2819 réponses à ce sujet

[Naughty Bear]

Elton John is dead wrote...

Gotta feel sorry for Bethesda. Their ass hasn't had a rest lately from all the whooping it's been getting from developers who have been creating better open world RPG's than them.

Two Worlds II.
Dark Souls.
Dragon's Dogma.

And now The Witcher 3.

My personal opinion, I thinking Far Cry 3 should be added in.

[LPPrince]

Even if people think all those games are "better" than Skyrim(which is a subjective thing anyway), seems the majority still goes to Skyrim.

It probably outsold all of them combined(that guess is coming straight out of left field, I have no idea).

I'm glad the CDProjekt Red guys have Skyrim in mind.

[Cyberfrog81]

I don't care how much Skyrim sold. I don't want Skyrim.

How often do you get greatness from "that sells well, let's do that!" That kind of thinking got us Justin Bieber.

[Yrkoon]

Erik Lehnsherr wrote...
A unique wide and detailed area RPG and yet retaining all the great gameplay and story from the Witcher 2? That is what I'm looking for in The Wild Hunt and if they can deliver then that literally will be the perfect RPG in my mind.

Not sure what definition of gameplay you're using.  Witcher 2's gameplay was....  horrendous.

But hey, my opinion doesn't matter.  So I'll just ask you for yours.

What part of Witcher 2's gameplay did you think was great?  Was it the character class choices?  (It had none) Was it the attribute system and its effect on combat?  (It didn't have  one)    Was it the actiony, twitch-based QTEs? (which are being scrapped for Witcher 3, since they were almost universally despised)  Was it the varied combat options?  (melee-only... no archery, no magic beyond 7 or 8 'signs', no real stealth gameplay save for... what.... 2 small areas in the entire game)  Or was it the wonderful team-based/party-based tactical gameplay  (it had none)

hmm?

Lets come down now.  The Witcher 2 did two things *great*:    1) story, and 2) choice & consequence.  No need to gush unwarranted hyperbole on any of its other tacked on features simply because someone here mentioned  the devil  Skyrim.  Because it did them terribly.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 17 février 2013 - 06:24 .

[Yrkoon]

Cyberfrog81 wrote...


How often do you get greatness from "that sells well, let's do that!" That kind of thinking got us Justin Bieber.

It also got us the  Xbox 360, and the MP3 player..  It got us  Video games in general.  It got us the Automobile, and the Airplane.  It got us  color photography,    it got us Satellites.....  The computer, the DVD,   Pizza,  Cooked meat   You Tube, Amazon.com   etc.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 17 février 2013 - 06:26 .

[slimgrin]

Yrkoon wrote...

Erik Lehnsherr wrote...
A unique wide and detailed area RPG and yet retaining all the great gameplay and story from the Witcher 2? That is what I'm looking for in The Wild Hunt and if they can deliver then that literally will be the perfect RPG in my mind.

Not sure what definition of gameplay you're using, but Witcher 2's gameplay was....  horrendous.

But hey, my opinion doesn't matter.  So I'll just ask you for yours.

What part of Witcher 2's gameplay did you think was great?  Was it the character class choices?  (It had none) Was it the attribute system and its effect on combat?  (It didn't have  one)    Was it the actiony, twitch-based QTEs? (which are being scrapped for Witcher 3, since they were almost universally despised)  Was it the varied combat options?  (melee-only... no archery, no magic beyond 7 or 8 'signs', no real stealth gameplay save for... what.... 2 small areas in the entire game)  Or was it the wonderful team-based/party-based tactical gameplay  (it had none)

hmm?

Lets come down now.  The Witcher 2 did two things *great*:    1) story, and 2) choice & consequence.  No need to gush unwarranted hyperbole on any of its other tacked on features simply because someone here mentioned  the devil  Skyrim.  Because it did them terribly.

You're comparing it to more tradtional RPG's which is a bit misplaced. Archery, powerful magic, etc are not part of being a Witcher. There's still plenty of variety in the talent tree and lots of toys to use. It wasn't perfect ( rolling, responsivness) but I loved it. Besides, both Skyrim and TW2 are twitch-based action RPG's anyway.

[Yrkoon]

slimgrin wrote...


You're comparing it to more tradtional RPG's which is a bit misplaced. Archery, powerful magic, etc are not part of being a Witcher. There's still plenty of variety in the talent tree and lots of toys to use. It wasn't perfect ( rolling, responsivness) but I loved it. Besides, both Skyrim and TW2 are twitch-based action RPG's anyway.

