The Witcher 3 Wild Hunt: Official Thread

I've been looking forward to TW3 for a while, but I'm now concerned that it's too big - it will take too long to complete.
 
zacrobmer said:
Shit, thats a great problem to have.
Click to expand...
Sure, unless the game itself isn't captivating enough to hold your attention for the required amount of time to actually finish it. Granted, I don't see that happening with Witcher 3 but it's certainly a possibility.

The more I see this game, the more I want to play it.
 
I remember thinking Inquisition was too big at first, but I love the fact that it just kept going and going. If the Witcher can do that, I'll be more than happy. It'll be perfect for the Summer doldrums when new major releases rarely hit.
 
they keep hyping the side quests as not being the same old repetitive fetch-type...so if they can nail that aspect then this could be special
 
Having never played the Witcher series, I'm definitely looking to pick this up.

However, as an RPG fan, it looks like character customization is slim to none. Why did they choose this route instead of letting us create our own Witcher?
 
Eshelmen said:
Having never played the Witcher series, I'm definitely looking to pick this up.

However, as an RPG fan, it looks like character customization is slim to none. Why did they choose this route instead of letting us create our own Witcher?
Click to expand...

Because thats how the previous two games were so why change now.
 
Eshelmen said:
Having never played the Witcher series, I'm definitely looking to pick this up.

However, as an RPG fan, it looks like character customization is slim to none. Why did they choose this route instead of letting us create our own Witcher?
Click to expand...

You're playing a characters story that has existed for a decade. The Witcher didn't start off as a completely free roaming RPG like the ones we have today. You play as Geralt a character who has aged with the series.
 
MrWrong said:
Because thats how the previous two games were so why change now.
Click to expand...



So sequels are to mirror the previous games?
lol, I think not.

Why repurchase the same game over and over?

The game looks fantastic, just curious why they didn't add it.
 
NickJames said:
You're playing a characters story that has existed for a decade. The Witcher didn't start off as a completely free roaming RPG like the ones we have today. You played as Geralt and you were a man on a mission. Now its been years and he's starting to show his age, I like the progression of his character throughout the series.
Click to expand...


Yeah for sure, I see that.

A few customizing options would of been cool, nonetheless.
 
polonyc2 said:
they keep hyping the side quests as not being the same old repetitive fetch-type...so if they can nail that aspect then this could be special
Click to expand...

Life IS a fetch quest. :p Interesting to think about though. If the side quests are as compelling as the main quest, then we need to come up with something new to call them. Branched-quests maybe? It seems to me the definition of a side quest (or side anything) is the addition of something a bit more trivial or less important to the main.

I guess that even a trivial side quest though, if it actually had some greater impact to the whole story would be fine too though.

Sorry, that just struck me for some reason and now I'm overthinking it. :D
 
Eshelmen said:
So sequels are to mirror the previous games?
lol, I think not.

Why repurchase the same game over and over?

The game looks fantastic, just curious why they didn't add it.
Click to expand...

No, they aren't, and I would say The Witcher series is a perfect one to support that claim. TW1 and TW2 play very differently. While TW3 appears to deviate much less in terms of actual gameplay, it certainly appears to be done on a massively larger scale. Being an open world is a big change. In fact, I would go as far as to say expecting the game to have a character creator would be more akin to "purchasing the same game over and over" by way of the fact that that's pretty much the norm for sandbox RPG's these days. We already have Dragon Age and Skyrim, and many more games for that. The Witcher sets itself apart from those games by having a clearly defined protagonist already set in place.

Character customization just doesn't fit into this series. The Witcher is book series, a comic, and a video game, and the entire universe centers around Geralt. It would be like getting a Tomb Raider game without Lara Croft. As far as I know, you can do basic customization like beards and haircuts. Beyond that though, Geralt is Geralt, and has been so for a long time. No reason to change that.
 
J3RK said:
Life IS a fetch quest. :p Interesting to think about though. If the side quests are as compelling as the main quest, then we need to come up with something new to call them. Branched-quests maybe? It seems to me the definition of a side quest (or side anything) is the addition of something a bit more trivial or less important to the main.

I guess that even a trivial side quest though, if it actually had some greater impact to the whole story would be fine too though.

