[KnightofPhoenix]

nVid said:

It's a matter of taste I suppose, but why the hell did you put AC1 story above AC2? That's just funny. ›››

Because AC1 had great antagonists and philosophical undertones, something that AC2 lacks utterly, in addition to it being horribly rushed (and so silly) at the endgame. The one major good thing about AC2 was Ezio.

[IceEpicX]

God I hate open world games why?
An example in a funny way:

If The witcher 2 was open world(SPOILERS)
Ioreveth path,Vergen,It is intense,Saskia is poisoned,they don't know how to solve the curse to get on the other side,They will almost ceirtanly be killed by Henselt and their army,an immersive setting.Geralt is about to do something.
NOPE
Let's go to flotsam and do some side missions,maybe jion the fight club!It just about time to go explore and do pointless side quests everywhere,we can also hop up to Loc Muine and kill some gargoyels!
Who gives a fuck about Saskia being poisoned,curse,anything,let's give the players and option to go wherever they want,we don't care if it breaks immersion,dissconects you from the story and from the setting,we will do it anyway becouse every other RPG is doing it!.

I just really hope they are the first RPG makers who make an open world game that doesn't match the description I gave you,becouse almost every other open world RPG does that!

[IceEpicX]

KnightofPhoenix said:

Because AC1 had great antagonists and philosophical undertones, something that AC2 lacks utterly, in addition to it being horribly rushed (and so silly) at the endgame. The one major good thing about AC2 was Ezio. ›››

AC1>AC2>ACB>ACR>AC3

Sad but true xD.

AC1 had best story,setting and anagonists like you mentioned,Altair's charather development and the mystery of Desmond and Abestergo was also Epic.
AC2:Lively,great story,great protagnist,great new systems,it's just a joy to play it,it was so different from AC1 which is positive in a way,but AC1 was so unqiue in its setting that it really was the best AC game IMO.
ACB:Some improvments over AC2 but AC2 had a slightly better story and setting
ACR:A great game,great story,great setting,but a lot worse than AC2 and ACB.
AC3:Sorry,but this is the worst AC story IMO,the story had no meat,connor didn't have much additude and didn't stick to me,his father who is the anagonist was to focused on his goal and wasn't that memorable also,The combat got boring,I expected more,i really didn't like the single player...

[KnightofPhoenix]

Disagree entirely. For me, it's AC3 > AC:R > AC1 > AC:B > AC2
But we've derailed the thread enough as it is.

[Costin Moroianu]

Quote

They're trying to get the 'people who were dissapointed by Skyrim' audience

Well I certainly hope so!

[Aditya_the_warrior_within]

Now you don't need to argue about which AC game was better.
I would go on to say for me AC1<AC2<ACR<AC3<ACB but thats just my opinion (and well the word is ACB is the best followed by AC3 but who cares)
the point was with AC as a benchmark/solid proof open world games CAN have a great narrative, there just need to be more of them. TW2 is ALREADY made, now you can only speculate what ifs if it were open world. Just looking forward to TW3 now and dam is it Feb 5 already?

[Prince_12]

guipit said:

It probably won't have those or wouldn't require them or are you talking about online activation?

As for what I think of Witcher 3 being open world, They're trying to get the 'people who were dissapointed by Skyrim' audience just speculation though.

I mean I was one of those people who first played Bioware stuff first then moved here since people recommended that it was better and it was. ›››

And perhaps people who generally like Open World RPGs. Some people I know won't even bother with greater RPGs than Skyrim, simply b/c it isn't open world. Idiots...

[linkman214]

IceEpicX said:

God I hate open world games why?
An example in a funny way:

If The witcher 2 was open world(SPOILERS)
Ioreveth path,Vergen,It is intense,Saskia is poisoned,they don't know how to solve the curse to get on the other side,They will almost ceirtanly be killed by Henselt and their army,an immersive setting.Geralt is about to do something.
NOPE
Let's go to flotsam and do some side missions,maybe jion the fight club!It just about time to go explore and do pointless side quests everywhere,we can also hop up to Loc Muine and kill some gargoyels!
Who gives a fuck about Saskia being poisoned,curse,anything,let's give the players and option to go wherever they want,we don't care if it breaks immersion,dissconects you from the story and from the setting,we will do it anyway becouse every other RPG is doing it!.

I just really hope they are the first RPG makers who make an open world game that doesn't match the description I gave you,becouse almost every other open world RPG does that! ›››

but that is not a question of open world freedom, that's a matter of whether or not the content is immersive enough. If you are really focused on what is happening in the main plot line at that given time, then you are going to follow through with it. That's where the choice is left to each individual player.

Player choice is a good thing, not a bad thing.

[dragonbird]

Regarding "people who were disappointed with Skyrim", yes, it could be so. They did pretty well out of "people who were disappointed with DA2" after all

One thing that I've been thinking where Open World may actually help is on the urgency of quests. One minor problem with the story in both Witcher games, and in other similar story-based games, is in how to fit in the side quests. You're in this situation where there's meant to be some kind of urgency, kill the kayran, find Triss, find the kingslayer, but Geralt still manages to find time to wander around the forest doing miscellanous quests. He's a little too easily-distracted.

