The Witcher 3 Pre-Release Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[bonescraper]

Well, Geralt has a lot more in common with comic book superheroes than random medieval footsoldiers in full plate armor. The game was never supposed to be simulationist.

Not that i thik they should copy Arkham games' combat system though.

 

[Kron]

Granted, there's no massive shoulder pads with spikes and brootal flaming longswords with overdone designs, but it still looks out of place given how "folkish" the lanscapes look.

 

[Declinator]

In a game like Chiv, even placing a stab under or around an enemy shield can be an acutely frenetic affair.

This is exactly what the Batman games are not. Frenetic, that is. You just calmly and methodically knock enemies down, move to the next ones and control how many surround you at one time. You don't really have to react terribly fast to things. It's just a matter of timing and anticipation.

But then again I didn't play the challenge modes, and I have no idea why you would want to. I beat Arkham Aslyum on Normal mode on my PS3 and I found the game to be most intriguing in terms of the plot, the detective elements, and the simplistic but fluid stealth combat.

My experience with it was different. I found the plot asinine, the detective elements largely boring, and the stealth just too easy. The combat was a positive surprise as I saw no hope for it before starting the game. And the combat is hopeless more often than not but with large groups of enemies it can be quite fun which is why the challenge mode is perhaps the best part of the game.

I know you guys like to disparage the Witcher series' combat system, but for god's sake, at least it requires some skill in terms of maneuver and placement of strikes, and that's on top of managing groups of enemies. Of what significance precisely is "managing" large groups of enemies when they stand around and wait their turn to strike you, issue a giant blue halo over their heads before they're about to attack, and the only interaction you need to have in order to deal with any of this is left clicking and right clicking? Are you referring to management of left clicks versus right clicks? You can't even choose which enemy you attack or which enemy you parry, it's all automatic, so the use of the term "management" doesn't really make any sense to me.

False. You can choose which enemy you attack by pointing the camera. And in Arkham City multiple enemies can attack at once (though you can block them all by a corresponding number of right clicks.)

Also, it's not as though just left and right clicking is enough for every enemy. The enemies with knives, shields or armors (some of these might just be in City) need either jumping over them or using the cape. On the other hand the fights can be enjoyable even with just the basic types of enemies as long as there are many of them.

Having said that, the combat system in Dark Souls is much much better and I would rather see something like that in TW3. Though if it were a choice between TW2 combat or Batman combat the latter would be my choice as TW2 combat didn't seem to have any redeeming factors to it. Might even pick TW1 combat over it.

 

[TedNugent]

False. You can choose which enemy you attack by pointing the camera. And in Arkham City multiple enemies can attack at once (though you can block them all by a corresponding number of right clicks.)

Huh? Explain this, then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UNBMHh9yuc&feature=youtu.be&t=1m43s

Don't bullshit me, dude. I played the game.

Well, Geralt has a lot more in common with comic book superheroes than random medieval footsoldiers in full plate armor. The game was never supposed to be simulationist.

That's not my point at all. Chivalry isn't simulationist, either. It uses shit like parry windows and you can nearly instant hit people by doing lookdowns. The point is that Chivalry has depth to its combat, you actually have to use footwork and manipulate your point of aim instead of clicking a button and all of your maneuver, attack angles, and targeting is handled for you by the computer. That's an illusion of interactivity.

 

[Declinator]

False. You can choose which enemy you attack by pointing the camera. And in Arkham City multiple enemies can attack at once (though you can block them all by a corresponding number of right clicks.)

Huh? Explain this, then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UNBMHh9yuc&feature=youtu.be&t=1m43s

Don't bullshit me, dude. I played the game.

Two options come to mind:
A: There are alternative means of choosing who you attack that I was unaware of (i.e. choosing a direction to attack via keyboard etc.)
B: The console version plays differently

Some other possibilities come to mind but they are rather unlikely comparatively.

Certainly if I picked an empty space to attack, Batman would just kick/punch air and the combo would end. And I dare say it was no coincidence that the attacks always struck the people who were in the direction I was pointing at.

 

[TedNugent]

I just booted up Arkham City. The right click automatically blocks from any direction and follows up with a riposte attack. Both the keyboard and the mouse can aim your left-click attacks, and if you don't point one or the other at an enemy the attack begins in the opposite direction, which can serve as a combo breaker.

The directions don't need to be precise, e.g. if someone is within 45 degrees of your mouse direction it seems like he will target the attack. But if an enemy is, say, greater than 90 degrees from your point of aim, the attack will not go behind you.

So I exaggerated when I said "auto-aim," but there is definitely an aim assist operative. This was Arkham City from my Steam launcher, PC version.

 

[Multiple Sarcasm]

But Geralt's armour, on the other hand, looks like a typical videogame designer thing. Not very period, not very good looking.