Sorry, that just struck me for some reason and now I'm overthinking it. :D
Click to expand...

it's not that the side quests have to be as compelling as the main quests (though that would be nice)...it's that RPG side-quests are usually tedious and repetitive- pick up 12 flower branches, go here and deliver this, kill this guy etc etc...they need to make them more interesting and hopefully tie-in to the main story in a meaningful way
 
polonyc2 said:
it's not that the side quests have to be as compelling as the main quests (though that would be nice)...it's that RPG side-quests are usually tedious and repetitive- pick up 12 flower branches, go here and deliver this, kill this guy etc etc...they need to make them more interesting and hopefully tie-in to the main story in a meaningful way
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree completely. ...cough ***Nirn Root*** cough... :D Definitely familiar with them. (actually the Ultima games had some really nice side-quests and even full chunks of maps that were completely optional to explore)

I just started thinking about what would make better side quests.
 
Eshelmen said:
So sequels are to mirror the previous games?
lol, I think not.

Why repurchase the same game over and over?

The game looks fantastic, just curious why they didn't add it.
Click to expand...

The Witcher is based on a series of (very popular) polish books. It follows Geralt, who is the main character of said books.

Making a game based on the books and then allowing you to change his character would make no sense.

The game follows Geralts story, and allowing you to change him would have altered the story/focus of the game. He's an established character that people know.

I'd also like to point out, that while you can't actually change his physical features (IE Skin tone, facial structure) you CAN change his hair, beard, and you build him up (in terms of skills) like you do in most rpg games, shaping him into how you want him to be. There's still very much an "rpg" like character progression to Geralt, you just can't make him into a woman or change his actual visual appearance (aside from hair).
 
In the Witcher 2 you also had some degree of freedom as to your upgrade path and how you wanted to play, too.
 
Stiler said:
The Witcher is based on a series of (very popular) polish books. It follows Geralt, who is the main character of said books.

Making a game based on the books and then allowing you to change his character would make no sense.

The game follows Geralts story, and allowing you to change him would have altered the story/focus of the game. He's an established character that people know.

I'd also like to point out, that while you can't actually change his physical features (IE Skin tone, facial structure) you CAN change his hair, beard, and you build him up (in terms of skills) like you do in most rpg games, shaping him into how you want him to be. There's still very much an "rpg" like character progression to Geralt, you just can't make him into a woman or change his actual visual appearance (aside from hair).
Click to expand...

True. There's plenty of room for customization as far as his skills and appearance go, but you play the "role" of Geralt in any case. It's refreshing as far as almost every other RPG has gone the route of the "generic" customizable character which actually ends up being more shallow in my opinion. Anyway there's supposed to be a female playable character as well in the Witcher 3, but once again, you play the "character" as you choose, not the character of your choosing.
 
the only 2 potential GOTY candidates this year seem to be Witcher 3 and Bloodborne...Arkham Knight looks great but I can't see it surpassing either of those 2
 
J3RK said:
Oh, I agree completely. ...cough ***Nirn Root*** cough... :D Definitely familiar with them. (actually the Ultima games had some really nice side-quests and even full chunks of maps that were completely optional to explore)

I just started thinking about what would make better side quests.
Click to expand...

IMO....

Variance. We all know that doing a side quest (IE, not the Main Quest) is not necessary to beat the game and is there for your simple enjoyment, and the benefit to your character and his/her progression.

There should be varied types. I personally think a fetch quest here and there is not a bad thing. A simple contract between you and someone who needs some simple firewood or something, but can't get it for themselves.

"I got 20 gold but can't get my own firewood because of x. Will you bring me some?"

Completely believable. As long as they're not all like this, sweet! It's kinda nice having a couple simple quests in your log to work on while you're doing other things.

Same with kill quests.. I like a good kill quest now and then.

Along with these types though, there should be some other, more story-driven side-quests which aren't necessarily part of the main quest, but have their own unique side-story if you will.

Again, variance. Not only should you have a lot of varying kinds of side-quests, but the quests themselves... say one kill quest compared to the next, should vary. Not just in subject (kill this bear vs kill this thief), but also in events which transpire during the quest... perhaps if you don't do x or y, you actually fail to kill the bear and something else happens. Perhaps you could only get some of the requested items. Instead of making the quest simply non-completable, have the quest giver be like... "the fuck, you only got 5? well fine here's what's going to happen"

Make some unexpected shit go down.

Also, varying and meaningful rewards would be nice. If you always just got gold for a side quest.. /yawn. But sometimes it could be an item this dude had lying around.. sometimes a good item, sometimes not. Maybe the dude actually stiffs you on payment...but this is just part of the side quest, and it moves on... or maybe it doesn't and you have to threaten him, or kill him, or just let bygones be bygones.

