13812 réponses à ce sujet

[slimgrin]

An article about CDPR making their next game more accessible. No, I'm not kidding.

 http://www.gamasutra..._accessible.php 

[android654]

Oh, it's in reference to the writing. Well I'm not too happy about that. Then again, in Cyberpunk stories the environment tells half the story on its own.

Modifié par android654, 19 juin 2012 - 01:51 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

I don't see reason to worry yet. I see it as PR talk. A number have expressed that it was hard to get into the Witcher universe by playing the 2nd game only (duh), with some reason. I see this as alleviating fears and concerns. I do not think they will dumb down the writing, just be more generous in terms of the setting's history and such.

[android654]

Yeah, from what I'm reading, this is a good thing.

"In The Witcher 1, for example, we were throwing people in the middle of the story, and we assumed that players would know what is happening! But a lot of players told us that they didn't really understand this relationship or that relationship," said co-founder and joint CEO Marcin Iwinski.

"With our future games, we want the player to be able to get more context, and we need to introduce the game and its characters to people more properly," he added. [...]

"We like to talk about the thing that everyone's talking about: Game of Thrones, the TV series," said Iwinski. "It's the perfect reflection of a book in another medium."

Iwinski pointed out that while the popular HBO series removes content from the books and takes some serious liberties with its source material, audiences still understand the essence of what makes the series great. It keeps things simple, without losing any of the details that really matter.

"And that's what we want to capture. In [Cyberpunk], we want to create a story that is very profound, but the novice players should be introduced to [the world] better than they were in The Witcher 2," Iwinski said.

Nothing but good stuff is being said here.

[Savber100]

Question about Witcher lore:

What exactly is wrong with Nilfgaard?

I have never read the books so I'm really curious on just what's wrong with Nilf Empire since the North keeps treating them like the big bogeymen. During my playthrough, it seemed that the people if anything were worse off with the Northern kings. Men like Henselt and recently-deceased Demavend were mostly either ruthless or plain incompetent (Still love the former though... the cunning bastard). Mind you, men like Radovid and Foltest were competent if not great rulers so I'm not saying all the northern kings were idiots. However in the end goal as Geralt, I couldn't help but wonder whether the Northern Kingdom would necessarily be worse off with Nilf occupation. I mean what is wrong with the Nilfgaardians taking over?

Excuse the misspelling etc.

Modifié par Savber100, 19 juin 2012 - 02:52 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Well other than a foreign empire taking over your land, Nilfgaard is more authoritarian and is ruthless in times of war. But of course being the Witcher universe, they have their pros and cons.

Nilfgaardian society is different from the North. It's almost its opposite in fact. So it is no surprised that the people of the North fear it. Though not all do, Nilfgaard has allies within the North, like Maravel (who I identify with).

[Mr.House]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Well other than a foreign empire taking over your land, Nilfgaard is more authoritarian and is ruthless in times of war. But of course being the Witcher universe, they have their pros and cons.

Nilfgaardian society is different from the North. It's almost its opposite in fact. So it is no surprised that the people of the North fear it. Though not all do, Nilfgaard has allies within the North, like Maravel (who I identify with).

Maravel is scum who betrayed his country. Hope John does more to him then just putting him in a cell.

[KnightofPhoenix]

He wasn't betraying his country. He was betraying the dynasty, huge difference. As for Nilfgaard spreading its influence with him as king, it's not necessarily a bad thing. The North is ignorant and primitive. It's not the end of the world if they get influenced by a more cultivated, sophisticated civilization for a few decades. Might be for the best too.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 19 juin 2012 - 03:36 .

[Mr.House]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

He wasn't betraying his country. He was betraying the dynasty, huge difference. As for Nilfgaard taking over, it's not necessarily a bad thing. The North is ignorant and primitive. It's not the end of the world if they get conquered by a more cultivated, sophisticated civilization for a few decades. Might be for the best too.

I have issues supporting an Empire that not only aggressive, walks over everything, devouring everything and making you beleive and live their culture and life, no exceptions or you die. Also an Empire that only the inhabitants of lands near the river Alba have the right to call themselves Nilfgaardians. I will be very happy if we can cut off Duny's head in TW3. Again my hatred for the Empire comes from the books, not the games that tries to showcase them as being the best hope for the North()

Modifié par Mr.House, 19 juin 2012 - 03:43 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

The game doesn't do that, it rather had a nuanced portrayal.
The Empire has its flaws and it has its benefits. From what I know from both the books and the game, it's generally a more advanced civilization.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 19 juin 2012 - 03:53 .

[Mr.House]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The game doesn't do that, it rather had a nuanced portrayal.
The Empire has its flaws and it has its benefits. From what I know from both the books and the game, it's generally a more advanced civilization.

