You dont, he specifically said that was for play test runs
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Witcher 3 - Impressions
- Thread starter macfoshizzle
- Start date
You dont, he specifically said that was for play test runs
Machinehead
Member
As far as I know, QA playthroughs take a lot longer than regular ones, as testers have to check every nook and cranny. No reason to get desperate because of the 200h statement.
Good. 100hrs is concerning enough.
We still have no idea where the hell this "200 Hours" number is coming from. (OP mentions "play test" and that's as far as we can go off)
In statements made to the public, the developers have never said more than 50 Main & 50 Side Quests, except for the one comment that some QA testers were taking more like ~120 Hours.
I guarantee that some folk's first playthrough will last for 200 hours. However that will most likely be the exception, not the standard and it will be due to heavy exploration from that player, not because of extra content. People are taking this one comment about 200 hours far too seriously when it contradicts every estimate CDPR have been telling us for 2 years, and there's no way they added 100 hours worth of extra content since Gamescom, even shitty MMO style quests they couldn't pull that off.
For example: HLTB has Red Dead Redemption listed as taking 45.5 Hours for a completionist playthrough, on my first playthrough I missed heaps of stranger missions, outfits and I still spent about 70 Hours on that run.
Where did I write information that contradicts yours? *looks confused*.
Mine wasn't as specific but I don't see where I said anything that could be construed as different to what you said (just more an overall impression).
I'm so confused why people are so offended by what I said when even by what they clarify I didn't say anything different!
The only thing I can think of was I wasn't sure where the game story was in the timeline so I just said it wasn't the same as what was in the book (as int the game isn't re doing the book storyline but doing parts not put in the book).
Or was it just that I dared say I liked the story to GoT's better. Sorry, but I do *shrug* (and I admitted that was just based on Witcher 2). That doesn't mean that Witcher is a bad story at all. GoT's is near or at the top of my list for favorite fantasy stories (Which also happens to be my favorite type of literature). It's not a bad thing that I might like it over some other story (It doesn't say I think the other story is bad).
Now if I tell you I think the Dragonlance novels were better, than you can be insulted
(they were ok when I was a kid but even then I thought them a little generic and thought the authors had done better work. I tried to re read them and realized how bad they were).Gurgelhals
Member
This is explained by the plot though: Geralt still hasn't recovered most of his memories at this point, so he's still a bit rusty (I think Letho even points this out during the fight). His amnesia is also the reason for him not only not recognising Letho at the end of the prologue, but also not sensing that something is wrong and letting his guard down at a critical moment. This is in sharp contrast to the epilogue, where Geralt has recovered all his missing memories. If you decide to fight Letho then, he poses no challenge whatsoever anymore.
So can you! You can also lay off posts you can't understand.
Learn to read. I'm not criticizing the The Witcher. I have no problem with the nudity in the Witcher 2. I'm criticizing g GoT. The show.
fuckin' 50MB .gif, bro pls
lordfuzzybutt
Member
Where did I write information that contradicts yours? *looks confused*.
Mine wasn't as specific but I don't see where I said anything that could be construed as different to what you said (just more an overall impression).
I'm so confused why people are so offended by what I said when even by what they clarify I didn't say anything different!
The only thing I can think of was I wasn't sure where the game story was in the timeline so I just said it wasn't the same as what was in the book (as int the game isn't re doing the book storyline but doing parts not put in the book).
Or was it just that I dared say I liked the story to GoT's better. Sorry, but I do *shrug* (and I admitted that was just based on Witcher 2). That doesn't mean that Witcher is a bad story at all. GoT's is near or at the top of my list for favorite fantasy stories (Which also happens to be my favorite type of literature). It's not a bad thing that I might like it over some other story (It doesn't say I think the other story is bad).
Now if I tell you I think the Dragonlance novels were better, than you can be insulted
You said you were pretty sure the game is just a game version of the book, of which now you restated that you are unsure.
I am pretty sure this is what people mean when they said your information is incorrect.
Krappadizzle
Member
OP, could you draw an MS Paint version of your impressions? You'll be the prophet.
I'm so excited for W3. My most anticipated game of 2015. I can't wait to explore and talk with my buddies on Mumble about it. I must have bought w1+2 at least 5 times each to gift to buddies I loved the series so much.
