[slimgrin]

Costin Moroianu said:

One thing I do dislike with prostitutes in Witcher 2 is how they all seem to share the same body model, now I'd be fine if they didn't have gigantic breasts you could lose your dog in on display.
›››

Uhm...I'm a fan of the gigantic breasts.

[Costin Moroianu]

I'd be fine with them if it wasn't for the fact every prostitute had the exact same breasts.

[glorfindeil]

i want the witcher 1 alike fight animation in the witcher 3, the witcher 2 was grate but geralt was not making any volts or fintss, no tornado like moves during group battles and blood traces on the ground like on that vid:

[BerrySenpai90]

I'd like Shani to return in The Witcher 3 since I kinda missed her on The Witcher 2.

[Hivez]

I'd love W3 to have some kind of interactive comic a'la that one in PS3 version of Mass Effect 2. You know, because I played Witcher 2 on PC, but I probably will buy Witcher 3 on one of next-gen consoles. So there must be a way to make all "my" choices again before playing W3... This is necessary I think.

[Costin Moroianu]

Personally I'd prefer the DA2 notion but expanded upon. Some preset Geralt's to pick from but also with the ability to make your own custom one.

[Yokokorama]

The most important thing to me by far is for the save-import feature to be more impactful on the experience to be had in Witcher 3. I understand that there is a high probability that Geralt will go down south to the empire in the next game, thus giving a good "excuse" for not seeing the buddies we made in the north (Iorveth, Roche, Saskia, etc) but I hope that doesn't happen.

I kind of see that as the "cheap way" out of the challenge (the challenge being making our choices matter). I don't want the (potentially) brand new location to be used as justification for neglecting what we did in the previous game(s). I'd like to see old friends (depending on whom we helped / sided with), unique dialogue, and stuff like that to show that what we did actually mattered.

Overall, I just really hope Witcher 3 handles save imports better than Witcher 2 (little to nothing we did in Witcher 1 had much impact / effect), because I don't want another Mass Effect-eqsue let-down.

[Seboist]

Costin Moroianu said:

Personally I'd prefer the DA2 notion but expanded upon. Some preset Geralt's to pick from but also with the ability to make your own custom one. ›››

A simple checklist of what to import would be nice.

[GoodGuyA]

Yokokorama said:

The most important thing to me by far is for the save-import feature to be more impactful on the experience to be had in Witcher 3. I understand that there is a high probability that Geralt will go down south to the empire in the next game, thus giving a good "excuse" for not seeing the buddies we made in the north (Iorveth, Roche, Saskia, etc) but I hope that doesn't happen. ›››

I see this more as an opportunity to carry on these loose ends without having to shove the immediate consequence in the players' face. I would hate for the characters to just be forced in to this new story, as much as I want to meet them again. This is something we can carry down the line, see consequences as the war unfolds (likely not ended in TW3, at least I hope), and ultimately makes the work for CDPR much easier. The general defense of the North is really the big consequence lingering at the end of TW2, and that much should really be the crux of how future games turn out. No need to go into huge diverging paths right at the start of the big epic, just divergent quests (like, say, if you let the Mages at Loc Muinne go). Lots of potential for less forced decision-action.

Seboist said:

A simple checklist of what to import would be nice. ›››

Agreed on that. Was honestly something that just seemed completely lacking from TW2, though it was likely tied to the continuity bits which didn't make it through (and the odd ones that did). I hope, at the very least, you get to chose Roche or Iorveth. Forcing a canon in this regard would be absolutely clinching.

[Yokokorama]

GoodGuyA said:

I see this more as an opportunity to carry on these loose ends without having to shove the immediate consequence in the players' face. I would hate for the characters to just be forced in to this new story, as much as I want to meet them again.

Yeah I agree with you. I guess I didn't phrase my post well. I don't want stuff to be shoe-horned into this game just for the hell of it, but at the same time, I want the stuff we did to be recognized (and give a unique experience).

As you said in your post, I don't mind seeing our decisions play out further down the line (thus not necessarily in Witcher 3). As long as their recognized eventually.

[RSIK4]

Please Read This Post

.....What we want to see in TW3
http://www.pcgamer.c...-the-witcher-3/

[Guy N'wah]

RSIK4 said:

Please Read This Post

.....What we want to see in TW3
http://www.pcgamer.c...-the-witcher-3/ ›››

I did, and I didn't like what I read. If you know of a way to maintain the integrity of your products while doing the things that the writer thinks would make them successful with a mass audience, please describe that way, rather than crossposting other people's work.