In the books, Nilfgaard is displayed as the main antagonist. With most
of the races and free peoples hating them with a passion. They are
introduced into the series in the Blood of Elves novel, when they invaded Cintra.
Nilfgaard draws many paralells with the Roman Empire of the real world,
with disciplined armies, an empire, slavery, an Emperor and feeling of
superiority within its delgates and subjects, as they believe that they
are of the Elder Blood, meaning they are the descendants of Lara Dorren.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Yes....and?
I happen to like the Roman Empire and think it did more good than harm.

[Mr.House]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yes....and?
I happen to like the Roman Empire and think it did more good than harm.

And what happen to the Roman Empire?

[KnightofPhoenix]

What happens to every single polity in existence regardless of form of government. They collapse. That too, is a good thing in the larger scheme of things.

[Savber100]

 

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Well other than a foreign empire taking over your land, Nilfgaard is more authoritarian and is ruthless in times of war. But of course being the Witcher universe, they have their pros and cons. 

Nilfgaardian society is different from the North. It's almost its opposite in fact. So it is no surprised that the people of the North fear it. Though not all do, Nilfgaard has allies within the North, like Maravel (who I identify with).

 

And the North isn't? After seeing the actions of Radovid and Henselt, I don't really see how the North is less authoritarian than the South. Ruthlessness in politics and rule seems prevelant throughout the Witcher universe (as it should be). 

So in the end as Geralt, I don't see how I can sympathize with a free North. 

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The North is ignorant and primitive. It's not the end of the world if they get influenced by a more cultivated, sophisticated civilization for a few decades. Might be for the best too.

Exactly. What do the North fight for? Freedom? Freedom for what? Better values or culture? Better society? The northerners are usually no more than a mish-mash of racist, ignorant peasants ruled by paranoid, cunning kings. Of course, Nilfgaard is probably no better but at least have the benefit of a more advanced culture and society. With the exception of the mages and some kings, the North seems to be just a comglemrate of ignorant barbarians.

I daresay the kingdoms will actually benefit if Nilfgaardian comes in and takes over. 

...

Man. Now I'm suddenly glad I spared Letho and killed Henselt in my last playthrough. 

Modifié par Savber100, 19 juin 2012 - 04:45 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

The north is authoritarian, but Nilfgaard is far more centralized and the emperor has more power than northern kings (with the exception of Radovid, imo,. who is centralizing power). The North is still more or less feudal. Nilfgaard is not so.

Also I am not sure when it comes to personal liberties, taxes and all that. It is possible that the North grants rights to peasants that Nilfgaard does not.

[Haplose]

Savber100 wrote...

Question about Witcher lore:

What exactly is wrong with Nilfgaard?

I have never read the books so I'm really curious on just what's wrong with Nilf Empire since the North keeps treating them like the big bogeymen. During my playthrough, it seemed that the people if anything were worse off with the Northern kings. Men like Henselt and recently-deceased Demavend were mostly either ruthless or plain incompetent (Still love the former though... the cunning bastard). Mind you, men like Radovid and Foltest were competent if not great rulers so I'm not saying all the northern kings were idiots. However in the end goal as Geralt, I couldn't help but wonder whether the Northern Kingdom would necessarily be worse off with Nilf occupation. I mean what is wrong with the Nilfgaardians taking over?

Excuse the misspelling etc.

The politics are just one angle. One that I feel has been covered pretty well in the discussion already.

But in The Witcher we impersonate Geralt - a character who has been trying to avoid politics whenever possible in the books . Who mainly acted basing on his personal feelings and sympathies or simply doing what is best for his friends and loved ones. And he had little reason to love Nilfgaard. Particularly after the Cintra invasion and Cahir aep Ceallach kidnapping, stalking and haunting Ciri (who is sort of like Geralt's adopted doughter... though it's way more complex then this).

On a side note I like the Rome reference. I find it fitting as well. But I guess the Northerners would be more like:
"All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?"

Modifié par Haplose, 19 juin 2012 - 07:31 .

[Ridwan]

I just played the Witcher after having putting off for a long time, the first time I didn't make it out of the castle, before I decided the game sucked.

Then after about 6 months, I played it today, and I still think it sucks. I didn't like the combat mechanics, the graphics, the overall gameplay feel and the extreme slow pace, so I ended up uninstalling it after about an hour and a half or so.

Is the Witcher 2 similar? Cause I don't see the big deal about the Witcher, and if you tell me the game gets better as you progress then you're not making a good case for the game. A game has to be good the moment you start playing it, not for me to wait around to get to a certain stage where the action finally happens.

[Seboist]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I don't see reason to worry yet. I see it as PR talk. A number have expressed that it was hard to get into the Witcher universe by playing the 2nd game only (duh), with some reason. I see this as alleviating fears and concerns. I do not think they will dumb down the writing, just be more generous in terms of the setting's history and such.

There were still issues even for those who had played the first and not read any of the books like the sudden focus on Yennefer whose only mentions there were extremely vague or the Nilfgaardians, who if you didn't know any better were just another kingdom. 

