is nothing compared to the 3-4+ hours in whatever that goddawful swamp town was in Chapter 2.

However, as far as CRPG's go, Dragon Age had interesting and varied combat based on play-style and class. The Witcher was roll-stab-roll-stab-roll-stab-roll-stab dull and more suited to controller rather than mouse and keyboard (much like Dragon Age 2). What The Witcher 2's combat boiled down to was a significantly LESS deep/complex version of the Souls games for me. Tedious, repetitive and only one efficient path to win.

And stop referencing other games/media that you think are going to make your point. They don't. Game of Thrones doesn't exist in my mind. A Song of Ice and Fire does, because Game of Thrones fundamentally changes character traits and story aspects for the TV audience. I would prefer Game of Thrones to be 3 times longer and follow the book characterizations more closely, however, I understand that the TV audience is impatient and generally dumb compared to the geeks and gamers that read Martin for years, so, that's fine, I just don't watch the show.

It's not about "dumbing down," so you can stop pretending to that argument. It's about "not fun, for me." I never said it couldn't be fun for you. If you love it, that's freaking awesome. I'm glad CD Projekt met your expectations. They disappointed me. I was hoping for a more interesting and dynamic version of The Witcher 1 that was still fundamentally CRPG experience with good M+K controls (sorry, I find it very hard to argue that the M+K is actually on par with the gamepad for Witcher 2, which depresses me) as well as a story that is consistently and constantly moving forward. Chapter 2 was so atrociously unrelated and boring for me that I couldn't be bothered to move on.

Silver ranks on the same level as aluminum and gold. I guess we all know how deadly soda cans are, right?

Wrong. Silver is so soft that it destroys the sword if used on anything. Even the books states that the silver sword is rarely used for this very reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness

That's what you refuse to get. Silver swords are fictional for a reason. The same way glass armor is fictional. They are horrible materials in real life. They are horrible in game unless you fight a ghost.

The witcher 2 lets you fight with a silver sword, as does witcher 1, but the sword gets a huge damage penalty that its worthless. Just like real life.

You ask for potions to be a bog standard way to not die. You ask for things to be dumbed down in such a way anyone can play it with little effort. You ask for the lore to be stripped out because you can't handle it and don't find unique rules fun.

Anyone can stand in one place and spam attacks with no blocking at all. Anyone can stand in one place and drink 99 bottles "get out of jail free" cards binded to a macro.

Dragon Age is the bog standard combat system that existed for decades. The same outdated system that puts so much emphasis on potions and just tanking your opponents.

If you get shot in the head in the old system. No one cares. You get -1 health. Woop de doo. In the new systems that games are putting out, stuff like that actually matters.

You are asking the Witcher to get easier. You are asking game play mechanics to be removed because other games don't follow these rules.

You are asking a unique game to regress back into an outdated and simplistic system that is familiar to YOU. Standing around spamming left click is not complex. It is not a strategy. I beat Witcher 1 with that entire strategy. Its not hard.

You are clicking only one button for the entire game. At least the Witcher 2 actually required some effort in its combat. You can't just show up with 99 bottles and win by default. You can't just click ONCE and win by default.

Witcher 2 asks you to put in some actual effort.

After finally thinking for a while (almost all night) I have decided to say "Fuck it" and preorder this game.

It will cost me almost 172 pounds (because I can't buy it from an Amazon with EU currency and the conversion rates are simply insane) which equates to around 200-250euro.

I think this will be the most I would spend on a game and will postpone me getting a GPU, but I really want to support CDPR because I love them so much as a developer and company so I did that and preordered.

Ultratwinkie:

Silver ranks on the same level as aluminum and gold. I guess we all know how deadly soda cans are, right?

Wrong. Silver is so soft that it destroys the sword if used on anything. Even the books states that the silver sword is rarely used for this very reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness

That's what you refuse to get. Silver swords are fictional for a reason. The same way glass armor is fictional. They are horrible materials in real life. They are horrible in game unless you fight a ghost.

The witcher 2 lets you fight with a silver sword, as does witcher 1, but the sword gets a huge damage penalty that its worthless. Just like real life.

Wow, you are really just dodging reality. Hardness is a non-argument. You're going to make me finally say it, but I've been trying to avoid it. This is as classic a baloney straw man argument as one can make. Silver is a metal. It doesn't matter if it would make a terrible weapon or not. It would, but that doesn't change the fact that if I stab you with a silver knife, it will penetrate your skin and damage you. It would be physical damage. That's called reality. Are you actually trying to argue that silver would not damage you? Really, make that argument more please.

It is literally possible to make a knife out of paper. And it could still kill you. Clearly, though, that would not be physical damage, right?

You ask for potions to be a bog standard way to not die. You ask for things to be dumbed down in such a way anyone can play it with little effort. You ask for the lore to be stripped out because you can't handle it and don't find unique rules fun.

Really, quote me once where I said anything about potions being used as a bog standard way to not die. I said that not being able to drink potions in combat is silly. I said that potion length should be extended if the current system stayed in place. I said that I preferred Dark Souls were potions were something that took timing and skill if they were actually used. That's not easier. That's intuitive. I also said that I preferred a deep block/parry system, which makes your next comment completely invalid.