Then we can say that the Witcher 2 was awesome *inspite* of its very narrowed, very limited, very story-specific gameplay..

Because I sure as hell don't give any other games a pass when they limit the so-called "traditional RPG elements"  just  because the narrative (or some other feature) demanded that they do. For example, I won't forgive Dragon Age 2 for scrapping its stealth gameplay, or its warrior class Archery, or its non-combat skills just because its "a different kind of RPG". Witcher 2 shouldn't get a pass for that either.

Instead, we should be able to judge the game in light of these flaws. Thankfully, Witcher 2 manages to do everything else superbly, so the game for me stands as a success. But again, that doesn't mean its gameplay is any good, nor does it mean I want the future witcher game to stick with the gameplay system that was in Witcher 2.  We should be asking for better.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 17 février 2013 - 06:48 .

[Roflbox]

You better not give Skyrim a pass for it's gameplay which is horrible.

[Yrkoon]

Skyrim had rather good gameplay actually. You weren't stuck in melee, you could get by on magic, stealth, or archery alone, you didn't have to meditate in order to use a potion. You could take a companion. You could summon stuff, you had a wider variety of armor choices. You could switch camera views.  You could jump, swim, ride horses and  dualwield.

That said, I don't give Skyrim a pass on anything. What the witcher does marvelously, Skyrim doesn't do well at all (C&C, Driving narrative, Memorable NPCs)

This is why I maintain that the Perfect RPG is one that Merges these two games' Strengths.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 17 février 2013 - 07:08 .

[Mr.House]

Yrkoon wrote...

Skyrim had rather good gameplay actually. You weren't stuck in melee, you could get by on magic, stealth, or archery alone, you didn't have to meditate in order to use a potion. You could take a companion. You could summon stuff, you had a wider variety of armor choices. You could switch camera views.  You could jump, swim, ride horses and  dualwield.

That said, I don't give Skyrim a pass on anything. What the witcher does marvelously, Skyrim doesn't do well at all (C&C, Driving narrative, Memorable NPCs)

This is why I maintain that the Perfect RPG is one that Merges these two games' Strengths.

Bingo. I personly did prefer TW gameplay over the gameplay of TW2 as I played the first TW as point and click and I really enjoyed that. I got what they where doing with TW2 but it just failed for me, now the gameplay was not horrible it was passable and you could mod stats to your liking but I hope they get rid of certain things like not being able to drink porions in combat, bring back food and drinks that heal, bring back the group style(maybe makeweapons just  for that style) and please for the love of god bring back the old dice poker.

[Cyberfrog81]

Yrkoon wrote...

Because I sure as hell don't give any other games a pass when they limit the so-called "traditional RPG elements"  just  because the narrative (or some other feature) demanded that they do. For example, I won't forgive Dragon Age 2 for scrapping its stealth gameplay, or its warrior class Archery, or its non-combat skills just because its "a different kind of RPG". Witcher 2 shouldn't get a pass for that either.

Instead, we should be able to judge the game in light of these flaws. Thankfully, Witcher 2 manages to do everything else superbly, so the game for me stands as a success. But again, that doesn't mean its gameplay is any good, nor does it mean I want the future witcher game to stick with the gameplay system that was in Witcher 2.  We should be asking for better.

We are. But turning Geralt into the Warden would not be "better". It would be wrong.

TW3 should not be Dragon Age or Mass Effect any more than it should be Skyrim. It needs to do its own thing.

[slimgrin]

Mr.House wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Skyrim had rather good gameplay actually. You weren't stuck in melee, you could get by on magic, stealth, or archery alone, you didn't have to meditate in order to use a potion. You could take a companion. You could summon stuff, you had a wider variety of armor choices. You could switch camera views.  You could jump, swim, ride horses and  dualwield.

That said, I don't give Skyrim a pass on anything. What the witcher does marvelously, Skyrim doesn't do well at all (C&C, Driving narrative, Memorable NPCs)

This is why I maintain that the Perfect RPG is one that Merges these two games' Strengths.

Bingo. I personly did prefer TW gameplay over the gameplay of TW2 as I played the first TW as point and click and I really enjoyed that. I got what they where doing with TW2 but it just failed for me, now the gameplay was not horrible it was passable and you could mod stats to your liking but I hope they get rid of certain things like not being able to drink porions in combat, bring back food and drinks that heal, bring back the group style(maybe makeweapons just  for that style) and please for the love of god bring back the old dice poker.

