Cyberpunk 2077 Pre-Release Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Strange Fellow]

I'd love to write you a wall of autism on this, as I really hated TW3, but I'm on my phone, so we'll have to settle for a "hell no". Player agency, which I consider paramount to good quest design unless the combat is good, is abysmal in TW3 compared to New Vegas.

If you don't like the story, that's a matter of personal taste, but it's very hard to convince anyone the story is being told badly, or composed badly.

The actual writing is good, sure, but I have no problem saying that the composition is bad; primarily, the pacing is awful, what with the whole pointless drawn-out Novigrad chapter, as well as every schmuck in Geralt's way having some obnoxious time-wasting sidequest they need him to take care of before they'll part with their precious information. Velen is good - in fact, Velen is excellent, the whole "Your choices have consequences, dumbass!" monologue at the end notwithstanding. The rest of the main quest ranges from mediocre to awful. It's formulaic and full of the game beating you over the head with pathos with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. FEEL SAD, PLAYER! DO IT MOTHERFUCKER! CARE ABOUT CIRI, STAT! It feels like Hollywood, for all the wrong reasons.

As for your last paragraph, I would agree, if it wasn't for the fact that the game decides to lump all sorts of redundant material (like novigrad) into the main questline which would have served better as side quests. And trust me, I did not overindulge on side quests.

 

[funkadelik]

Storyfags.

Storyfags never change.

 

[AwesomeButton]

I'd love to write you a wall of autism on this, as I really hated TW3, but I'm on my phone, so we'll have to settle for a "hell no". Player agency, which I consider paramount to good quest design unless the combat is good, is abysmal in TW3 compared to New Vegas.

Don't bother. I'm not comparing Witcher 3 to FNV, I don't know why do you want to compare it to FNV, I don't. I already said Witcher 3 is an interactive movie with C&C. Is FNV such? I'd argue that it's not and I have more than enough evidence.

The actual writing is good, sure, but I have no problem saying that the composition is bad; primarily, the pacing is awful, what with the whole pointless drawn-out Novigrad chapter, as well as every schmuck in Geralt's way having some obnoxious time-wasting sidequest they need him to take care of before they'll part with their precious information.

Precisely as I said - the player decides how much and what to do at a time. I liked Novigrad more than Velen, because I just like medieval cities.

It feels like Hollywood, for all the wrong reasons.

That's the reason I keep repeating, but there is nobody to 1) read and 2) comprehend: set your horizon of expectations right before you play Witcher 3.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Storyfags.

Storyfags never change.

I'm not a storyfag. I enjoy systems heavy games as much as people who claim to have a preference for them. But when I start playing Witcher 3, I don't go looking for things in it that are not there and are not part of this game's whole idea about what the player should experience. It's a game about experiencing a branching story, not about problem solving or resource management. I have no problem with that, but some kids need everything spelled out on the front of the package, like the warning not to put the plastic bag over their heads.

 

[Strange Fellow]

Don't bother. I'm not comparing Witcher 3 to FNV, I don't know why do you want to compare it to FNV, I don't. I already said Witcher 3 is an interactive movie with C&C. Is FNV such? I'd argue that it's not and I have more than enough evidence.

Precisely as I said - the player decides how much and what to do at a time. I liked Novigrad more than Velen, because I just like medieval cities.

The reason I compare it to New Vegas is that the original question was which company does writing and quest design better, CDPR or Obsidian. If that's not what you're discussing then we'll just have to agree to disagree on the quality of Witcher 3, I suppose.

That's the reason I keep repeating, but there is nobody to 1) read and 2) comprehend: set your horizon of expectations right before you play Witcher 3.

This is just dumb, however. A game being designed to be mediocre doesn't make it less mediocre. I won't deny that I went into the game with the wrong mindset. You see, I was expecting a fully fledged RPG, like New Vegas.

 

[AwesomeButton]

This is just dumb, however. A game being designed to be mediocre doesn't make it less mediocre.

