TBH, didn't we already see the King in TW1? I'm not saying you shouldn't be upset about this, but AFAIK, we have already seen him.
We saw his spectre form, never his human form which is what we are seeing now in TW3(he's just in his armor)
So not really the same, more so when the kIngs design has changed in each game.
Also, if you look closely the Sword of Destiny trailer you will notice that the place where Geralt has the audience with the emperor is almost without the doubt the same throne room of king Foltest that we saw in Witcher 1 in Wizima. If so that means two things: Emhyr has come all the way from his capital in the south to lead his great army and Nilfgaard seems to use Temerian capital as their base of military operations in the north.
Spoiler
Spoiler
Actually now that I think of it, quite an deja vu for Geralt if I am right about the throne room:
Spoiler
Spoiler
Actually now that I think of it, quite an deja vu for Geralt if I am right about the throne room:
Spoiler
Oh yeah, agreed.
Someone tried turning Geralt into a female in The Witcher 2 but it didn't quite work out...
XD
AAAAAAHHHHH, MY EYES! HAVE TO WASH THEM WITH GASOLINE!!!!
I'm worried it's going to turn into a bazillion exclamation points at very hub of the infinite number of people's needing their issues resolved. I guess there's no way to know for sure at this point though.
Witcher 2 was pretty straightforward, I'm not really sure why they're going for Skyrim with Witcher 3.
Gotta admit, pretty sweet cosplay pictures from comic-con has been published. Especially the ones with Eve Beauregard.
Not quite how I pictured Yennefer when reading the books, but close enough certainly!
I'm worried it's going to turn into a bazillion exclamation points at very hub of the infinite number of people's needing their issues resolved. I guess there's no way to know for sure at this point though.
Witcher 2 was pretty straightforward, I'm not really sure why they're going for Skyrim with Witcher 3.
They're not. It will feel more condensed from what I've read and the world design looks completely different too.
Quests could be time based for all we know meaning that as you progress through the story, new ones open up and old ones close which would be far more realistic than what Skyrim did which also randomly threw quests into your journal (another feature that made me despise the game, a feature that also existed in Mass Effect 3). Dragon's Dogma's side quests were all time based and it worked well.
What we know for certain in Witcher 3 is that every side quest is hand crafted and unique. The Witcher 3's side quests will (hopefully) be in the vein of The Witcher 2's where there will multiple ways to solve a quest with different outcomes which is far cry from the linear quests of Skyrim.
I don't know why people keep bringing Skyrim up just because Witcher 3 is going open world. Baldur's Gate was open world remember? It did the side quests good too so if Witcher 3 does it in a similar vein to Baldur's Gate or Dragon's Dogma then it'll all be good.
The Skyrim acclaim is total bogus.
The game's combat is the same ( with small additions ) as it was back when Oblivion launched, which was what, 2006? 5 years and no engine improvements.
You'll see a lot of the old timer RPG fans criticising it for the dumbing down.
Luckily, TW2 did not have such a thing. My only bone with TW2 was its combat.
Guest_TheDarkKnightReturns_*
TES is so popular because they've had literally 20 years to get to that point. Their last game before Skyrim was also one of the first games around during last generation's launch/debut year.
I'll admit though that I really miss the writing from Morrowind (bring back MK).
People bring Skyrim up b/c it is an open world fantasy setting with commercial and critical acclaim that isn't that old, so obviously it will be compared to a lot of games. I've also read that every quest is unique so will be interesting to see how they play out. Mostly interested in monster hunting. Hopefully they make it more fleshed out and complex than the TW 2 system, not that it was bad, but it did need some improvements.
No, I meant people who bring up Skyrim to say "Witcher 3 is heading in that direction" just because it has an open world setting. It may be open world but given the side quests of The Witcher 2 and all the interviews for W3, we can expect the actual exploration and content in the world to be different to what Skyrim offered. I played around 17 hours of Skyrim and I don't remember the side quests offering multiple solutions and endings like any of the side quests from any Witcher game.
Edit:
In fact the world structure of Witcher 3 will be different. In the trailer below, at 0:52, they call it "multi-region open world" so I think how exploration plays out will be different to all the other open world games out there.
Incidentally, Bioware has labelled Inquisition's world as being the same in the description for one of its trailers.
Welcome to Dragon Age: Inquisition, where you will take on the mantle of Inquisitor and lead a team of heroes on a perilous journey through a living, multi-region open world.
From what we've seen of Inquisition, it doesn't look like Skyrim's open world either.
I think from both games, we can expect worlds where everything is more composed. Laidlaw describes the world's openness as "It’s a multi-region game, which means that you’ll travelling with a world map. You’re travelling across this chunk of the continent in which the game is set. And each of the regions is purposeful. It has a reason you would be brought here. It ties back to the story, or at least to the overall themes of the game."
So in terms of The Witcher 3, I think we can also expect this with Baldur's Gate type regions but where these regions are bigger and connected to each other. Basically both games are composed of open regions connected to each other making one big world as opposed to Skyrim which was just one big region. I don't think either games will suffer from the empty world syndrome of Skyrim either hopefully.
I think Bioware is taking what I'd call a hub approach, where the areas are big but you're not in a true sandbox like Skyrim. I doubt it'll be anywhere near the size of TW3. CDPR seems like they've converted the three act method of TW2, blown each area up and knitted them together. So when you make choices in one region, the others will change accordingly, only now it will have to be in real time.
Also, dragon cleavage:
No, I meant people who bring up Skyrim to say "Witcher 3 is heading in that direction" just because it has an open world setting. It may be open world but given the side quests of The Witcher 2 and all the interviews for W3, we can expect the actual exploration and content in the world to be different to what Skyrim offered. I played around 17 hours of Skyrim and I don't remember the side quests offering multiple solutions and endings like any of the side quests from any Witcher game.