So there's always this thing where you break away from the main quest and do your own thing for a while. I'd like that to make sense from the story perspective. Open World fits nicely into that kind of scenario.

So if the Witcher 1 story had been Open World, maybe you'd have had to go round several villages and locations before you finally find out that the Salamandra were in Vizima. Fewer quest markers, more exploration.

[slimgrin]

dragonbird said:

So there's always this thing where you break away from the main quest and do your own thing for a while. I'd like that to make sense from the story perspective. Open World fits nicely into that kind of scenario.
›››

I have yet to play an open world game that resolves this issue. So I don't even expect it to make sense, I just do what I want, ancient evil overtaking the world be damned. I always felt the Witcher games struck a nice balance of freedom and narrative focus. It's going to be difficult maintaining that balance in a fully open world. If they can do it, I'll eat my socks.

[Umair2012]

KnightofPhoenix said:

Because AC1 had great antagonists and philosophical undertones, something that AC2 lacks utterly, in addition to it being horribly rushed (and so silly) at the endgame. The one major good thing about AC2 was Ezio. ›››

This is The Witcher 2 forums , please don't move away from topic . Thanks .

[Damariel]

guipit said:

They're trying to get the 'people who were dissapointed by Skyrim' audience ›››

It's probably true... I think Skyrim is a fun game to play but it's story..... meh.
Anyway if CDPR will stay with story-driven game idea then I'm calm about W3.

[guipit]

dragonbird said:

One thing that I've been thinking where Open World may actually help is on the urgency of quests. One minor problem with the story in both Witcher games, and in other similar story-based games, is in how to fit in the side quests. You're in this situation where there's meant to be some kind of urgency, kill the kayran, find Triss, find the kingslayer, but Geralt still manages to find time to wander around the forest doing miscellanous quests. He's a little too easily-distracted.

So there's always this thing where you break away from the main quest and do your own thing for a while. I'd like that to make sense from the story perspective. Open World fits nicely into that kind of scenario.

So if the Witcher 1 story had been Open World, maybe you'd have had to go round several villages and locations before you finally find out that the Salamandra were in Vizima. Fewer quest markers, more exploration. ›››

Why not turn off all the sidequests until you do the main quest then when the story dies down then you can do your own thing again.

I think AC1 had the best story only thing I didn't like was killing like 50 dudes in the last mission other than that it was almost perfect.

sadly all the other AC's have you kill thousands of people not very believable.

[nVid]

KnightofPhoenix said:

Because AC1 had great antagonists and philosophical undertones, something that AC2 lacks utterly, in addition to it being horribly rushed (and so silly) at the endgame. The one major good thing about AC2 was Ezio. ›››

I can agree on the rushed and silly engame, yes. As I said, its just a matter of taste. I'd rather replay AC2 (which I have finished 100% with Platinum Trophy on PS3) than AC1 which bored me to hell after repeating the same actions over and over again.

[Maerd]

Quote

Why The Witcher 3 Should Be Open World

I hope it will NOT be open world. If CDPR wants to try their strength in open world games they can make a completely different game, even if in the same setting. Say, name it "Northern Kingdoms at War"... or something.

Because you cannot have an open world game with great story. It's just impossible. It is so complicated to handle that the designers would need several decades to create it, nobody is going to do that. What's going to happen in the best case scenario is very shallow story with well thought out non-connected quests, like Arcanum. Well, Arcanum was an ok game, but I liked the first two witcher games for the awesome story...

[MarcAuron]

Curently , and maybe it's somewhere written, I don't know itf the game is a sandbox, a choreographed sandbox , or just a open gameplay aproach.

Based on that , there is zero reason to believe, that the game is" OMG ruined!" There are ways and metods of progressing the essential elemnets of story telling, without
the need to squeze everything in to Unreal Uniform like levels, like some story driven games do.

For now If they ge the funds, and dont get to much publisher medling, it's safe to say, that they can deliver a great story, with great world interactions, without making it a disconected mess.

[Cyberbeard]

I love your punctuation and agree with your points.

[Kallelinski]

Maerd said:

I hope it will NOT be open world.... ›››

Too bad it was confirmed today to be open world.

[Maerd]

MarcAuron said:

For now If they ge the funds, and dont get to much publisher meddling, it's safe to say, that they can deliver a great story, with great world interactions, without making it a disconnected mess... in ten years! ›››

Let me fix it for you

[spacehamsterZH]

I'm in the middle of another playthrough right now (about my 21453567th, thanks for asking), and one thing that sort of struck me just yesterday is that they were actually already attempting to implement some free exploration, it was just kind of limited. IIRC the entire swamp area in the Flotsam forest is there for no other purpose than so you can randomly stroll into it and possibly discover the use of the bandit hideout key, for example. Plus, let's be honest, every RPG with a main quests/sidequests structure (and that's, uh, all of them?) has this problem that whatever sense of urgency there is in the main story feels fake because you can spend ten hours doing fetch quests before getting to whatever important thing you're supposed to be doing. TW2 is hardly free of that.

I'm certainly worried because I generally hate open world games, and I'd rather have a small map where everything is individually crafted than the Great Kingdom of Copypasta, but it sounds to me like what we're going to get is really just the same as before with a bigger map and more sidequests, and that's fine by me.