You still don't get it. It's not designed to be mediocre. Point me to a game with better acting and script, and with more developed characters. Also, since Novigrad is so bad, point me to a game with a better modelled medieval city.

The game is very good at what it does, that's why it's such a hit, and a new watermark for so many AAA games, most of them claiming to be RPGs, some of them coming close to being such.

 

[AwesomeButton]

The reason I compare it to New Vegas is that the original question was which company does writing and quest design better, CDPR or Obsidian

If that's the question, I would say Witcher 3 has the better writing and characters, but I can't compare quests in an RPG like FNV to the "quests" in Witcher 3. FNV has a much harder task in front of it than Witcher 3 when it comes to presenting a player with a quest, because in FNV your build actually matters, your skills may allow you to finish a quest in a multitude of ways, there is emergent gameplay to consider, and so forth...

I don't really consider Witcher 3 an RPG in the way FNV is an RPG, so I don't think we can compare their quest design. Compare FNV to any CryEngine RPG/hiking sim, that would be fair.

 

[Strange Fellow]

You still don't get it. It's not designed to be mediocre.

I meant that it doesn't aspire to rise above mediocrity. I can't point to a game with better production values than TW3, and you know that. But I am under no obligation to conclude that this is anything but insubstantial fluff. I don't think Novigrad is a bad city - although it isn't particularly good at anything but looking good and being big - I think the chapter of the main quest which takes place in Novigrad is bad. Again, in the context of the main quest; as a sidequest I suppose it would be fine.

in FNV your build actually matters, your skills may allow you to finish a quest in a multitude of ways, there is emergent gameplay to consider, and so forth...

But that IS the quest. Even a game with shit writing can have excellent quest design if it allows the player to exert their () agency and be creative, through aporopriate use of their character build, emergent gameplay and/or C&C. That is my metric for evaluating quest design, provided the core gameplay (usually combat) is not enjoyable enough to support the game on its own, which I think we can agree W3 combat is not. Evidently we do not share this metric.

I'll settle for agreeing that the two are not directly comparable.

 

[DalekFlay]

The reason I compare it to New Vegas is that the original question was which company does writing and quest design better, CDPR or Obsidian

If that's the question, I would say Witcher 3 has the better writing and characters, but I can't compare quests in an RPG like FNV to the "quests" in Witcher 3. FNV has a much harder task in front of it than Witcher 3 when it comes to presenting a player with a quest, because in FNV your build actually matters, your skills may allow you to finish a quest in a multitude of ways, there is emergent gameplay to consider, and so forth...

I disagree a bit with TW3 having better written characters in general, as I find some characters in FNV exceptionally well written (like Cass and Veronica for example). That said, I agree with pretty much everything AwesomeButton has been saying, and this comparison in particular. FNV is an RPG and designed around that in core stages, despite the "action combat" (which is still stat-dependent). The Witcher 3 is more of a GTA style open world action game with RPG elements (something I'm honestly surprised GTA5 didn't insert already). I hear the newest Assassin's Creed went more RPG-y, which sounds like TW3 to me. It's a different feel, and there's no real quest design in TW3 as a result, just writing and scenarios.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Even a game with shit writing can have excellent quest design if it allows the player to exert their () agency and be creative,

Yes, if it is indeed on the problem-solving end of the spectrum, like FNV is. Witcher 3 however is on the storytelling one, hence I am judging by the standards it is aiming to meet, instead of standards which it isn't interested in. Anyway, you get what I mean now.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

Haven't got my answer yet. I think it's safe to assume that anyone that seriously think Bitcher 3 has good quests+design is a filthy storyfag.

It's perfectly safe to assume that you have a shit taste for writing and story. It's ok, it's not easy to develop taste, it takes years of good education.

If I want to experience good writing and story then I'll watch 2001 or I go to my book shelf, pick up Lord of the Rings and spend a nice Summer afternoon in my hammock.

If however if I sit in my office chair, boot up my desktop and open my game library, that means I want to play a videogame.