I'm so excited for W3. My most anticipated game of 2015. I can't wait to explore and talk with my buddies on Mumble about it. I must have bought w1+2 at least 5 times each to gift to buddies I loved the series so much.
Denton
Member
Where did I write information that contradicts yours? *looks confused*.
Mine wasn't as specific but I don't see where I said anything that could be construed as different to what you said (just more an overall impression).
I'm so confused why people are so offended by what I said when even by what they clarify I didn't say anything different!
The only thing I can think of was I wasn't sure where the game story was in the timeline so I just said it wasn't the same as what was in the book (as int the game isn't re doing the book storyline but doing parts not put in the book).
Or was it just that I dared say I liked the story to GoT's better. Sorry, but I do *shrug* (and I admitted that was just based on Witcher 2). That doesn't mean that Witcher is a bad story at all. GoT's is near or at the top of my list for favorite fantasy stories (Which also happens to be my favorite type of literature). It's not a bad thing that I might like it over some other story (It doesn't say I think the other story is bad).
Now if I tell you I think the Dragonlance novels were better, than you can be insulted
I was mostly addressing the first sentence you wrote there
Which is just flat-out wrong even if you elaborated that it doesn't try to cover the same exact storyline. As well as the english translations being horrible, which from what I heard isn't accurate either.
I really don't care about your preferences whichever way they swing - I love both Witcher and Game of Thrones and am fine with whoever liking whichever more or less. Hell, even the Game of Thrones RPG game by Cyanide is brilliant and one of the best RPGs ever made, as far as storyline is concerned. You should play that if you haven't.
And you should also read the Witcher books, because they are awesome.
Daffy Duck
Member
Is this game similar to skyrim?
I really want a new game like that on this gen I can dive into.
I really want a new game like that on this gen I can dive into.
Denton
Member
It is similar to Skyrim in that it has huge open world ripe for exploration.
It is different, better, than Skyrim, in every other way.
As in big open world? Yeah. I hope it's not lacking depth like vanilla Skyrim though.
Daffy Duck
Member
That's exactly what I wanted to hear!
Time to play witcher 2 on my 360 then in preparation.
Deified Data
Banned
Schreckstoff
Banned
I know but Neogaf doesn't support .webm yet.
whatsinaname
Member
Man I've exhausted the content in the other games. I could easily squeeze out that much time I'm sure. If not I'll end up playing exactly the amount I want to.
Stereogatari
Banned
OP's paragraphing- 0/10.
OP's content- 10/10.
OP's content- 10/10.
Dragon1893
Member
Well, Geralt isn't invincible. Letho is also a Witcher and a powerful one at that.
The Inventor
Member
OP are positive news indeed, but now I'm starting to worry.The question here is: am I going to suffer a lot if I don't finish Witcher 2? Hmm...
Schreckstoff
Banned
Weak writing in TW1 his loss of memory didn't stop him from curing Adda among other stuff.
I hope they don't have any stupid QTEs interspersed in the Witcher 3 - The dragon running scenes and the sudden qte in the monster boss were just terrible. Also, in going to an open-world, I hope they get rid of all the context sensitive commands so that I won't light some nearby lamp instead of rolling and what-not.
From what I have seen (the hags/tree monster demo) the monsters you encounter seem much more fleshed out with interesting lore. In The Witcher 2, a lot of it seemed really random. Suddenly, there's this giant squid monster and then I'm hopping into dream crystals and battling undead armies.
Also, does anybody find it really annoying when a video game forces you to go through a prolonged boss fight when the game forces you to lose at the end?
From what I have seen (the hags/tree monster demo) the monsters you encounter seem much more fleshed out with interesting lore. In The Witcher 2, a lot of it seemed really random. Suddenly, there's this giant squid monster and then I'm hopping into dream crystals and battling undead armies.
Also, does anybody find it really annoying when a video game forces you to go through a prolonged boss fight when the game forces you to lose at the end?
They mentioned in an interview that they weren't using any QTEs this time.
Just know going into Witcher 2 that it isn't open world like 3 is going to be. In-fact the areas are even smaller and more restricted than the first game. Many people find the combat pretty clunky, but see how you go, many others (Like myself) actually really enjoy it. Try to mix up everything the game offers: Bombs, Traps, Signs etc, don't let yourself fall into the trap of just non-stop rolling or Quen & Mashing left click, experiment with the systems.