Well, the "default" armor is really shit, but according to this:
[pic]
There will be a wide variety of black and folk metal attire

Good god, it's ridiculous how every designer believes it's his sacred duty to make some sort of studded armour. With studs. The more, the bigger - the higher the armour rating.

Seriously. What in the fucking fuck?...

 

[Murk]

Hey shut up man I want hear the call of the wintermoon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VBdAY8eA9w

hahaha oh fuck i forgot about this shit

 

[Haba]

It's official. This game will be METAL.

 

[StaticSpine]

It's official. This game will be METAL.

the early Yennefer concept

 

[IDtenT]

Those screenshots look pretty nice. But the one in the field with the sheep looks utterly shit.

I think a big problem going forward (in terms of graphics) is focus. All games have you focusing on the landscape and the person in front of you are never out of focus. Without focus it all just looks shit and lacks any depth.

 

[Akratus]

Yeah. . the witcher always has such terribly designed and unrealistic armor. .

 

[Brzęczyszczykiewicz]

But Geralt's armour, on the other hand, looks like a typical videogame designer thing. Not very period, not very good looking.

Well, the "default" armor is really shit, but according to this:

There will be a wide variety of black and folk metal attire

I dunno I really like most of these unlike default jumpsuit which is really shit.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Hobogeralt

 

[Merlkir]

But Geralt's armour, on the other hand, looks like a typical videogame designer thing. Not very period, not very good looking.

Well, the "default" armor is really shit, but according to this:
[pic]
There will be a wide variety of black and folk metal attire

Good god, it's ridiculous how every designer believes it's his sacred duty to make some sort of studded armour. With studs. The more, the bigger - the higher the armour rating.

Seriously. What in the fucking fuck?...

In the books, Geralt wears a leather jacket covered in silver studs. Silver, for obvious reasons.

 

[Jedi Exile]

Hooded Geralt looks badass.

 

[sea]

Granted, there's no massive shoulder pads with spikes and brootal flaming longswords with overdone designs, but it still looks out of place given how "folkish" the lanscapes look.

True, there's a bit much leather for my tastes. I would really like to ride around the wilderness in a badass cloak or something.

 

[Darklife]

Why do they keep changing his face? Or is Geralt on a neverending quest for physical beauty through plastic surgery/magic?

 

[Darth Slaughter]

Why do they keep changing his face? Or is Geralt on a neverending quest for physical beauty through plastic surgery/magic?

I don't think geralt's face changed that much from the witcher 1 to 2. In fact, TW 2 had a different looking geralt in nthe beginning, but in teh end they changed only the hair. And TW 3 is not that different either. It's not like this is Max Payne.

 

[mikaelis]

Why do they keep changing his face? Or is Geralt on a neverending quest for physical beauty through plastic surgery/magic?

I don't think geralt's face changed that much from the witcher 1 to 2. In fact, TW 2 had a different looking geralt in nthe beginning, but in teh end they changed only the hair. And TW 3 is not that different either. It's not like this is Max Payne.

I think you can see a slight change between TW1 and TW2 in the way that it is more "presentable" in TW2 so Triss can feel like she is fucking a handsome mutant. In TW3 it is the same as TW2, just more worn out, with beard and shit, or mature if you will. Yennefer is an old and disfigured witch disguising herself with spells so, I guess it is for the good of the future plot.

To sum it up: In before geriatric butt-secks!

ps. I like TW1 look the most - grey and unhuman. They fucked it in TW2 a bit, but I don't care.

 

[Storyfag]

Yennefer is an old and disfigured witch disguising herself with spells

1. Triss isn't much younger, if at all.
2. Yennefer isn't really disfigured. Not anymore. She was disfigured, but it was physically corrected using spells, when she was still an apprentice. Likewise, her youth is maintained through magical means, but it is very real. There's no illusion there.

 

[Merlkir]

IIRC Triss is the one illusionisting her scarred cleavage. (or rather wearing non-revealing dress in the books)

 

[mikaelis]

Yennefer is an old and disfigured witch disguising herself with spells

2. Yennefer isn't really disfigured. Not anymore. She was disfigured, but it was physically corrected using spells, when she was still an apprentice. Likewise, her youth is maintained through magical means, but it is very real. There's no illusion there.

Well, I dunno, I don't remember. Was it permanent? Or some sustained spell. I don't know if that was explained fully in the books.

Doesn't matter though, just details as far as I can see it.

 

[Multiple Sarcasm]

In the books, Geralt wears a leather jacket covered in silver studs. Silver, for obvious reasons.

He could be wearing cocktail dresses in the books for all I care. Doesn't make those armour concepts any less ridiculous.

 

[Merlkir]

In the books, Geralt wears a leather jacket covered in silver studs. Silver, for obvious reasons.

He could be wearing cocktail dresses in the books for all I care. Doesn't make those armour concepts any less ridiculous.

It's not armour against swords, it's supposed to protect you from silver fearing monsters. As such, it's not ridiculous at all.