If you read the GI article CDPR is very aware of things to change. No more rollng, Geralt pivots( pirrouette) now. No more running in combat, Geralt walks. Faster sword animations, more responsive controls. And it sounds like one press=one swipe..although I liked Geraltocopter. He will be missed. 

But on the potions..shame on you! No drinky in combat. Period. That's one of the hallmarks of TW games, you have to prepare before hand. Overall I loved TW2 combat because the more you put into it the more you got out of it. If you just roll and spam Quen, then it's no fun. Unfortunately that's what alot of people did because the option was there and the combat was hard...and rough around the edges.

Modifié par slimgrin, 17 février 2013 - 08:08 .

[Corto81]

I have no idea why people are getting their panties in a bunch because these guys want to model their world after Bethesda.

Skyrim, for all it faults, was AMAZING. The depth of the world, how vast and beautiful it was, the open vistas, fantastic scenery, great (unique) dungeons, etc.... EXPLORATION is why you play Skyrim.
And no game does it better.

And if CDPR want to model their world after that, more power to them.
If they want to model their combat after Dark Souls 2, more power to them.
As long as the story and choices remain on TW2's level.

If that happens, this might easily be the game of the year.

[LPPrince]

Erik Lehnsherr wrote...

Well, Prince I value story over gameplay and The Witcher's story is the best I've seen in video-games so far and Skyrim is the worst in my opinion, unfortunately DA2's story beats Skyrim's for me.
And I prefer unique small scale detailed areas (TW2) versus Wide area bland and repetitive areas (Skyrim) this is one of my concerns for The Wild hunt, but if they can make a combination of both then it will be the most high-quality RPG in a long, long time.

A unique wide and detailed area RPG and yet retaining all the great gameplay and story from the Witcher 2? That is what I'm looking for in The Wild Hunt and if they can deliver then that literally will be the perfect RPG in my mind.

I also value story over gameplay, though of course gameplay is also very important to me.

If we're talking about taking the best of both worlds and putting them together, I don't see the need to harp on the negatives of Skyrim and such other titles, which some people seem to be doing(not pointing you out).

Lets talk about what these games did right.

While I doubt The Wild Hunt will have it, I loved Skyrim's freedom of combat. You know, being able to do whatever you wanted at any time instead of being forced to just one weapon type or playstyle.

So being able to use Geralt's swords along with bows, daggers, and a bunch of other stuff would be cool.

As far as gameworlds go, small and large worlds can both be awesome, but what really matters is the detail in them.

Skyrim cities I loved because I can find tons of detail in them and for that I love them to death.

From what I know of TW2, its political story is very rich and highly praised- that in combination with a rich and detailed open world would be very welcome to me.

So I'm totally cool with CDProjekt Red looking at it. Hell they pointed out its flaws and they weren't really wrong so its good to know they aren't thinking its a flawless masterpiece.

[Mr.House]

slimgrin wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Skyrim had rather good gameplay actually. You weren't stuck in melee, you could get by on magic, stealth, or archery alone, you didn't have to meditate in order to use a potion. You could take a companion. You could summon stuff, you had a wider variety of armor choices. You could switch camera views.  You could jump, swim, ride horses and  dualwield.

That said, I don't give Skyrim a pass on anything. What the witcher does marvelously, Skyrim doesn't do well at all (C&C, Driving narrative, Memorable NPCs)

This is why I maintain that the Perfect RPG is one that Merges these two games' Strengths.

Bingo. I personly did prefer TW gameplay over the gameplay of TW2 as I played the first TW as point and click and I really enjoyed that. I got what they where doing with TW2 but it just failed for me, now the gameplay was not horrible it was passable and you could mod stats to your liking but I hope they get rid of certain things like not being able to drink porions in combat, bring back food and drinks that heal, bring back the group style(maybe makeweapons just  for that style) and please for the love of god bring back the old dice poker.

If you read the GI article CDPR is very aware of things to change. No more rollng, Geralt pivots( pirrouette) now. No more running in combat, Geralt walks. Faster sword animations, more responsive controls. And it sounds like one press=one swipe..although I liked Geraltocopter. He will be missed. 

But on the potions..shame on you! No drinky in combat. Period. That's one of the hallmarks of TW games, you have to prepare before hand. Overall I loved TW2 combat because the more you put into it the more you got out of it. If you just roll and spam Quen, then it's no fun. Unfortunately that's what alot of people did because the option was there and the combat was hard...and rough around the edges.

Failing in a fight because I did not know to take a swallow potion or something, having to reload and then do the long process of drinknig one swallow or whatever is not fun, I prefered drinknig it in combat in TW while also still being able to take damage.