Expect a very complex and tightly woven Story/Characters, it'll demand more attention and brain power than most games do (Especially something like Skyrim), but if you get invested in it, it shouldn't be really difficult to understand and it'll be far more rewarding than other games.
As stated by the other folk, The Witcher 3 will probably only hold similarity to Skyrim in that it'll be a large open world, it's as similar to Skyrim in that respect as say, Dragon's Dogma. Other than that though, they'll be very different games. The Witcher 2 should give you a reasonable idea of what you're getting into, but there'll definitely be some changes (Open world aside) from 2 > 3.
Everything you've just posted was explained very thoroughly. I think you just weren't really paying attention, there was nothing "random" about any of those events.
Also they've stated QTE's are completely eliminated in TW3.
You may be right - I have forgotten some of the details. But, it seemed to me that the writers simply put in things because they thought they would be cool. Maybe it's because I've only ever played Assassin's of Kings once, but the kayran seemed to only serve the plot as a reason to keep Geralt in Flotsam. There wasn't much substance to it another than the devs thought it would be super cool to fight a Kracken. The devs could have replaced kayran with a completely different, popular, mythological monster with little consequence on the story. Similarly with the undead army.
That's what I mean by "random". The Witcher universe seems to just be incorporating all the standard D&D monsters into one game, and the result is that the mythos of the Witcher universe is generic.
Sile was hunting the Kayran for Henselt so Henselt would be able to get it up. It's mentioned in the peephole conversation. Which is a pretty good way to plant Sile in Henselt's company.
Also, being a Witcher is about monster hunting, and that's the name of the game. Witchers came into being solely to hunt monsters. You'll be doing even more monster hunting in 3, according to the devs. In terms of narrative, beyond the political, it took the player through the process and game mechanics related to monster hunting: research, preparation, haggling, fighting.
Sure, it was a fairly minor happening in terms of the overarching plot. Ironically however, if it were all up to Geralt, he wouldn't be dealing at all with the politics of the story, and you would only be hunting Kayrans.
The high fantasy genre is much derived from Tolkien, and D&D is by far the most developed in the genre. Witcher has some pretty unique aspects to it beyond the imperialistic dystopia that it is: it kind of has a strange science-fiction influence to it. The world came into being by two dimensions converging into one, the wild hunt is an invasion by another dimension and can only enter the world through the north pole, mutagens and cells are regularly spoken of.
I'd call it fantasy-punk, but googling has brought me to "dungeon-punk."
Also, being a Witcher is about monster hunting, and that's the name of the game. Witchers came into being solely to hunt monsters. You'll be doing even more monster hunting in 3, according to the devs. In terms of narrative, beyond the political, it took the player through the process and game mechanics related to monster hunting: research, preparation, haggling, fighting.
Sure, it was a fairly minor happening in terms of the overarching plot. Ironically however, if it were all up to Geralt, he wouldn't be dealing at all with the politics of the story, and you would only be hunting Kayrans.
The high fantasy genre is much derived from Tolkien, and D&D is by far the most developed in the genre. Witcher has some pretty unique aspects to it beyond the imperialistic dystopia that it is: it kind of has a strange science-fiction influence to it. The world came into being by two dimensions converging into one, the wild hunt is an invasion by another dimension and can only enter the world through the north pole, mutagens and cells are regularly spoken of.
I'd call it fantasy-punk, but googling has brought me to "dungeon-punk."
The Witcher universe is everything but generic
Schreckstoff
Banned
That bothered me the most about Witcher 2, geralt had no place in the midst of politics, he shouldn't even have been there when foltest was murdered.
Right but they could just as easily have made Sile hunting some other monster just as well.
Now I'm not saying that The Witcher doesn't put in some context, i'm just contesting that they are doing the bare minimum. Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy the game, and it was fun monster hunting. However, I think the game would have been even better if the monsters weren't just a potluck of typical fantasy enemies.
Also, it's not a non-criticism. Knowing what to put into a story and a world is what distinguishes good worldbuilding from bad.
Let me try to give an example of one of the few games that does deliver on what I mean, which is Dark Souls.