[Mrowakus]

Guy N said:

I did, and I didn't like what I read. If you know of a way to maintain the integrity of your products while doing the things that the writer thinks would make them successful with a mass audience, please describe that way, rather than crossposting other people's work.

Still, there's one point in there I can agree on:

Quote

That said, while choices did have big consequences, the scale of the game and sheer number of paths did have a tendency to trip over its own feet – key characters simply disappearing or being shoved into the background, massive events being dismissed, and most painfully of all, much of the plot that Geralt should have been uncovering during the game having to be explained via the final boss actively holding an expositional Q&A. It was also unfortunate that your choices tended to be a step removed from what you were actually choosing – the lead-up to Act 2 being the decision to throw your hat in with Roche or Iorveth, not Henselt or Saskia – or simply swept under the table with the politics of Act 3.

Sadly, the game relied to much on telling stuff (via cutscenes, or in-game Q&A sessions criticised here) instead of letting players figure it out. In essence some of the more interesting aspects, such as uncovering the mystery of your past, or learning who on earth that Letho dude is was shoved down players throat, and play no gameplay role whatsoever.

It's as if the devs were on the fence whether to make a story-based game or a in-engine movie. Perhaps they didn't know how to make gameplay around such critical facets of the lore.

[Costin Moroianu]

I will disagree on that aspect, to me the dialogue with Letho at the end was one of the best most memorable moments in the entire game.

That article is trash RSIK, stop linking it.

[Mrowakus]

Costin Moroianu said:

I will disagree on that aspect, to me the dialogue with Letho at the end was one of the best most memorable moments in the entire game.

That article is trash RSIK, stop linking it.

But it was a deus ex machina. It may have been atmospheric, well-voiced, and sort of inspiring... but all it amounted it was infodump. Devs didn't manage to close all plot threads so they had NPC explain everything to you. In any other medium it would be a very bad ending, and I don't get why TW2 should get a pass.

By comparison it would amount to The Transcedent One explain eveything to the Nameless One at the end of Planescape: Torment... instead of, you know, player having figured out the truth behind his state on his own, and having seen through half-truths, getting the best ending.

And to be honest that article isn't total trash. There is some quite valid criticism to be levelled at CDPRed to be found there (modding tools, for one thing).
Also

Quote

Yennefer? We Barely Know ‘Er!

I have similar criticism. After two games spent with Triss, when faced with the dilemma which gal to pick I cannot imagine players going for Yennefer... Unless she gets very early exposure (but we have to free her from the hands of the baddies, first!) and major character development.

[Costin Moroianu]

Quote

But it was a deus ex machina. It may have been atmospheric, well-voiced, and sort of inspiring... but all it amounted it was infodump. Devs didn't manage to close all plot threads so they had NPC explain everything to you. In any other medium it would be a very bad ending, and I don't get why TW2 should get a pass.

Well excuse me if I don't share this notion that a realistic conversation is a bad way to end the game and we knew pretty much everything Letho tells us except a few things.

We knew he had secretly worked for the Emperor from the start, we knew he had fooled Sile and everyone else with his plan, we knew Letho, Geralt and the two other witchers had moved south to find Yennefer and if Sile was spared we knew Yennefer was in Nilfgaard.

The only things we find out from Letho are: His reasoning for joining Emhyr, the fate of Yennefer and what Letho thought about everything that happened. Excuse me if I don't find it bad that CDPR decided to tell us at the end of the game that Yennefer was still in Nilfgaard for certain because that is the only really important bit of info.

Quote

And to be honest that article isn't total trash.

Every point he brings up in the article already had been argued to death on these very forums. I see nothing compelling about how he presents his points in any way, so yes it's trash.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I do not see how CDPR was supposed to make us know how Letho was caught by the Nilfgaardians, Yennefer's fate, Letho's time with Sile and his motives without resorting to a conversation. Geralt can't know any of this,m except if someone told him.