Anyone can stand in one place and spam attacks with no blocking at all. Anyone can stand in one place and drink 99 bottles "get out of jail free" cards binded to a macro.

Dragon Age is the bog standard combat system that existed for decades. The same outdated system that puts so much emphasis on potions and just tanking your opponents.

You really hate potions don't you? Anyway, I never mentioned potions in regards to Dragon Age. It's a multi-character game. My playstyle there focuses on melee tanking and magic healing. It's a different style and one that is more complex than any existing ARPG, pretty much by definition.

If you get shot in the head in the old system. No one cares. You get -1 health. Woop de doo. In the new systems that games are putting out, stuff like that actually matters.

You are asking the Witcher to get easier. You are asking game play mechanics to be removed because other games don't follow these rules.

Nope, wrong again. I'm asking The Witcher to be less tedious and more interesting/fun for my playstyle. That's not easier potion spamming. It's less lame roll spammy, which is a completely stupid and non-sensical way to engage in combat by any realistic definition. No human would realistically engage in jumping and rolling around a melee combat fight. It's dumb by definition.

You are asking a unique game to regress back into an outdated and simplistic system that is familiar to YOU. Standing around spamming left click is not complex. It is not a strategy. I beat Witcher 1 with that entire strategy. Its not hard.

You are clicking only one button for the entire game. At least the Witcher 2 actually required some effort in its combat. You can't just show up with 99 bottles and win by default. You can't just click ONCE and win by default.

Witcher 2 asks you to put in some actual effort.

There is a big difference between effort and tedium. Demon's Souls is effort. TW2's combat is dull.

Alarien:

Ultratwinkie:

Silver ranks on the same level as aluminum and gold. I guess we all know how deadly soda cans are, right?

Wrong. Silver is so soft that it destroys the sword if used on anything. Even the books states that the silver sword is rarely used for this very reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness

That's what you refuse to get. Silver swords are fictional for a reason. The same way glass armor is fictional. They are horrible materials in real life. They are horrible in game unless you fight a ghost.

The witcher 2 lets you fight with a silver sword, as does witcher 1, but the sword gets a huge damage penalty that its worthless. Just like real life.

Wow, you are really just dodging reality. Hardness is a non-argument. You're going to make me finally say it, but I've been trying to avoid it. This is as classic a baloney straw man argument as one can make. Silver is a metal. It doesn't matter if it would make a terrible weapon or not. It would, but that doesn't change the fact that if I stab you with a silver knife, it will penetrate your skin and damage you. It would be physical damage. That's called reality. Are you actually trying to argue that silver would not damage you? Really, make that argument more please.

It is literally possible to make a knife out of paper. And it could still kill you. Clearly, though, that would not be physical damage, right?

You ask for potions to be a bog standard way to not die. You ask for things to be dumbed down in such a way anyone can play it with little effort. You ask for the lore to be stripped out because you can't handle it and don't find unique rules fun.

Really, quote me once where I said anything about potions being used as a bog standard way to not die. I said that not being able to drink potions in combat is silly. I said that potion length should be extended if the current system stayed in place. I said that I preferred Dark Souls were potions were something that took timing and skill if they were actually used. That's not easier. That's intuitive. I also said that I preferred a deep block/parry system, which makes your next comment completely invalid.

Anyone can stand in one place and spam attacks with no blocking at all. Anyone can stand in one place and drink 99 bottles "get out of jail free" cards binded to a macro.

Dragon Age is the bog standard combat system that existed for decades. The same outdated system that puts so much emphasis on potions and just tanking your opponents.

You really hate potions don't you? Anyway, I never mentioned potions in regards to Dragon Age. It's a multi-character game. My playstyle there focuses on melee tanking and magic healing. It's a different style and one that is more complex than any existing ARPG, pretty much by definition.

If you get shot in the head in the old system. No one cares. You get -1 health. Woop de doo. In the new systems that games are putting out, stuff like that actually matters.

You are asking the Witcher to get easier. You are asking game play mechanics to be removed because other games don't follow these rules.

Nope, wrong again. I'm asking The Witcher to be less tedious and more interesting/fun for my playstyle. That's not easier potion spamming. It's less lame roll spammy, which is a completely stupid and non-sensical way to engage in combat by any realistic definition. No human would realistically engage in jumping and rolling around a melee combat fight. It's dumb by definition.

You are asking a unique game to regress back into an outdated and simplistic system that is familiar to YOU. Standing around spamming left click is not complex. It is not a strategy. I beat Witcher 1 with that entire strategy. Its not hard.

You are clicking only one button for the entire game. At least the Witcher 2 actually required some effort in its combat. You can't just show up with 99 bottles and win by default. You can't just click ONCE and win by default.

Witcher 2 asks you to put in some actual effort.

There is a big difference between effort and tedium. Demon's Souls is effort. TW2's combat is dull.

And it gets bent and it breaks after 1 swing. By the time you kill someone, they kill you.

Silver swords are awful, and just because "its metal" doesn't mean shit. Gold is a metal but a gold sword is equally as useless.

A tank that casts healing spells? that is as simple as simple gets. That is Skyrim tactics, where nothing can ever hope to challenge you ever. Don't come around here saying that's advanced tactics because it isn't.