And finally, i'd say to have a mix between quests that you know where to go to complete, and quests that you have no idea where to go to complete. Nothing kills immersion and mystery more than a damn quest marker showing me the exact path to follow to get to this "elusive" ghost that's haunting the town. If the ghost is so elusive, how in the hell do i have this yellow arrow pointing me to it? But again, variance--sometimes the quest giver should be able to tell you exactly where to go. Other times, perhaps they have no idea how you'll complete the task they're asking of you.. they just know they need something done.

Basically what i'm saying i guess, is hand-crafted quests. Nothing like the abomination that was/is the Bethesda's Radiant Quest System. It sounded great in theory, but ended up having the complete opposite effect for me, where I gave absolutely zero shits about those quests because i knew they were the same randomly generated boring nonsense time and time again.

Oh yea one more thing... the start of quests. Vary how you get these quests. Having all the quests come from the inn keeper is lame. Sure, sometimes, perhaps the inn keeper needs something done. But other times, you should just stumble into a side quest... Nehrim did this very well. I remember stumbling across some looted wagon and finding something which I weren't quite sure about. Some hints at something. Then later I come across this ruins which reminded me of something I read in the clue... wait, could this be the place???
 
Last edited:
chockomonkey said:
IMO....

Variance. We all know that doing a side quest (IE, not the Main Quest) is not necessary to beat the game and is there for your simple enjoyment, and the benefit to your character and his/her progression.

There should be varied types. I personally think a fetch quest here and there is not a bad thing. A simple contract between you and someone who needs some simple firewood or something, but can't get it for themselves.

"I got 20 gold but can't get my own firewood because of x. Will you bring me some?"

Completely believable. As long as they're not all like this, sweet! It's kinda nice having a couple simple quests in your log to work on while you're doing other things.

Same with kill quests.. I like a good kill quest now and then.

Along with these types though, there should be some other, more story-driven side-quests which aren't necessarily part of the main quest, but have their own unique side-story if you will.

Again, variance. Not only should you have a lot of varying kinds of side-quests, but the quests themselves... say one kill quest compared to the next, should vary. Not just in subject (kill this bear vs kill this thief), but also in events which transpire during the quest... perhaps if you don't do x or y, you actually fail to kill the bear and something else happens. Perhaps you could only get some of the requested items. Instead of making the quest simply non-completable, have the quest giver be like... "the fuck, you only got 5? well fine here's what's going to happen"

Make some unexpected shit go down.

Also, varying and meaningful rewards would be nice. If you always just got gold for a side quest.. /yawn. But sometimes it could be an item this dude had lying around.. sometimes a good item, sometimes not. Maybe the dude actually stiffs you on payment...but this is just part of the side quest, and it moves on... or maybe it doesn't and you have to threaten him, or kill him, or just let bygones be bygones.

And finally, i'd say to have a mix between quests that you know where to go to complete, and quests that you have no idea where to go to complete. Nothing kills immersion and mystery more than a damn quest marker showing me the exact path to follow to get to this "elusive" ghost that's haunting the town. If the ghost is so elusive, how in the hell do i have this yellow arrow pointing me to it? But again, variance--sometimes the quest giver should be able to tell you exactly where to go. Other times, perhaps they have no idea how you'll complete the task they're asking of you.. they just know they need something done.

Basically what i'm saying i guess, is hand-crafted quests. Nothing like the abomination that was/is the Bethesda's Radiant Quest System. It sounded great in theory, but ended up having the complete opposite effect for me, where I gave absolutely zero shits about those quests because i knew they were the same randomly generated boring nonsense time and time again.

Oh yea one more thing... the start of quests. Vary how you get these quests. Having all the quests come from the inn keeper is lame. Sure, sometimes, perhaps the inn keeper needs something done. But other times, you should just stumble into a side quest... Nehrim did this very well. I remember stumbling across some looted wagon and finding something which I weren't quite sure about. Some hints at something. Then later I come across this ruins which reminded me of something I read in the clue... wait, could this be the place???
Click to expand...

Nicely put!

This is really what I loved about the Ultima side quests. A lot of the memorable ones for me were to find some of the "named" weapons. There were books written about them that you can find. There's a back story about who made it, where it came from, what powers it has, why/how it got its name, the legend of the wielder, and how it got to it's final (or current) resting place. Then you'd first have to figure out where to find the entrance to the area it was in, explore and fight your way through basically an entire area of the game dedicated to that quest, and when you got there, it was usually a pretty cool location, (or comical in the case of the Hoe of Destruction :D ) There were clues, lore, things that made it feel like you were really hunting down something special. You could also stumble on the areas by accident, and end up discovering it all on your own. The best part, it was completely extra/optional. You may never pick up the clues to even pique your interest on one play, then discover it on another. The other thing was that these quests were crafted as well as any other part of the game (generally speaking). Not just tacked on as filler.