[Haplose]

M25105 wrote...

I just played the Witcher after having putting off for a long time, the first time I didn't make it out of the castle, before I decided the game sucked.

Then after about 6 months, I played it today, and I still think it sucks. I didn't like the combat mechanics, the graphics, the overall gameplay feel and the extreme slow pace, so I ended up uninstalling it after about an hour and a half or so.

Is the Witcher 2 similar? Cause I don't see the big deal about the Witcher, and if you tell me the game gets better as you progress then you're not making a good case for the game. A game has to be good the moment you start playing it, not for me to wait around to get to a certain stage where the action finally happens.

No, the gameplay is very different in TW2. It's much more action-oriented and faster paced. Also the graphics are pretty much as good, as crpgs get.

The above doesn't mean that I'm convinced that TW2 is a better game overall... I happened to love TW1 and disagree with many changes made in TW2.

[Alpha-Centuri]

M25105 wrote...

Is the Witcher 2 similar? Cause I don't see the big deal about the Witcher, and if you tell me the game gets better as you progress then you're not making a good case for the game. A game has to be good the moment you start playing it, not for me to wait around to get to a certain stage where the action finally happens.

So... I'm not gonna beg you to play the game because ultimately it has nothing to do with me. I will however give you my honest opinion.

For a modern audience (I am one of those), The Witcher 2 is hands down better than The Witcher. It maintains RPG elements, but not to the scale of a typical D&D style. What you get is something that is still deep but can't be seen as archaic. If you only like D&D style customization, you will hate it. Be careful though, because you CAN gimp your character if you spend your points stupidly.

The gameplay is better imo in every single way. The rhythm fighting was very boring* and I never finished the game either. I downloaded an import of what I wanted for The Witcher 2.

And yes, it gets better as you progress, but it starts off pretty good as well. When you play the prologue, you'll have a feel for the game and its style. If you don't like it then, well... you won't like it.

The story is great with more believable characters than any Bioware game
The gameplay is improved over TW1
The RPG elements are made more accessible.

If you don't like it, you don't like it. Try the Gaikai demo and make up your mind if you want to buy it or not. You get a lot of value though, because they have given over 10 gigs worth of free content in terms of DLC and the like. They are pretty much the good guys of video gaming.

[Haplose]

Finally found the solution to my Witcher 2 (and not only!) woes. Turns out my E8400 was running on one core only!  Probably has been like that for half a year already. Must have been some error in my December Windows XP installation.
Now I managed to replace the Windows HAL to Multiprocessor version and The Witcher 2 is now flying like it should!  Looking forward to trying the new patch! And finally doing the Iorveth run!

On a side note, it does make one wonder how well a game like Skyrim can run on a single core machine

Anyway 
hangmans tree and slimgrin - Thank you very much for all the helpful advice! 

Modifié par Haplose, 19 juin 2012 - 06:52 .

[Ridwan]

Alpha-Centuri wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Is the Witcher 2 similar? Cause I don't see the big deal about the Witcher, and if you tell me the game gets better as you progress then you're not making a good case for the game. A game has to be good the moment you start playing it, not for me to wait around to get to a certain stage where the action finally happens.

So... I'm not gonna beg you to play the game because ultimately it has nothing to do with me. I will however give you my honest opinion.

For a modern audience (I am one of those), The Witcher 2 is hands down better than The Witcher. It maintains RPG elements, but not to the scale of a typical D&D style. What you get is something that is still deep but can't be seen as archaic. If you only like D&D style customization, you will hate it. Be careful though, because you CAN gimp your character if you spend your points stupidly.

The gameplay is better imo in every single way. The rhythm fighting was very boring* and I never finished the game either. I downloaded an import of what I wanted for The Witcher 2.

And yes, it gets better as you progress, but it starts off pretty good as well. When you play the prologue, you'll have a feel for the game and its style. If you don't like it then, well... you won't like it.

The story is great with more believable characters than any Bioware game
The gameplay is improved over TW1
The RPG elements are made more accessible.

If you don't like it, you don't like it. Try the Gaikai demo and make up your mind if you want to buy it or not. You get a lot of value though, because they have given over 10 gigs worth of free content in terms of DLC and the like. They are pretty much the good guys of video gaming.

Thanks for your input dude. So it's sort of like Witcher is Mass Effect and Witcher 2 is Mass Effect 2? In terms of gameplay difference?

[Haplose]

I'd say there is a bigger difference.

[Chromie]

M25105 wrote...

Thanks for your input dude. So it's sort of like Witcher is Mass Effect and Witcher 2 is Mass Effect 2? In terms of gameplay difference?

Just watch this.

It's a bigger difference really. They did away with the horrible combat they had in the original. Alchemy...was streamlined it has a lot of depth still though.You can craft gloves, boots, armor, leggins, swords, traps and bombs now which add a lot to combat. Really just try a demo over at Gaikai.