A tank and healer combo is the most simplistic tactic there is. Its a battle of attrition against tough enemies that gets incredibly tedious and drags on because you spam the same buttons over and over again.

Its a standard archetype that is in every boring RPG. Its not "complex." The same way ordering a big mac is not complex.

The fact of the matter is you want to have it easy. The old system you want so much is incredibly archaic and is built around who has the most time on his hands. Its a system built entirely around grind and that's the reason only MMOs use it anymore. That's why the Witcher 1 was 60 hours of pure grind. Its not a game to emulate.

Your system is the epitome of tedium. Its a game of who has the most time and who has the most buffs. Easy to do.

Potions in combat mean you can just spam them. No matter what game it is. I managed to spam white raffard's concotion with the cleanser chaser potion in the witcher 1. That's with me running around leading tougher enemies in a circle.

Potions in combat only make it easier. It always does. Its not some form of advanced tactics like you seem to think it is.

Rolling and dodging is not realistic? Well neither is standing in the same spot, not blocking, and casting spells. You didn't complain about it in the witcher 1. How do you explain the huge swords that geralt takes to the throat? Or the way he gets ganged up on? In every fight in the witcher 1 and every CRPG ever? Do you honestly believe that is any more realistic?

I guess you think that Drowners, Nekkers, and Harpies exist in real life too? And that we have a codified way to fight a monster that doesn't exist? Tell me, how do you "realistically" fight the monsters the witcher fights? Witchers are supposed to be super humans, and they fight monsters that are above human ability.

The combat situation is fictional and built around the fictional abilities of the monsters. You aren't fighting humans. Deal with it. Your idea of standing around with a lot of armor is also a bad way to fight because in the real world you get tired and you could die from pure exhaustion or the blunt force that gets amplified with sturdy armor.

If you don't find it fun, fine, but don't hide your own preferences as fact, "realism," or "tedium." You want a easy game where you stand in one spot and spam a single button and use the same decades old standard tactics to win. Tactics that are so familiar that there is only one way to play it now because its so exploited.

Don't try to hide that. Standard rules are easy, that's why they are standard.

If you want a real complexity, try war of the roses or Chivalry. That has more a complex melee system. That has a blocking system. Even try the requiem mod for skyrim. The games that you reference don't have that level of detail. CRPGs are not complex because they have been around for decades. The system has long since been exploited into a science.

And Demons Souls has combat that takes effort? Where you just kite the enemies?

Wow, I guess buying a big mac must be the most advanced idea ever. Because Kiting enemies has been around since Video Games were invented. It goes all the way back to when the Nintendo days when they fought with SEGA.

How are these standard archetypes that are old enough to vote complex? They are standard ideas. They are easy ideas.

Its also obvious you have no idea what definition even means. So now I can say you are wrong by definition. You have no idea how many tactics and varied fighting styles there actually are. That the idea of a heavily armored fighting man is a joke and easily countered in real life.

And it gets bent and it breaks after 1 swing. By the time you kill someone, they kill you.

Silver swords are awful, and just because "its metal" doesn't mean shit. Gold is a metal but a gold sword is equally as useless.

Again, straw man. I never said anything about "combat" with a silver or gold sword. I said, if I stab you with it, it will kill you. That's a very physical form of damage. Your argument is a non-entity. If you can't simply concede that saying that "silver swords don't do physical damage" is a purely silly comment, then you're being intellectually dishonest or self-deluded. Of course they do physical damage. They might suck, but they certainly do physical damage.

I guess you're just not interested in reading.

I pointed out that Dragon Age is a multi-character game. The tank tanks. The healer heals, the mage casts. You can mix up your party for different play styles. I prefered the strength based sword rogue with superior dodge ability. That is complex by definition. There are many, many ways to approach the situation based on multiple characters with multiple builds. Roll -> swing swing -> roll -> swing swing is not complex. Unfortunately for TW2, it's pretty much the only horse in town.

Also, not only did I never say anything about not blocking, I specifically stated in other posts here, including the last one, that I prefer strong block/parry mechanics to rolling. Who said anything about standing in the same spot, casting spells.

You've also clearly not played Souls games. I am not sure "where you just kite the enemies" comes from, but kiting has nothing to do with almost any build or playstyle in that game.

I would highly recommend you google "straw man" and make sure you understand the concept. I think you do, but you've latched onto as a strong argument method.

Wow, I guess buying a big mac must be the most advanced idea ever. Because Kiting enemies has been around since Video Games were invented.

Ah, I see we've given up on game/culture name dropping and started with pop culture name dropping, like associating me with McDonalds is a great way to "I win" button.

Is this the part where you say that all other games are like Hitler too?

Ultrawinkie, man, I'd let this one go honestly. You're conversing with a brick wall. While the passion you're putting into your argument is commendable, and I agree with all of your points, you're dangerously close to getting some kind of warning from all of this heated debate. Watch yourself man.

Alarien:

And it gets bent and it breaks after 1 swing. By the time you kill someone, they kill you.

Silver swords are awful, and just because "its metal" doesn't mean shit. Gold is a metal but a gold sword is equally as useless.