I am perfectly happy with the conversation we had with Letho, it's one of, if not the best, protagonist / antagonist interaction I've ever experienced. It's not at all a symptom of bad writing, quite the contrary. Many movies, shows, and books have a similar thing. It is not necessarily bad. It becomes bad if it's poorly executed. TW1 also had it with Jacques at the end. We had no idea what he really wanted until he told us.

What I wished was the case, was for short playable flashbacks showing us Geralt saving Letho, and their subsequent friendship. Because as it stands, we don't really know how close they were and how they interacted. But limited resources sadly.

[Mrowakus]

KnightofPhoenix said:

I do not see how CDPR was supposed to make us know how Letho was caught by the Nilfgaardians, Yennefer's fate, Letho's time with Sile and his motives without resorting to a conversation. Geralt can't know any of this,m except if someone told him.

I am perfectly happy with the conversation we had with Letho, it's one of, if not the best, protagonist / antagonist interaction I've ever experienced. It's not at all a symptom of bad writing, quite the contrary. Many movies, shows, and books have a similar thing. It is not necessarily bad. It becomes bad if it's poorly executed. TW1 also had it with Jacques at the end. We had no idea what he really wanted until he told us.

What I wished was the case, was for short playable flashbacks showing us Geralt saving Letho, and their subsequent friendship. Because as it stands, we don't really know how close they were and how they interacted. But limited resources sadly. ›››

And what I wished here is some player input: ability to verify (through optional investigation - subquests - completed earlier) what Letho is saying and challenging his position. To be a really active member of this conversation. To do something. To have prepared for it and not take everything at face-value.

As it is Geralt just stands there while the lore-dispensers is talking. I like the character of Letho. I like his motivations and his role in the overarching scheme. But I don't like how Geralt prior to that has made no move on his own, and now - despite tough talk - he is reduced to a recepient of a major infodump.

In other words, instead of pursuing his own goals, he aids everyone else, resulting in him not learning anything about the actual things that mattered to him personally most from the start. The actual key plot points were not resolved by any action we took - we are still in the dark. But lucky us! - the NPC will tell as everything we wanted to know near the end. I mean this is stuff straight from soap opera when Morgan Freeman character X appears and explains the story for you.

The only thing that saved it was good writing. Yes, the conversation - the lines - was solid.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Mrowakus said:

And what I wished here is some player input: ability to verify (through optional investigation - subquests - completed earlier) what Letho is saying and challenging his position. To be a really active member of this conversation. To do something. To have prepared for it and not take everything at face-value.

And how do you want Geralt to verify what Letho said, when it happened in Nilfgaard months prior?

And it would have taken from the mystery of it, if Geralt can find out. And it would have made everyone else who trusted Letho incompetent, if they could have figured out his intentions.

No, thanks.

Quote

As it is Geralt just stands there while the lore-dispensers is talking.

No, he's the one who tells Letho of the Wild Hunt. It's not completely one-sided.

Quote

In other words, instead of pursuing his own goals, he aids everyone else, resulting in him not learning anything about the actual things that mattered to him personally most from the start.

He did pursue his own goals, but if you hadn't noticed, Letho was completely outside his grasp in Act 2 and Act 3. It was not possible for him. But he did pursue, or can pursue, his own goals in Act 2 by retrieving his memory (which does reveal his past with Letho), and Act 3 saving Triss. Heck, in Act 2, he discovers that Letho was working with Sile (and on Roche's path, sees him, Serrit and Auckes).

The game's story was much bigger than Letho. Letho was the catalyst that created the chaos Geralt has to deal with. To forget that, is to ignore Letho's entire involvement in the story, and to weaken the foreshadowing of the war.

So I completely disagree. Geralt discovers about Letho as much as he needed to prior the conversation. Letho was not the center of the plot, nor necessarily Geralt's main motivation even by the middle of the game. Heck, Geralt can even tell Triss that he's willing to drop the whole hunt.

[Costin Moroianu]

The only thing that we could claim Letho lies about is on whether or not he protected Yennefer from harm as he claims, everything else we already knew at that point from flashbacks or other sources such as Sile ( who did figure out what Letho's intention were but far too late ) and as you point out Knight besides travelling to the Empire ourselves there would be no way to verify this from other sources.

I still fail to see how this is a Deus Ex Machina since there was no unsolvable problem to begin with. Sure we didn't know where Yennefer was exactly, which Letho does tell us, but we did know that she was in Nilfgaard even without Sile saying so.