But it's ok, it's not easy to develop logic reasoning, it takes years of good education.

 

[Strange Fellow]

DalekFlay, it's funny; you agree with AwesomeButton and I agree with you.

Yes, if it is indeed on the problem-solving end of the spectrum, like FNV is. Witcher 3 however is on the storytelling one, hence I am judging by the standards it is aiming to meet, instead of standards which it isn't interested in. Anyway, you get what I mean now.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, at least not to such an extent that Witcher needs to be as restrictive as it is. In my opinion, Planescape: Torment has both better writing and much better quest design than the Witcher. Of course, Ps:T is an exceptional game.

Frankly, it comes down to the popamole argument. Witcher is railroaded every step of the way, which goes a long way to sour me on the narrative. I never felt a sense of accomplishment upon progressing in any quest, because the solutions are laid out for me in painstaking detail. Games need to leave stuff up to the player, that's a fundamental rule of game design for me. Even adventure games, which are nearly always totally linear, will test the player with puzzles. The exception is Telltale, and I find I could level a lot of the same criticisms at those games that I can at Witcher.

Bottom line: For me, mindless progression cheapens the story/narrative, and there's no reason why the Witcher needs to be mindless. It's just a waste of good writers.

 

[Ismaul]

Games need to leave stuff up to the player, that's a fundamental rule of game design for me.

Pfff look at this guy, saying RPGs should be about player skill. RPGs are about making a skill roll and having something awesome happen! The only thinking you need is at character creation.

 

[DalekFlay]

If I want to experience good writing and story then I'll watch 2001 or I go to my book shelf, pick up Lord of the Rings and spend a nice Summer afternoon in my hammock.

If however if I sit in my office chair, boot up my desktop and open my game library, that means I want to play a videogame.

But it's ok, it's not easy to develop logic reasoning, it takes years of good education.

Games should definitely not try and emulate movie or novel storytelling. However they CAN be unique story vehicles as a genre. As much as I love the mechanics of games like Fallout, Deus Ex, Thief 2 and Morrowind I also enjoy their worlds and stories, and the unique way those worlds and stories can be explored within a game framework. In other words games should embrace what they can do uniquely, story-wise, rather than try and emulate Hollywod, which is what they sadly do all too often.

 

[Strange Fellow]

Games need to leave stuff up to the player, that's a fundamental rule of game design for me.

Pfff look at this guy, saying RPGs should be about player skill. RPGs are about making a skill roll and having something awesome happen! The only thinking you need is at character creation.

Vault Dweller, is that you?

 

[DJOGamer PT]

If I want to experience good writing and story then I'll watch 2001 or I go to my book shelf, pick up Lord of the Rings and spend a nice Summer afternoon in my hammock.

If however if I sit in my office chair, boot up my desktop and open my game library, that means I want to play a videogame.

But it's ok, it's not easy to develop logic reasoning, it takes years of good education.

Games should definitely not try and emulate movie or novel storytelling. However they CAN be unique story vehicles as a genre. As much as I love the mechanics of games like Fallout, Deus Ex, Thief 2 and Morrowind I also enjoy their worlds and stories, and the unique way those worlds and stories can be explored within a game framework. In other words games should embrace what they can do uniquely, story-wise, rather than try and emulate Hollywod, which is what they sadly do all too often.

I agree. A good story definitively complements nicely a game's experience and quality. But it's still the less important aspect of any game (well except for certain genres like adventure games). You experience it once and the novelty is gone. Unlike the gameplay and content part which the player can have a myriad of different experiences every time he makes another playtrough. The fact there are games with almost no actual story (or ridiculously bad stories and writing) but it still doesn't stop them from being damn great games, is more than enough proof that story is the least important component of a game.
However nowadays most developers/journos see the storytelling part as the fundamentally most important aspect of any game and so they all end up compromising gameplay and content (even in fucking action games). Therefore sacrificing the game part in their videogames, just to satisfy the writers, their egos and get 11/10 from every shill in the industry.