Again, straw man. I never said anything about "combat" with a silver or gold sword. I said, if I stab you with it, it will kill you. That's a very physical form of damage. Your argument is a non-entity. If you can't simply concede that saying that "silver swords don't do physical damage" is a purely silly comment, then you're being intellectually dishonest or self-deluded. Of course they do physical damage. They might suck, but they certainly do physical damage.

I guess you're just not interested in reading.

I pointed out that Dragon Age is a multi-character game. The tank tanks. The healer heals, the mage casts. You can mix up your party for different play styles. I prefered the strength based sword rogue with superior dodge ability. That is complex by definition. There are many, many ways to approach the situation based on multiple characters with multiple builds. Roll -> swing swing -> roll -> swing swing is not complex. Unfortunately for TW2, it's pretty much the only horse in town.

Also, not only did I never say anything about not blocking, I specifically stated in other posts here, including the last one, that I prefer strong block/parry mechanics to rolling. Who said anything about standing in the same spot, casting spells.

You've also clearly not played Souls games. I am not sure "where you just kite the enemies" comes from, but kiting has nothing to do with almost any build or playstyle in that game.

I would highly recommend you google "straw man" and make sure you understand the concept. I think you do, but you've latched onto as a strong argument method.

Wow, I guess buying a big mac must be the most advanced idea ever. Because Kiting enemies has been around since Video Games were invented.

Ah, I see we've given up on game/culture name dropping and started with pop culture name dropping, like associating me with McDonalds is a great way to "I win" button.

Is this the part where you say that all other games are like Hitler too?

Having a small party of different classes is complex? The same standard classes that have existed for over 40 years? The same tactics that also existed for just as long?

Jesus, don't play Mount and Blade or else it might shatter your world.

Its an old system that everyone and their mother knows. Everyone knows how to play it. Its the same thing every time. Its not complex if everyone knows it. Just like air isn't complex because everyone knows it exists.

The Witcher 2 puts a heavy emphasis on traps, lures, bombs, fighting style, and signs. All of which you have to learn yourself and have to invest in. Its only roll spam if you play it on EASY. Up the difficulty and you have to actually use your head more and more. With enemies that constantly on the move.

You can't sit in one spot with a shield against mobile enemies. Its a direct counter, and that's why heavy armor became obsolete once chain mail got into the picture in real life. You constant demands for blocks and parries only make sense for slow enemies. Witcher monsters are not slow by any stretch of the imagination.

Kiting enemies means dodging (read: always moving) then coming back and attacking. Its a tied and true tactic in almost every single game. It works in Demons Souls if you have the skills for it. It even works in both Dark Souls. Every single footage of Dark Souls has Kiting tactics in them.

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but the silver sword is not pure silver.

It's got a steel core, and is coated in a layer of silver.

In terms of how that would work in real life, I've no idea, but as a game mechanic I like the whole two swords thing.

Alarien:
-snip-

Honestly, I can understand why some people who enjoyed The Witcher 1 were disappointed with the second because of the radical change in combat - personally I enjoyed games with similar combat to both before I played either, so I was fine with both - but I don't think you played The Witcher 2 long enough to really talk about its combat as much as you are doing in this thread.

On any higher difficulty you are going to get absolutely smashed if you just try to roll around. Any tools you have at your disposal, you have to use them to proceed.

Personally, I found both Witcher games more challenging on the default difficulty setting than DA:O, although I have to admit I'm not to fond of that game anyway.

Ultratwinkie:

Kiting enemies means dodging (read: always moving) then coming back and attacking. Its a tied and true tactic in almost every single game. It works in Demons Souls if you have the skills for it. It even works in both Dark Souls. Every single footage of Dark Souls has Kiting tactics in them.

I guess since we're not engaging actual arguments, then we can just stop with that.

However, kiting does not mean dodging. It does not mean always moving. Kiting is a term that really started in MMOs (most likely Everquest, where it was the primary solo combat method for Druids and Wizards) for characters that would literally run away and in front of mobs to slowly kill them with either ranged spells or dots, usually in conjunction with snares (another term that probably originates with Everquest) and roots (again probably Everquest). You *can* kite in a Souls games, but it's tedious and often not possible due to level geometry.

Dodging, rolling and dancing in melee range are very much the opposite of what you just defined. It is literally impossible to define melee combat as kiting. The closest term would be jousting (attacking when your attack animation cool down is up and then running out of range, then back in again). I would recommend that before you use a well defined gameplay tactic as part of your argument, that you look it up first.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Alarien:
-snip-

Honestly, I can understand why some people who enjoyed The Witcher 1 were disappointed with the second because of the radical change in combat - personally I enjoyed games with similar combat to both before I played either, so I was fine with both - but I don't think you played The Witcher 2 long enough to really talk about its combat as much as you are doing in this thread.

On any higher difficulty you are going to get absolutely smashed if you just try to roll around. Any tools you have at your disposal, you have to use them to proceed.

Personally, I found both Witcher games more challenging on the default difficulty setting than DA:O, although I have to admit I'm not to fond of that game anyway.

Interesting, did you play DA:O on PC or Console? The default PC setting was pretty challenging with 1 mage on PC, but broken-easy with 2 mages. On console it was always easy.