In Dark Souls, nearly every single enemy you have to fight has background lore that builds on the main story and themes of the game. The normal hollows represent your eventual fate of decay. The ghosts of New Londo are the result of drowning an entire city of people to prevent the dark soul from taking over the Age of Fire. The minions of Seath illustrate his preverted pleasure in experimenting on people in hopes of gaining power that lead to the beginning of the Age of Fire. And I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that nearly every enemy and boss serves to illustrate the overall plot and theme of the game.
Schreckstoff
Banned
I never got that notion, I played Dark Souls 1 and 2 for the gameplay and didn't give flying fuck about the opponents of which many look pretty generic as well, specifically dudes in armor (walking armors) for instance.
Also there are plenty of japanese games using perversions of western folklore.
The lore about the Wild Hunt does sound pretty cool - was that in the game?
I just thought of an example from Assassin's of Kings that I did enjoy. The way they handled Saskia and the dragons was great. From the very beginning of the game and in small side notes in between, Geralt emphasizes that Withcers do not kill dragons and conveys that dragons are majestic creatures and that it's a terrible shame that they are so rare. Due to this context and taking the time to give lore and backstory to the dragons really makes the relation with Saskia impactful, and grants severity to the decision on whether to kill her or not.
Forget Dark Souls if it's not aligned with your tastes, but I think that you would agree that if Geralt had just ended up encountering some random dragon in, say, a dungeon with none of this context, it wouldn't really have any more of an impact other than "oh cool a dragon".
I just thought of an example from Assassin's of Kings that I did enjoy. The way they handled Saskia and the dragons was great. From the very beginning of the game and in small side notes in between, Geralt emphasizes that Withcers do not kill dragons and conveys that dragons are majestic creatures and that it's a terrible shame that they are so rare. Due to this context and taking the time to give lore and backstory to the dragons really makes the relation with Saskia impactful, and grants severity to the decision on whether to kill her or not.
Forget Dark Souls if it's not aligned with your tastes, but I think that you would agree that if Geralt had just ended up encountering some random dragon in, say, a dungeon with none of this context, it wouldn't really have any more of an impact other than "oh cool a dragon".
I think it's kind of a non-criticism. Your main point of contention seems to be that the character was fighting a giant, poisonous, mutated squid rather than anything more creative by your standards. You could be right -- he could have fought something more original or derived from Polish folklore like most of the things he fights in the books and even The Witcher 1. But it seems a little pedantic to me, when in the face of nekkers, drowners, pretty interesting looking and acting trolls, harpies and endageras. You don't really see these things in games. Hell, you rarely even see a kraken in games. My main point of contention would be that the AI could have been a bit more differentiated between the species.
Yes on the Wild Hunt, but it requires finding the book and triggering some dialogues.
I think you're right. Dark Souls impresses with size and art design. Witcher 2's dragon was fairly typical and underwhelming looking, but they gave fairly compelling reasons to care about it, so that's how Witcher 2 makes its dragon compelling. In that sense, I see your point. You as a player weren't compelled to fight the Kayran. That's understandable.
Witcher is fairly faithful to Polish folklore and Tolkien fantasy with a twist, while Dark Souls is kind of in a league of its own and forges its own identity. Very different creative goals, but I could see how one jaded would find Witcher lacking in comparison. Some people, and I'm one of them, don't mind at all more genre-normative media.
His Majesty
Banned
Just like the ghosts of the battlefield are the result of a curse from the sorceress Sabrina Glevissig. These enemies are not generic ghosts but are an important part of the plot.
The kayran is an example of typical witchers work: a monster threatens a village and the witcher gets paid to kill it.
My point isn't about coming up with original monsters at all. I am completely fine with having dragons, krackens, zombies, trolls and what have you. What I am trying to get at is that the monsters you put in should have context within whatever world you are putting it in. In others not just having a kracken for the sake of it but because it really adds to your depth of understanding of the world and such.
The undead army may indeed be better than I remember - i'll have to replay the game.
The game is still good fun and does many things very well
The undead army may indeed be better than I remember - i'll have to replay the game.
The game is still good fun and does many things very well
Embargo lifts on the 26th.
macfoshizzle
Member
Yeah the map is huge. Probably the biggest open world game that I've experienced so far. And like i mentioned is the previous page, it's not boring. I could spend hours just exploring a tiny section of the map. Just to get an idea, if you look at the map below, the CD Projekt said in one of their demo vids that it would take Geralt 15 - 20 min from Novigrad to the bogs where Jonny is in full gallop. Mind you this map isn't even panned out to the fullest. The map below doesnt even show the Skellig Islands. It's just a small portion in the middle.