Even as you pointed out, the strengths and methods in movie storytelling are different from those of a book, comic, radio or game. Because they are all different mediums, so these ''game developers'' are even more retard by trying to tell a story in a game like they were directing a movie. And honestly even if are talking about the story of games like these (Witcher 3, God of War, Last of Us, etc...) they are honestly mediocre, they feel like oscar bait type shit. All with their heavy focus on muh sentimentalism, the annoying ''there's no good and evil, only gray n' shit'' subjectivism and a common trend the dad plot.
Fuck I can't believe I gonna say this, but I would rather have to suffer trough PS:T walls of pseudo-intellectualism text than listen to the sobbing vocals cords of another voice actor. Unlike the latter, I am at least in the immediate danger of finding good writing and maybe some genuine insight that makes me pause the game for a bit to contemplate about stuff.

 

[AwesomeButton]

If however if I sit in my office chair, boot up my desktop and open my game library, that means I want to play a videogame.

Then don't play Witcher 3.

As much as I love the mechanics of games like Fallout, Deus Ex, Thief 2 and Morrowind I also enjoy their worlds and stories, and the unique way those worlds and stories can be explored within a game framework

So do I. The point is, why expect chocolate when you have strawberries on the icecream box? Witcher 3 offers something different than the listed games.

 

[Strange Fellow]

If Witcher 3 were really aiming for a GTA-like experience then they could have let you interact with the world in more meaningful ways than letting you ride through it looking for NPCs with exclamation marks above their heads. If it were aiming for a Walking Sim-like experience then it should have better pacing and less filler activities. I just can't agree with the notion that we should only judge a game by the criteria it succeeds in meeting. The game doesn't get to dictate the merits by which it is judged.

 

[AwesomeButton]

I just can't agree with the notion that we should only judge a game by the criteria it successfully meets. The game doesn't get to dictate the merits by which it is judged.

Any game, no. But an RPG yes. Witcher 3 is about as much RPG as the new Assasin's Creed (now with dialogue lines) is.

 

[Strange Fellow]

I just can't agree with the notion that we should only judge a game by the criteria it successfully meets. The game doesn't get to dictate the merits by which it is judged.

Any game, no. But an RPG yes. Witcher 3 is about as much RPG as the new Assasin's Creed (now with dialogue lines) is.

You keep repeating that Witcher 3 isn't an RPG, and I agree, but I stand by my point. The game needs to do something well, in addition to writing, to be good. At the very least, it needs to do something with the writing, other than just having it there for the player to enjoy reading (or listening) through, like a novel. A game's writing is automatically improved, in my book, by having it be relevant to the game. I include c&c in this, and even there I wasn't impressed by W3's offerings. Maybe we disagree on this point.

 

[doolydeath1]

While CP77 will probably have the scale and fidelity of W3, I have a feeling Dying Light 2 will obliterate them in terms of c&c that actually influences gameplay+world and not just cutscenes/dialogue. Techland have directly addressed criticism in best way possible, while CDPR overall only have lipservice to go by (despite repetitive ubisoft style open world gameplay design).

 

[Jenkem]

the original bayonetta has a better writing than witcher 3

 

[DalekFlay]

I agree. A good story definitively complements nicely a game's experience and quality. But it's still the less important aspect of any game (well except for certain genres like adventure games).

I agree with this, and the rest of your post. I would say story is more important in an RPG than an FPS or tactics game though. Not as important as an adventure game, but pretty up there. This is assuming "story" can be defined as including things like setting, city design, NPCs, etc.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

This is assuming "story" can be defined as including things like setting, city design, NPCs, etc.

That is more like world-building, which yes can be considered part of the story. But in my previous post when I mentioned story I was more specifically talking about the writing, characters, story progression and plot. Still all these aspects in a game should be made in order to enhance gameplay and content(=quests, levels and exploration) and not the other way around.

 

[Ivan]

question: are you a storyfag if you like fat russian novels?