I also don't mind a fetch quest at all really, but yes, if that's ALL you're doing, then it can get tiresome.

This is only partially related, but I love areas that are set up to make you wonder what happened to the place, who lived there, why it was destroyed (in the case of ruins,) etc. the are done imaginatively and really make you start wondering. There's quite a bit of this sort of thing in the Ultima games, Mass Effect (mostly the first one) etc. Or like areas in the System Shock games, where you go "what the hell happened here" then you find the crew logs that give you a taste of their last minutes alive. I like some mystery, and especially if it's actually possible to really find out more about it if you try.

Anyway...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TaintedSquirrel said:
Downgrade is confirmed along with all the other "Consoles look the same as PC" bullshit CDPR has been spinning.
Click to expand...

confirmed like Half Life 3?

even if it is downgraded it can still look better then 95% of games...people assume downgrade= terrible graphics
 
Are we talking about downgrade on PC or consoles?

I can understand if they feel the need to tweak the graphics down on console to deliver a smoother experience. But I hope that will not be the case for PC. Best to ship with the best quality and let the user determine what they want to turn down to suit their own PC performance.
 
"No loading screens unless you fast travel" is very cool. Not being able to seamlessly enter and exit buildings or dungeon without some kind of transition or black screen was always kind of annoying in the past.. same with Skyrim.
 
DPI said:
"No loading screens unless you fast travel" is very cool. Not being able to seamlessly enter and exit buildings or dungeon without some kind of transition or black screen was always kind of annoying in the past.. same with Skyrim.
Click to expand...
They said the same thing about Witcher 2 and it wasn't true.
It had the same kind of transitional load screens like Skyrim.

Witcher 3 will be the same way, most likely.
 
Stiler said:
Not sure where you guys are getting this downgrade talk from
Click to expand...

More like just one angsty kid trying too hard to be a wet blanket. Gotta love 'em.

We'll see soon enough. For now I'll give this developer the benefit of the doubt, I think they've earned that much.
 
Last edited:
A game can be downgraded and still look gorgeous.
It just doesn't look as gorgeous as it did before. The downgrade has already been proven in the comparison pics/videos at least 6+ months ago.

Witcher 3 is still a good looking game, though.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
A game can be downgraded and still look gorgeous.
It just doesn't look as gorgeous as it did before. The downgrade has already been proven in the comparison pics/videos at least 6+ months ago.

Witcher 3 is still a good looking game, though.
Click to expand...

Come back after it's announced and say that, and then you can talk. Until then, it's all speculation based on terrible, compressed youtube videos.
 
Watching the Angryjoe video fully and the part where he tries sailing was actually pretty awesome to watch, go here:
https://youtu.be/lJpWBMH9EtQ?t=16m17s

16:17 into the video it gets interesting. I wasn't expecting that kind of detail while you're out sailing the open sea and what can happen.


Another good video from Gopher, he talks a LOT about his thoughts on the game and his experience which I found to be the most insightful of all the videos I've watched so far.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94R0Ji39E68

The actual gameplay might look wonky and he says it was because he was forced to use a controller (they didn't have the pc controls available) and he never uses a controller so he wasn't that good with it.

TaintedSquirrel said:
They said the same thing about Witcher 2 and it wasn't true.
It had the same kind of transitional load screens like Skyrim.

Witcher 3 will be the same way, most likely.
Click to expand...


Watch the video from Gopher I just linked, go to 4:07 in the video. A developer says there's only loading between the major hubs (IE the two huge regions).

Gopher also shows (and talks) about the lack of loading times shortly after this, entering into buildings, caves, etc there is 0 loading times into them, Geralt opens the door and walks straight in.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I'll take a visual "downgrade" if performance and load times are minimized by it.
Give me a game that looks and plays well (aka. 60fps with high details) on strong to normal hardware today instead of the vague hope of someday playing it properly in the future.
I'm not suggesting consolizing it, but I don't mind sacrificing pure fidelity for performance. I trust the devs know this.
 
Stiler said:
Another good video from Gopher, he talks a LOT about his thoughts on the game and his experience which I found to be the most insightful of all the videos I've watched so far.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94R0Ji39E68
Click to expand...

At 0:24s Geralt slashes at the drowner from upper right to lower left, but the drowner is cut in half from upper LEFT to lower RIGHT! Lies! Downgrade! End of PC gaming!</TaintedSquirrel>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top