And the 200 hours that I got was from the dev that was describing the game to me. He said the word playtest. That tells me they do a lot more exploring and testing than your regular play.
Timeline which i've said in page 9, takes place after the Witcher 2.
And the 200 hours that I got was from the dev that was describing the game to me. He said the word playtest. That tells me they do a lot more exploring and testing than your regular play.
Timeline which i've said in page 9, takes place after the Witcher 2.
What was said about the game then?
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
That the devs has been crunching for a year, the media makes the game seem bigger than what it is, and the game was not close to being finished back then.
Memorabilia
Member
And this is a bad thing?
To both first person quoted and second person: And if you noticed I was answering a guy who was asking if it the book was based on the game... hence I was trying to tell him the game was based on the book.. I phrased it that way cause the question was phrased, "Are they just novel representations of games 1 & 2?".
Maybe if you checked what I quoted and responded to you'd get the context there.
To second person: As for reading the Witcher books, I've gotten the impression from many people the english translation really doesn't do them justice and aren't that great (as in I'd probably not find mediocre if I judged by the english versions). And I' not willing to learn another language just to read them. I might get around to it though to be fair I really don't do as much reading these days (blame the fact I game too much and it takes most my free time).
Also, both people who "corrected" me said the game covers the story after the books. Hence not the same storyline as the books. That might have been phrased awkwardly but as I said I could't remember what I was told where it covered different than the books so I just wanted to get the impression it's not just the game redoing the same story that is in the books (you're not replaying the same thing that happens in the books).
hint, for people who can't come to their own conclusion: Yes.
What? the Witcher universe has classic monsters like werewolfs, trolls, witches, vampires and such, but it has many original monsters too which you can't see in another fantasy worlds because they are from slavic, german, nordic folklore and they are in that world because of the conjunction of sphere, so not every monster is going to have a really deep story behind them.. they are there because they live there - simple
Arondight
Member
I found the witcher 2 length to be pretty decent. For a supposedly 25 hour main campaign long game, spent kind of around twice that length including a few side quests. I don't think I can manage a supposedly 50 hour main campaign. 200 hours sounds like a pretty frightening amount of hours.
I'm still a little skeptical about some of the elements of the game such as the traversal and quests involved in terms of quality, depth and uniqueness they keep hyping up.
I'm still a little skeptical about some of the elements of the game such as the traversal and quests involved in terms of quality, depth and uniqueness they keep hyping up.
There will be new gameplay and Q&A on GOG too
http://www.gog.com/news/the_witcher_wild_hunt_special_on_twitch
http://www.gog.com/news/the_witcher_wild_hunt_special_on_twitch
Gurgelhals
Member
But that has more to do with The Witcher 2 not really tying in very well with its predecessor story-wise (something which has always bothered me about the game and actually left me feeling a bit disappointed at first). At the end of TW1 Geralt is basically invicible, yet he starts out extremely weak at the beginning of TW2 and the game doesn't address this at all. Even your imported endgame gear is downgraded to level one - I mean, what's the point? There's a lot more that doesn't really make sense when you put TW1 and TW2 next to each other, but as a self-contained story, TW2 works quite well I think.
I just hope that they don't pull a Mass Effect on us in TW3 and conveniently brush all the decisions we made in TW2 under the carpet. There are quite a few loose ends with potentially far reaching consequences at the end of TW2 and I'd like to see them addressed in some way in the sequel. It doesn't have to be a lot, but the odd cameo appearance (Iorveth, Roche, Saskia, Philippa, ...) together with a few sidquests would be nice.
Schreckstoff
Banned
I was wondering that myself in TW2 I
Triss but let Saskia live with the curse not lifted. In the Epilogue I was then attacked by a random group of mobs who for some reason dropped the dagger needed to cure Saskia.
Also agreed on the continuity. I played TW2 first and just this year TW1 and now I think TW2 is a much worse game. Why was Geralt still working for Foltest, why does he delve into politics, why isn't he out there doing more witchery stuff, why is the game so linear?