I found TW1 to be significantly easier than DA:0. I found TW2 to be definitely more challenging than DA:O. I wouldn't argue otherwise, as that would just be dishonest. TW2 is more challenging than DA:O. Again, contrary what the other two posters think, I'm not against challenge. I like my games to be punishing, but intuitive. However, I like the mechanics to be intuitive. I found TW2's mechanics to be either unintuitive in many cases (potions, as I've mentioned) or just downright dull. If the block/parry system had been a bit more fluid and responsive, I think I might have enjoyed the combat quite a bit. However, on the main difficulty setting, roll is so effective and efficient, that it makes it un-fun.

Ultratwinkie:

Witchers are not human, they are mutants. Mutants that got most off the "good" stuff in life like sex stripped from them.

Wat?
That is not true at all. Witchers still can have sex, geralt itself has sex on multiple occasions in the games and the books. They are sterile, but sterile means you can't have kids, it doesn't mean you can't have sex.
In fact, the reason that their sterile is the reason that women in the witcher world like to have their flings with witchers if possible because there is no other reliant way to not get pregnant.

Alarien:

I pointed out that Dragon Age is a multi-character game. The tank tanks. The healer heals, the mage casts. You can mix up your party for different play styles. I prefered the strength based sword rogue with superior dodge ability. That is complex by definition. There are many, many ways to approach the situation based on multiple characters with multiple builds. Roll -> swing swing -> roll -> swing swing is not complex. Unfortunately for TW2, it's pretty much the only horse in town.

While I definitely recall rolling a lot, my main memory of the Witcher 2 is that nearly every fight forced me to use a combination of multiple signs, bombs, throwing knives, stabbing, and more to get through. You're actually given a lot of tools and need to learn how to use them all in order to successfully get through most of the game's harder fights.

Dragon Age though... I dunno. I'm a huge fan of classic RPGs, especially the Baldur's Gate series. When Dragon Age came out, I initially didn't have time to grab it. By the time I did, the combination of it being a "spiritual successor" to the Baldur's Gate games combined with the rave reviews it was getting had led me to expect something of about the same level of complexity and depth. It thoroughly failed to deliver on that, feeling more like basic MMO combat than something I would have expected from a single player RPG. And don't get me started on the story. It's not the worst game story I've ever played, but it was so perfunctory and basic that I honestly thought the game was still just getting started by the time I reached the Archdaemon. "Rally allies and fight the big bad" was the story everyone was so excited about? I thought that was just going to be the first act before it went into something more interesting. Bleh.

Now, to be fair, I clearly had expectations that were far too high for Dragon Age when I went into it. That said, it wasn't like my expectations for the Witcher 2 were terribly low either. I actually enjoyed the first game, and the reviews for the sequel weren't exactly tame either. But where DA:O left me disappointed with a toned down version of CRPG combat and a bafflingly simple story, the Witcher 2 managed to surprise me with the depth of its action-orientated combat and its intriguing tale of morally grey medieval politics full of contemporary allegories.

All of the above is my opinion, but I'm trying to say that there isn't really any way to definitively claim which game is more complex. The Witcher 2 has a lot more going for its combat than rolling and stabbing, just like Dragon Age has more to its combat than left clicking on the enemy you want dead and waiting for the fight to be over. However, they are complex in very different ways. Clearly, Dragon Age appeals more to you while The Witcher appealed more to me, and I don't envy either of our chances of convincing the other that our respective preferred games are simple or basic.

I will say that if you enjoyed Dragon Age's combat though, you should definitely check out older games like the Baldur's Gate series and Planescape: Torment, if you're not already intimately familiar with them (apologies if you are a long-time fan or something). It's functionally the same thing, but with up to six characters and a whole load of added depth.

Alarien:

Ultratwinkie:

Kiting enemies means dodging (read: always moving) then coming back and attacking. Its a tied and true tactic in almost every single game. It works in Demons Souls if you have the skills for it. It even works in both Dark Souls. Every single footage of Dark Souls has Kiting tactics in them.

I guess since we're not engaging actual arguments, then we can just stop with that.

However, kiting does not mean dodging. It does not mean always moving. Kiting is a term that really started in MMOs (most likely Everquest, where it was the primary solo combat method for Druids and Wizards) for characters that would literally run away and in front of mobs to slowly kill them with either ranged spells or dots, usually in conjunction with snares (another term that probably originates with Everquest) and roots (again probably Everquest). You *can* kite in a Souls games, but it's tedious and often not possible due to level geometry.

Dodging, rolling and dancing in melee range are very much the opposite of what you just defined. It is literally impossible to define melee combat as kiting. The closest term would be jousting (attacking when your attack animation cool down is up and then running out of range, then back in again). I would recommend that before you use a well defined gameplay tactic as part of your argument, that you look it up first.

Kiting also means what I just said. You walk backwards or side to side. Neither of which is a complex combat system. Neither of which are new ideas. There are many different kinds of kiting, you are using its MMO definition.

Dark Souls is not some overly complex combat system, its famous because you can die a lot. Not because the combat is complex.

If you want complex:
Mount and Blade
War of the Roses.
Chivalry
Arma
Kenshi
Dwarf Fortress
Red Orchestra

It goes on. Dark Souls is not the epitome of complexity, its as simple as it gets. Its not famous because of its combat, its famous because of how many times you die. So you can stop using it as an example. Everything you call complex I call simple.