Also we had all these food items in our inventory that did nothing, where in TW they where healing items that gave small boost in combat, bring those back or just get rid of the junk stuff. If I have fish, I should be able to eat it dammit!

Modifié par Mr.House, 17 février 2013 - 08:16 .

[LPPrince]

slimgrin wrote...

the more you put into it the more you got out of it. If you just roll and spam Quen, then it's no fun. Unfortunately that's what alot of people did because the option was there and the combat was hard...and rough around the edges.

I'll keep that in mind.

[_Aine_]

Yrkoon wrote...
Instead, we should be able to judge the game in light of these flaws. Thankfully, Witcher 2 manages to do everything else superbly, so the game for me stands as a success. But again, that doesn't mean its gameplay is any good, nor does it mean I want the future witcher game to stick with the gameplay system that was in Witcher 2.  We should be asking for better.

I love me some WItcher 2 something fierce, but I agree with this.  I love the game because of story and consequence (the fact there are no white/black choices is fantastic, everything is grey which I love) but the game play was, in my opinion, clunky and inconvenient.   Despite having a few ways to develop my character, it seemed to me to be a matter of style rather than difference about who I was as the character. 

To many that doesn't matter at all.  But as someone who loved the old RPGs character customization and difficulty, I miss those things.  

Still, I love Witcher and despite all my "wishes" for the game, the thing I want the most is them not to kill it by rushing it or trying to please everyone (even me )  I don't want a Dragons Age 2 out of the witcher 3 basically.  I want them to keep doing what works, and improve what didn't....not change for the sake of artistic license or just because they can. (there are new games to develop for that)  I think they should honor the success of the past games in the franchise, and keep true to what it was, while still improving it.  Of course, it's easier for me to say that from my comfy computer chair with no pressure on ME to be making those decisions, admittedly  

[Dutchess]

I think CDPR did a decent job at offering a certain amount of choice in how you built Geralt within the limitations of his witcher class. I'm not sure why you'd think the lack of different classes was a flaw of The Witcher, because the game you're playing is called "The Witcher" for a reason. In these games you're stuck with your class, but within that class you have the choice whether to focus on the signs, the sword or alchemy. You can't make Geralt a sorcerer, because he isn't. You can't give Geralt a bow, because his whole life he has been trained for using a sword. Same goes for stealth. Despite how you choose to 'tweak' Geralt, he is still is a witcher from the wolf school. That school taught you how to fight monsters, not sneak around like a thief. I doubt sneaking is very useful around wraiths or bruxae anyway.

Now, of course you may not like this lack of freedom, but it's not really fair to call it a flaw, because the games were always meant to be about a set character, who is a set class because that class defines who and what he is. It's not like an old-school RPG because it isn't meant to be.

[Mr.House]

renjility wrote...

I think CDPR did a decent job at offering a certain amount of choice in how you built Geralt within the limitations of his witcher class. I'm not sure why you'd think the lack of different classes was a flaw of The Witcher, because the game you're playing is called "The Witcher" for a reason. In these games you're stuck with your class, but within that class you have the choice whether to focus on the signs, the sword or alchemy. You can't make Geralt a sorcerer, because he isn't. You can't give Geralt a bow, because his whole life he has been trained for using a sword. Same goes for stealth. Despite how you choose to 'tweak' Geralt, he is still is a witcher from the wolf school. That school taught you how to fight monsters, not sneak around like a thief. I doubt sneaking is very useful around wraiths or bruxae anyway.

Now, of course you may not like this lack of freedom, but it's not really fair to call it a flaw, because the games were always meant to be about a set character, who is a set class because that class defines who and what he is. It's not like an old-school RPG because it isn't meant to be.

Geralt uses stealth in TW2 and shows he is good at it.

Modifié par Mr.House, 17 février 2013 - 11:09 .

[Dutchess]

 Not on my first playthrough.

[Mr.House]

renjility wrote...

 Not on my first playthrough.

Did you get arrowed to death when trying to sneak in the camp?

Modifié par Mr.House, 17 février 2013 - 11:19 .

[Nordicus]

No witnesses!

[Dutchess]

Mr.House wrote...

renjility wrote...

 Not on my first playthrough.

Did you get arrowed to death when trying to sneak in the camp?

LOL, yup, that too. And got caught by every single guard in the dungeon, and by the first guard guarding Loredo's mansion, and as soon as I came near the Kaedweni camp. I am, however, proud to say that I did succeed in all those sneaking sessions on my second run.:innocent: