Interview Witcher 3 Interview at Forbes: No multiplayer, no QTEs, no DRM

[DraQ]

(unlike, say HP attrition everyone seem to love so)

Nope, not going there, your retardation is well known regarding this subject and it's not like anything I will say is going to change your mind.

And what *could* you say? About HPs being something along the lines of luck again, except luck doesn't work this way, the concept this vague is not applicable to computer games with their presentation (and this includes stuff ranging from textual descriptions to 3d engines) and clashes with stuff like cure ____ wounds spells? We've been there, it's a retarded defence.

Except TB is bad for rapid reactivity (and rapid reactions pretty much *make* a witcher)

Hello?
cRPG context?

Ok, try to port GURPS 1s TB combat to a highly visual medium which is what Witcher 3 is going to be and what any modern witcher game should be.

It would be quite easy.

Let's if if you won't end up with disjointed, drawn out mess.

Taking the lethality of GURPS combat into account and the fact that every turn consists of you choosing a single maneuver, I'm actually quite confident that the length of fights, if that was your focus, could easily be as short or even shorter than fights from TW1/2. Just have basic maneuver choices and then have active defenses being calculated passively. Single combat could literally be over within 20 seconds.

That's still massive 20 turns and limiting selection to just basic manoeuvres defeats the main possible reason for having turns (more control through fuckton of options).

That depends entirely on which assets of the system you use.

It doesn't, because it's pretty damn hard to out-abstract modern cRPGs.

You are narrow-minded, and on top of this, argue with blind arrogance.

Those are not fallacies on my part but ad personam on yours.

Besides, if you weren't narrow-minded and arrogant yourself you might have noticed that most of the time my arrogance is but a pose.

 

[Grunker]

Hello?
cRPG context?

I was replying in a cRPG context.

That's still massive 20 turns

What an ass-pull. Who said anything about 20 turns?

just basic manoeuvre

You don't know shit about GURPS apparantly.

main possible reason for having turns (more control through fuckton of options).

That's not the main possible reason.

Those are not fallacies on my part but ad personam on yours.

You said, directly, the following:

TB is bad for rapid reactivity

That is a fallacy. My response to you that it is idiocy has nothing to do with ad personam. You stating that TB is bad for rapid reactivity without any sort of additional explanation is narrow-minded and blind arrogance (faith that your own opinion of something can be equated with fact). It is why most people find it annoying to argue with you, and why I am often more amused by your posts than anything.

Well, that and the fact that you'll usually end up turning almost any discussion no matter what it was originally about into some kind of debate on your narrow interpretation of the importance of 360 degree emulation.

Besides, if you weren't narrow-minded and arrogant yourself

Really? "I know you are but what am I?"

I embrace almost all ways of handling systems and assets, from the complete gamist to the complete simulationist, as worthwhile (hardly narrow-minded), and I've changed my opinion on many issues completely in my time here. There's probably many honest character flaws you could place at my feet but just repeating the ones I pointed out you suffered from doesn't strike me as particularly enlightening. Which can be said of this entire discussion.

Peace, bro

 

[Metro]

Why does it always seem like Grunker is trying to pick a fight with me?

 

[Grunker]

Why does it always seem like Grunker is trying to pick a fight with me?

You started it!

 

[Metro]

 

[DraQ]

What an ass-pull. Who said anything about 20 turns?

You? 20s with 1s turns is 20 turns.

You don't know shit about GURPS apparantly.

Probably less than you, because I never got into PnP.
So, care to explain, or is it that the zeal with which you've always protested banning shitposters has something to do with you not being able to post anything of substance as well?

That's not the main possible reason.

So what *IS* the main possible reason?

You said, directly, the following:

TB is bad for rapid reactivity

That is a fallacy.

I don't think I've seen a single TB cRPG where there was no obvious trade-off between detail and speed. In particular this applies to graphical games, that need to be animated? Care to prove me wrong?

So far I'm of opinion that 1s animations punctuated by just as frequent pauses are going to be detrimental to a game where you play a role of a swordsman with superhuman reflexes as his main asset.

My response to you that it is idiocy has nothing to do with ad personam.

Your refusal to follow it with any actual arguments, however does. And then you claim that I'm arguing from the position of an arrogant know-it-all.

Beam in your own eye, bro?

 

[Grunker]

You? 20s with 1s turns is 20 turns.

You said combat would take too long. I said 20 seconds, easy. IN REAL-TIME OUTSIDE OF YOUR COMPUTER, you ass-hat, not in in-game seconds

Why would I give you the time in in-game "GURPS" seconds when your original argument was it would make combat drawn out for the player? hahaha

 

[DraQ]

Why would I give you the time in in-game seconds? hahaha

Do I look like a fucking telepath to you?

 

[Lord Andre]

Do they say anything about cutting down on the inane dialogues and cutscenes ?

 

[DraQ]

Do they say anything about cutting down on the inane dialogues and cutscenes ?

I'd really like them to cut down on "suddenly third party" segments.

There is no reason for me to ever control prince Penis or whatever, so why do I have to?

 

[Mrowak]

Grunker DraQ

Hi guys, what's going on...

They should stop fucking around and just embrace TB combat. TW games beg for it.

Except TB is bad for rapid reactivity (and rapid reactions pretty much *make* a witcher) and completely superfluous for solo game.

'F' for fail.

That's not actually true.

Maybe someone will explain...

That's just bullshit, DraQ. Your understanding of TB systems and the things you attribute to them are very premature.

Because there are no TB games on consoles.

'k... Can we end this TB circlejerkfuckery? Why even this issue came up in the context of TW2? How is it relevant?

 

[DraQ]

Maybe someone will explain...

Could you?

No one seems able or, heh, *inclined* to.

 

[Mrowak]

Maybe someone will explain...

Could you?

No one seems able or, heh, *inclined* to.

I admit I am all confuse.

The way I see it the Codex was indulging in it's customary pointless circlejerk over TB, when you came and proclaimed:

Except TB is bad for rapid reactivity (and rapid reactions pretty much *make* a witcher) and completely superfluous for solo game.

'F' for fail.

As much as I agree that TB is superflous in solo games the comment about reactivity was simply uncalled for. I think you meant just the movements and actions in response to the situations on the screen, which is a necessary attribute of any action (role-playing) game. The way rest of the Codex understood was predictable:

The problem I see here is that you link reactivity (in combat) as a hallmark of a TW game - this is what it should look like, because in this form it offers greater reactivity in comparison with TB, which is something I cannot wrap my mind around. Is that right or am I all confuse? Why should this kind of reactivity be the defining factor of TW game?

Even then, it must be stressed that TB games do possess reactivity of their own. In fact good TB are all about reactive responses, because they offer unparalled degree of control over timing and character actions - sequentiality of turns and initiative checks kinda secure that.. Sure in TB you cannot control every single personal movement of your witcher but you don't have to - you control the battlefield and movements with respect to it. The focus is obviously different.

And because there is the different focus inducing lack of gameplay style overlap, there was nothing preventing TW from becoming TB tactical RPG series...

BUT if CDPR wanted action-based combat introducing TB is kinda pointless - the former is the gameplay style they originally went for and whining about it would amount to sniveling that a comedy not being a tragedy. Codex being Codex it cannot see that TB doesn't make the gameplay automatically superior in any regard.

 

[Grunker]

Grunker DraQ

Hi guys, what's going on...

They should stop fucking around and just embrace TB combat. TW games beg for it.

Except TB is bad for rapid reactivity (and rapid reactions pretty much *make* a witcher) and completely superfluous for solo game.

'F' for fail.

That's not actually true.

Maybe someone will explain...

That's just bullshit, DraQ. Your understanding of TB systems and the things you attribute to them are very premature.

Because there are no TB games on consoles.

'k... Can we end this TB circlejerkfuckery? Why even this issue came up in the context of TW2? How is it relevant?

Why did you tag me when you didn't even have the decency to quote me

 

[Mrowak]

Grunker DraQ

Hi guys, what's going on...

They should stop fucking around and just embrace TB combat. TW games beg for it.

Except TB is bad for rapid reactivity (and rapid reactions pretty much *make* a witcher) and completely superfluous for solo game.

'F' for fail.

That's not actually true.

Maybe someone will explain...

That's just bullshit, DraQ. Your understanding of TB systems and the things you attribute to them are very premature.

Because there are no TB games on consoles.

'k... Can we end this TB circlejerkfuckery? Why even this issue came up in the context of TW2? How is it relevant?

Why did you tag me when you didn't even have the decency to quote me

Posting drunk on teh Codex.

 

[Ulminati]

They should just dig up an old copy of Oni and copy it 1:1 sans the gunplay. Now there's a third-person game with decent melee combat controls.

 

[DraQ]

The problem I see here is that you link reactivity (in combat) as a hallmark of a TW game

Not really, but I see it as very obvious design goal for a game where you play the role of a witcher.

It's also something they've been steadily blundering towards so far - TW2 combat may have problems with badly balanced defensive manoeuvres (that's how the guys at CDPR roll, apparently), but it's also much faster and responsive than TW1 combat.

Even then, it must be stressed that TB games do possess reactivity of their own. In fact good TB are all about reactive responses, because they offer unparalled degree of control over timing and character actions - sequentiality of turns and initiative checks kinda secure that.. Sure in TB you cannot control every single personal movement of your witcher but you don't have to - you control the battlefield and movements with respect to it. The focus is obviously different.

The thing is that if you wanted to have system focused on rapid reactions move-countermove style, you'd need to minimize the turn length. This would be bad if you wanted to wait or move considerable distance in combat as you'd have to clickclickclick through a lot of turns.

Additionally, ot keep things consistent you'd have to keep the enimations really short - sure, it would be purely aesthetic consideration, but I can't see how combat in such system wouldn't look very jerky and non-fluent, and given than in solo game there are no important functional reasons for adopting TB and that animations have always been the series strength, I think TB would really stink here.

In tabletop? Sure. In Witcher-verse cRPG with freedom to create character that isn't necessary a wandering mutated monster slayer? Why the fuck not? In a game where you control single character who happens to be a witcher and spends good portion of time slicing monsters and people open in animated combat? Nope.

 

[Mrowak]

The problem I see here is that you link reactivity (in combat) as a hallmark of a TW game

Not really, but I see it as very obvious design goal for a game where you play the role of a witcher.

It's also something they've been steadily blundering towards so far - TW2 combat may have problems with badly balanced defensive manoeuvres (that's how the guys at CDPR roll, apparently), but it's also much faster and responsive than TW1 combat.

Even then, it must be stressed that TB games do possess reactivity of their own. In fact good TB are all about reactive responses, because they offer unparalled degree of control over timing and character actions - sequentiality of turns and initiative checks kinda secure that.. Sure in TB you cannot control every single personal movement of your witcher but you don't have to - you control the battlefield and movements with respect to it. The focus is obviously different.

The thing is that if you wanted to have system focused on rapid reactions move-countermove style, you'd need to minimize the turn length. This would be bad if you wanted to wait or move considerable distance in combat as you'd have to clickclickclick through a lot of turns.

Additionally, ot keep things consistent you'd have to keep the enimations really short - sure, it would be purely aesthetic consideration, but I can't see how combat in such system wouldn't look very jerky and non-fluent, and given than in solo game there are no important functional reasons for adopting TB and that animations have always been the series strength, I think TB would really stink here.

In tabletop? Sure. In Witcher-verse cRPG with freedom to create character that isn't necessary a wandering mutated monster slayer? Why the fuck not? In a game where you control single character who happens to be a witcher and spends good portion of time slicing monsters and people open in animated combat? Nope.

Let me start by reaffirming that I too think that with the approach they took - a single controlable character - going any other route than action adventure would be a mistake indeed if only because of reduced gameplay options and tedium. However, what I think the hivemind largely had in mind is that TW might as well have been a decent series of tactical TB games with a party of controlable PCs. And that it could have been just that isn't a really a question of "reactions move-counter style" - both approaches have ways of dealing with this problem.

It's also something they've been steadily blundering towards so far - TW2 combat may have problems with badly balanced defensive manoeuvres (that's how the guys at CDPR roll, apparently), but it's also much faster and responsive than TW1 combat.

I really wish this was the only problem of TW2 combat. The truth is that most of its issues stem from lackluster character progression system. If regardless of your build you end up with the character that gameplaywise does largely the same stuff in combat situations you are doing something wrong. If you can see that particularly well in the key moments of gameplay, i.e. boss fights, where the game disables whole chunks of abilities because it feels like it (drinking potions before the battle with Draug or Dragon's immunity to all spells) this means that creating an RPG ("old-school" or not) was far from your goal in the first place.

 

[DraQ]

I really wish this was the only problem of TW2 combat. The truth is that most of its issues stem from lackluster character progression system.

I'd say that an awfully lot of problems stem from the fact that rolling around is the best defensive and offensive manoeuvre *AND* is free.

... this means that creating an RPG ("old-school" or not) was far from your goal in the first place.

Then again, haven't we known this at least since the first game?

 

[Suchy]

 

[odrzut]

I'd like to see single player turn based melee fighting game with more divided turns. So one hit lasts for 3 turns for example, you choose your next move simultanously with the oponent, that part of the hit plays out, you choose how to finish the hit, etc. Some attacks would last even 5 turns with complicated feints, some would be quick 2-turn thrusts, and each fight would end in 2-3 attacks , because most hits ends the fight.

For example:
turn 1:
player 1 choosen swing from upper left side,
player 2 choosen start thrust towards abdomen
turn 1 plays out:
player 1 see the thrust, he knows it will hit him in next turn, and his attack will hit in 2 turns, and he can't block because his sword is elsewhere, so he choose avoid to the left
player 2 see the swing starting, he knows he is in better position, and he can predict his enemy aborting the swing and trying to avoid, but can't know which side will the enemy choose, so he guess the player 1 will go to the right, and choose "skew thrust to the right"
turn 2 plays out, nobody took damage yet:
player 1 see that he avoided the thrust and now he continue the swing (will hit in 2 turns)
player 2 see he is screwed and try to parry the swing (his sword is in such position that he needs 1 turn to move it to parry the swing)
turn 3 plays out, player 1 is about to end the swing, player 2 is ready to parry

Etc...

Character progression would be based on how many different moves you can perform, and how many attacks you recognize, no attributes or dice rolls.

Setting could be historical, something with nobles dueling each other (XVII century Poland or France).

 

[Necroscope]

'k... Can we end this TB circlejerkfuckery? Why even this issue came up in the context of TW2? How is it relevant?

Because this caricatural babbling about TB, even if totally out of place, is the cheapest way to gain kk points.

 

[DraQ]

I'd like to see single player turn based melee fighting game with more divided turns. So one hit lasts for 3 turns for example, you choose your next move simultanously with the oponent, that part of the hit plays out, you choose how to finish the hit, etc. Some attacks would last even 5 turns with complicated feints, some would be quick 2-turn thrusts, and each fight would end in 2-3 attacks , because most hits ends the fight.

For example:
turn 1:
player 1 choosen swing from upper left side,
player 2 choosen start thrust towards abdomen
turn 1 plays out:
player 1 see the thrust, he knows it will hit him in next turn, and his attack will hit in 2 turns, and he can't block because his sword is elsewhere, so he choose avoid to the left
player 2 see the swing starting, he knows he is in better position, and he can predict his enemy aborting the swing and trying to avoid, but can't know which side will the enemy choose, so he guess the player 1 will go to the right, and choose "skew thrust to the right"
turn 2 plays out, nobody took damage yet:
player 1 see that he avoided the thrust and now he continue the swing (will hit in 2 turns)
player 2 see he is screwed and try to parry the swing (his sword is in such position that he needs 1 turn to move it to parry the swing)
turn 3 plays out, player 1 is about to end the swing, player 2 is ready to parry

Etc...

Character progression would be based on how many different moves you can perform, and how many attacks you recognize, no attributes or dice rolls.

Setting could be historical, something with nobles dueling each other (XVII century Poland or France).

It would be really nice in terms of fine control and mechanical detail. It would also be a horrible slog in terms of speed.

Lastly, it is irrelevant to TW3.