Doesn't change the fact it will be compared to Skyrim no matter what, since that is the general impression most people get who don't follow TW3 as intently as us.
Most interviewers always bring up Skyrim when someone mentions open-world, they act like it revolutionized RPG or that it was the first sandbox game.
It's funny, i remember in one of the early interviews where CDPR even made a funny comparison between Skyrim and Witcher, when they were talking about plot, characters and how the world will feel alive in TW3.
It's funny, i remember in one of the early interviews where CDPR even made a funny comparison between Skyrim and Witcher, when they were talking about plot, characters and how the world will feel alive in TW3.
I think it was this one correct?
http://www.eurogamer...ts-were-generic
That's arrogant.
Not saying Skyrim isn't generic, but you have to be a moron to not be able to remember 5 NPCs.
Yeah this one, much appreciated 
That's arrogant.
Not saying Skyrim isn't generic, but you have to be a moron to not be able to remember 5 NPCs.
Moron or not i agree with him. The only character that actually stayed in my mind was Serana, mostly because i was using her as companion all the time. The problem with Skyrim characters is that they are forgettable and boring.
You can create good and memorable characters in open world games, i still remember most of them in Oblivion & New Vegas and i haven't played both games in ages. Let's just hope TW3 won't fall into the same trap as most open world games do.
That's arrogant.
Not saying Skyrim isn't generic, but you have to be a moron to not be able to remember 5 NPCs.
It's not arrogant or moronic. It's telling the truth.
Same goes for Oblivion (although I can remember the Emperor and Martin but that's about it).
That's arrogant.
Not saying Skyrim isn't generic, but you have to be a moron to not be able to remember 5 NPCs.
No it's not. He's just being honest and I wish more devs spoke candidly like that. One of the things CDPR prides themselves on is being distinct in an industry that is riddled with studios repeating themselves. Skyrim didn't stand out in the writing dept just like Oblivion doesn't. No one at Bethesda was critical enough to do something about it. It's better to see the full video to gain some context:
It's not arrogant or moronic. It's telling the truth.
Same goes for Oblivion (although I can remember the Emperor and Martin but that's about it).
Ditto, I can't remember 5 Skyrim characters. Li.. er.. Liana? Whiterun king guy? Bron? Bran? Oblivion is a zero, except I remember the face of the emperor's relative or son or whatever guy, he looked so absurd to me.
My lack of confidence in the story content in the side quests is based on the structure itself. There aren't any ways to bring a strong narrative in a 3 step quest. In the thousands of side quests I've done in games as diverse and varied as Skyrim, Aion, Xenoblade, WoW, all the Witcher games, and all the Bioware games, there really isn't such a thing as a comprehensive side quest. Nor is there generally a way to have a vast world that also is full of rich and interesting details, it's budgetary and time constrained.
The best side quests ever are usually akin to a really good commercial or something.
The only really fun "side quests" are ones that are basically main quests, like in BG2 with the class quests which were extremely comprehensive even though they were technically optional.
The same goes for BG1 honestly. I wouldn't consider either of those games open world so much as shotgun game design, it had a very heavy linear narrative for the most part, even though it also followed the conventions of D&D with classes and forests to explore and find a pack of hob goblins and so on.
With Witcher 3, I haven't caught wind of a main story at all, as far as I know, it's not even based on the novels so far.
The story of the Witcher games takes place after the novels. Judging from trailers and interviews, TW3 is not only going to be the conclusion of Geralt's story in the games, but could also serve as a sequel to Sapkowski's books more than the previous titles, with several key characters from the novels and their accompanying plot threads making an appearance in the game and/or taking up central roles within it's narrative.
(I'm aware the games aren't canon but for as long as Sapkowski doesn't decide to write a follow up to "Lady of the Lake" they might be just as well.)
According to the devs, the key for a story driven rpg in an open world environment is for the player to have at least one distinct goal or objective. Rather than to wander the world aimlessly and loosing yourself in countless side activities, the player should have a motivation to follow the game's storyline. To accomplish that, multi-staged side quests, mini quests (smaller world encounters with or without several quest stages) and even some of the monster hunting quests (griffin hunt is part of the main questline) are tied to the main quest's narrative and above all are handcrafted. If they are able to successfully pull this off is an entirely different matter, but their approach to open world content sounds to me at least reasonable. I, for one, am tired of countless exclamation marks in the vicinity of my player character, consisting only of collectibles and simple fetch or kill quests and accounting for the majority of the game's content. I'm aware a lot of the above is just PR talk, but I hope the devs can at least showcase what they were aiming for in the finished product. As a developer CD Projekt is in a unique postion. Thanks to GOG they can afford to finance the development of their games more or less on their own and only have to make use of external publishers for marketing and distribution. There are reasons why they delayed the release of their game and I don't think it was just for performance optimization and bug hunting.
Well if the game is simply The Witcher 3, and all this "our world is 30x the size of X" Skyrim business is just someone from marketing telling them they should do that because it will ensare Skyrim fans, then fine, it will probably end up pretty entertaining then. It would even be fine if our world is 30x the size of X but plays basically like Witcher 2 density wise (although I find that hard to believe still).
I haven't read the books but Cyberpunk looks really boring and uninspired to me, which leads to me believe that Sapkowski is key to the success of that franchise in one way or another. The more they replace his mythology with Farmer Vlad's lost chicken run because "big open world" the less I'll enjoy the game I'm willing to bet.
Consequently, I'd rather they just said, this is The Witcher 3, and let it stand in the Witcher universe with Witcher game design.
Retour en haut