Amaror:

Ultratwinkie:

Witchers are not human, they are mutants. Mutants that got most off the "good" stuff in life like sex stripped from them.

Wat?
That is not true at all. Witchers still can have sex, geralt itself has sex on multiple occasions in the games and the books. They are sterile, but sterile means you can't have kids, it doesn't mean you can't have sex.
In fact, the reason that their sterile is the reason that women in the witcher world like to have their flings with witchers if possible because there is no other reliant way to not get pregnant.

Geralt is a special case, becoming a witcher can strip a lot of out out of you. Notably emotions and posssibly the will to have sex. You don't notice it because witchers barely take up any screen time in any of the 2 games. That's why they are called machines, as the mutagens really take the "human" out of you.

I feel like I really need to get off my ass as actually play the first two games at this point.
>>

Oh look, 2 minutes of a publisher soaping their ballsack under carefully arranged mood lighting.

Why should I care, again?

Racecarlock:
Oh look, 2 minutes of a publisher soaping their ballsack under carefully arranged mood lighting.

Why should I care, again?

The lighting is actually a highlight of the RED engine. If I remember correctly they have a weather system where clouds kind of dynamically move around and the light that reaches the ground is affected by that, meaning that clouds actually throw shadows, so to speak.

So yes, it is very carefully arranged mood lighting.

Its so nice to see the Escapist is capable of "joy" and "excitement" for an upcoming title, rather than just snark and bile.

OT

*Impressed whistle* That is one snazzy looking trailer: I know it's barely the focus but I do like the snippets of Nilfgardian forces advancing into hostile territory. Man, I really wish I had given Witcher 2 a second chance but my copy was so buggy and the opening dragged on so long....

Would it be absolutely vital to play the first two to understand what's going on or would the third game have enough info for an uneducated console peasant such as myself to go on?

Dragonlayer:
Its so nice to see the Escapist is capable of "joy" and "excitement" for an upcoming title, rather than just snark and bile.

OT

*Impressed whistle* That is one snazzy looking trailer: I know it's barely the focus but I do like the snippets of Nilfgardian forces advancing into hostile territory. Man, I really wish I had given Witcher 2 a second chance but my copy was so buggy and the opening dragged on so long....

Would it be absolutely vital to play the first two to understand what's going on or would the third game have enough info for an uneducated console peasant such as myself to go on?

It depends. If you were to jump into 2 or 3, you would be confused because people accuse you of doing things you ever did. The knights of the Flaming Rose might give you trouble because you pissed them off in the Witcher 1, or the rebels could if the default sides with the knights. A lot of call backs to things you never witnessed and you get stuck with the consequences of things you never did.

This is the mass effect system of save games. They transfer. The story makes more sense if you play it and import a save. You KNOW the context of your decision, you know your reason you chose the answer you did.

Its much easier to understand your own choices than to understand someone else's. You also understand the characters and why they are there.

For instance, (presumably elven) prophecy and the King of the Wild hunt is explained in the witcher 1. Vizima's history and a shit load of choices are in the witcher 1. Stuff we don't know if it transfers.

Like what happens to that monster brothel you cleared out or left alone? Or what happens to the friends you made in vizima like the rich and powerful banker or the spy? Does the Dentist play a role? Does Shani play a role? Does the head sheriff, and your choices with him matter? Does the princess matter? Does that businessman (did he say he was Illuminati? Can't remember) at the docks matter? Do the druids and the under water city matter? Does that Crime Lord and the Drug Dealer matter?

Does the universal discount on hookers in Vizima carry over? Does the promise of unlimited credit from the bank carry over?

As you can guess, a lot of variables that we can't tell if it matters or not. It depends on how much you want to leave up to chance. The Witcher 2 might end up having just as many variables.

Witcher 1 is a PC exclusive, its very dated but a lot of choices will carry over or might carry over into the Witcher 3. There is no confirmation that they will make a save game creator that handles ALL the choices. Because it might end up like Mass Effect where you only get to create 1/10th of your choices.

You can also import your old legendary equipment, which makes the beginning of the witcher 2 so much easier. Money also gets imported, but only 1% of it. So console gamers got shafted with the witcher 2. They can't port the witcher 1 because its so dated and clunky that consoles don't have the ability to play it. Its like trying to play WOW with a controller.

Its always better to have a save game ready to go at launch than to jump in at the very end.

Alarien:

Ultratwinkie:

Silver ranks on the same level as aluminum and gold. I guess we all know how deadly soda cans are, right?

Wrong. Silver is so soft that it destroys the sword if used on anything. Even the books states that the silver sword is rarely used for this very reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness

That's what you refuse to get. Silver swords are fictional for a reason. The same way glass armor is fictional. They are horrible materials in real life. They are horrible in game unless you fight a ghost.

The witcher 2 lets you fight with a silver sword, as does witcher 1, but the sword gets a huge damage penalty that its worthless. Just like real life.

Wow, you are really just dodging reality. Hardness is a non-argument. You're going to make me finally say it, but I've been trying to avoid it. This is as classic a baloney straw man argument as one can make. Silver is a metal. It doesn't matter if it would make a terrible weapon or not. It would, but that doesn't change the fact that if I stab you with a silver knife, it will penetrate your skin and damage you. It would be physical damage. That's called reality. Are you actually trying to argue that silver would not damage you? Really, make that argument more please.

It is literally possible to make a knife out of paper. And it could still kill you. Clearly, though, that would not be physical damage, right?

You realise your argument is pretty irrelevant since the silver sword does damage humans in the games... right?
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that attacking with the wrong sword does no damage and this isn't the case, its just weaker.
We don't have complaints when a game has a dagger do less damage than a sword. Its a game mechanic designed to simplify the disadvantages of fighting with an inferior weapon.

Racecarlock:
Oh look, 2 minutes of a publisher soaping their ballsack under carefully arranged mood lighting.

Why should I care, again?

Racecarlock:
You know, reading this thread through, I had no idea I was so fucking stupid for genuinely enjoying skyrim.

So I'm sorry gaming community. Are you happy now?

Aren't you a bundle of fucking joy, LOL

Ultratwinkie:

Dragonlayer:
Its so nice to see the Escapist is capable of "joy" and "excitement" for an upcoming title, rather than just snark and bile.

OT

*Impressed whistle* That is one snazzy looking trailer: I know it's barely the focus but I do like the snippets of Nilfgardian forces advancing into hostile territory. Man, I really wish I had given Witcher 2 a second chance but my copy was so buggy and the opening dragged on so long....

Would it be absolutely vital to play the first two to understand what's going on or would the third game have enough info for an uneducated console peasant such as myself to go on?

It depends. If you were to jump into 2 or 3, you would be confused because people accuse you of doing things you ever did. A lot of call backs to things you never witnessed.

This is the mass effect system of save games. They transfer. The story makes more sense if you play it and import a save. You KNOW the context of your decision, you know your reason you chose the answer you did.

Its much easier to understand your own choices than to understand someone else's. You also understand the characters and why they are there.

For instance, (presumably elven) prophecy and the King of the Wild hunt is explained in the witcher 1. Vizima's history and a shit load of choices are in the witcher 1.

Witcher 1 is a PC exclusive, its very dated but a lot of choices will carry over into the Witcher 3. There is no confirmation that they will make a save game creator that handles ALL the choices. Because it might end up like Mass Effect where you only get to create 1/10th of your choices.

You can also import your old legendary equipment, which makes the beginning of the witcher 2 so much easier. So console gamers got shafted with the witcher 2.

Ah.

No news of a Mass Effect style recap system at the start of the game, where it asks what choices you made in the previous games? I'm sure I'd be able to gather the gist of what has happened so far with such a system - everything I already knew is from playing the first chapter and a bit of the second game and the wiki.

I'm not fussed about old equipment, I rarely take the effort to get the best of everything in
games anyway.

I'm aiming to get this for the PS4, whenever I can get that btw: my computer is nowhere near capable of playing any of the games.

Dragonlayer:

Ultratwinkie:

Dragonlayer:
Its so nice to see the Escapist is capable of "joy" and "excitement" for an upcoming title, rather than just snark and bile.

OT

*Impressed whistle* That is one snazzy looking trailer: I know it's barely the focus but I do like the snippets of Nilfgardian forces advancing into hostile territory. Man, I really wish I had given Witcher 2 a second chance but my copy was so buggy and the opening dragged on so long....

Would it be absolutely vital to play the first two to understand what's going on or would the third game have enough info for an uneducated console peasant such as myself to go on?

It depends. If you were to jump into 2 or 3, you would be confused because people accuse you of doing things you ever did. A lot of call backs to things you never witnessed.

This is the mass effect system of save games. They transfer. The story makes more sense if you play it and import a save. You KNOW the context of your decision, you know your reason you chose the answer you did.

Its much easier to understand your own choices than to understand someone else's. You also understand the characters and why they are there.

For instance, (presumably elven) prophecy and the King of the Wild hunt is explained in the witcher 1. Vizima's history and a shit load of choices are in the witcher 1.

Witcher 1 is a PC exclusive, its very dated but a lot of choices will carry over into the Witcher 3. There is no confirmation that they will make a save game creator that handles ALL the choices. Because it might end up like Mass Effect where you only get to create 1/10th of your choices.

You can also import your old legendary equipment, which makes the beginning of the witcher 2 so much easier. So console gamers got shafted with the witcher 2.

Ah.

No news of a Mass Effect style recap system at the start of the game, where it asks what choices you made in the previous games? I'm sure I'd be able to gather the gist of what has happened so far with such a system - everything I already knew is from playing the first chapter and a bit of the second game and the wiki.

I'm not fussed about old equipment, I rarely take the effort to get the best of everything in
games anyway.

I'm aiming to get this for the PS4, whenever I can get that btw: my computer is nowhere near capable of playing any of the games.

They did mention that they will try to explain it to you, but I have a sinking feeling you will get stuck with a bunch of default choices. Which I am pretty sure will come back and bite you in the ass out of nowhere because you didn't make a choice.

Basically, wait until we see if consoles get a save importer. If it does, go for the witcher 2 then 3. If it doesn't, just wing it and hope for the best. And that those disgraced knights don't hold a grudge. And those rebels don't use those special crossbow bolts to shred you like they did to that Drug Dealer.

It always pays off to have a save game with your own choices, because you can at least see the consequences coming. At least most of the time.

The problem is that the witcher is so disjointed it impossible to get the full effect on console. Unlike PC you can't play all 3 games on the same machine. So I can't exactly help you there unless a save creator is made. Or they allow saves to be cross platform.

And the weapons aren't so much the best but iconic. Raven's armor is story mandated, but its iconic. The moon blade is iconic, but not the best. That silver sword you transfer is also iconic and story mandated.

So even the bare minimum players get a leg up.

Of course, a cheap PC to play 3 games would take a little effort, but its possible. I have some guides that lists out everything. It really depends on how much you care about the full experience, the bonuses carried over the series, and the full branching storyline. The console version got some branches cut because of how spotty the witcher series is beyond the PC. But then again it won't be worth it just for a single series.

If you were to play witcher 1 on easy, you'd beat it in 30 hours. Witcher 2 in about 15. These games are not short by any stretch of the imagination, but the story has some nice twists. Especially at the end of the Witcher 1. So it would also be the long way around, but the story is worth it. You can still get your save game ready, even if you go completionist. You'd also get a 20% discount on the Witcher 3 if you own the past games.

Or I can send you my saves or find other save games. That works too, since Mass Effect has a site dedicated to that.

Was that Yennefer over Geralt's left shoulder on the boat? I wonder how they'll work her into the story considering Triss kinda took the role.

That trailer looks magnificent, it sent shivers up my spine. Can't wait for this game. Hope the city is as big as it looks...one sad thing about Skyrim is that none of the towns or cities are particularly large; it works for gameplay reasons but leaves the world feeling smaller for it. Also nice to see an actual adult game with mature themes, rather than mass-market, watered down fluff.

Is that Charles Dance on the Imperial Throne?

KingsGambit:
Is that Charles Dance on the Imperial Throne?

Yes. Charles Dance voices the emperor.

It looks like the throne room in Vizima though, not the imperial throne.

KingsGambit:
Was that Yennefer over Geralt's left shoulder on the boat? I wonder how they'll work her into the story considering Triss kinda took the role.

That trailer looks magnificent, it sent shivers up my spine. Can't wait for this game. Hope the city is as big as it looks...one sad thing about Skyrim is that none of the towns or cities are particularly large; it works for gameplay reasons but leaves the world feeling smaller for it. Also nice to see an actual adult game with mature themes, rather than mass-market, watered down fluff.

Is that Charles Dance on the Imperial Throne?

Yes Charles Dance is going to voice Emperor Emhyr van Emrys.

Regarding the comment from Smash..yes it is Vizima's throne. There is a comparison video from the Witcher 1 throne room and that scene..it's the same thing.

DarkhoIlow:
Yes Charles Dance is going to voice Emperor Emhyr van Emrys.

Regarding the comment from Smash..yes it is Vizima's throne. There is a comparison video from the Witcher 1 throne room and that scene..it's the same thing.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
Yes. Charles Dance voices the emperor.

It looks like the throne room in Vizima though, not the imperial throne.

Thanks both for that, I thought I detected the dulcet tone of his voice. I don't really know about the throne myself, but was just going by Geralt's words "Your Imperial Majesty..." that suggest he's talking to an Emperor, not just a King :-) Still, looks GREAT, sounds great and absolutely one to get excited about.

In fact, I've done what I haven't for months, if not years...I preordered it yesterday so 9 months from now I'll be enjoying Geralt's newest (and sadly last) adventure.

I still have TW2 installed but haven't played it properly. When I first played it, shortly after release, the tutorial was so difficult and combat complex and unbalanced. I understand they fixed/improved it considerably but was put off back then and never picked it up. I really ought to get on that at some point.

KingsGambit:

DarkhoIlow:
Yes Charles Dance is going to voice Emperor Emhyr van Emrys.

Regarding the comment from Smash..yes it is Vizima's throne. There is a comparison video from the Witcher 1 throne room and that scene..it's the same thing.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
Yes. Charles Dance voices the emperor.

It looks like the throne room in Vizima though, not the imperial throne.

Thanks both for that, I thought I detected the dulcet tone of his voice. I don't really know about the throne myself, but was just going by Geralt's words "Your Imperial Majesty..." that suggest he's talking to an Emperor, not just a King :-) Still, looks GREAT, sounds great and absolutely one to get excited about.

In fact, I've done what I haven't for months, if not years...I preordered it yesterday so 9 months from now I'll be enjoying Geralt's newest (and sadly last) adventure.

I still have TW2 installed but haven't played it properly. When I first played it, shortly after release, the tutorial was so difficult and combat complex and unbalanced. I understand they fixed/improved it considerably but was put off back then and never picked it up. I really ought to get on that at some point.

The Enhanced Edition that you can download for free decreases the difficulty of the tutorial immensely and if I remember correctly they also placed an option where you can skip that tutorial although I'm not sure.

You should really go back and finish Witcher 2 at least two times (to have two separate saved games for both big paths so to speak) so you got them ready for Witcher 3 (you have enough time so that's good).

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked