Witcher 2 CDPR Defends Difficulty

The Witcher 2
That doesn't even make sense. Paradox can exist without making huge hits, and Angry Birds-clones are being made by the truck-load as we speak, precisely because people believe complexity is a killer.

In any case, it's pretty obvious what I meant without becoming obsessively pedantic about it.

What I meant was, it's perfectly possible that reduced complexity will hurt sales or that increased complexity will help sales - depends on your market and product.
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
188
I don't agree. In 1997, the best selling console games sold around 10 million copies while niche PC games typically sold around 100k-500k copies. In 2011, the best selling console games sell around 20 million copies while niche PC games typically sell 0.5-1 million copies.

The key difference between the eras is that a lot of former niche developers are "mainstreaming" their games today in an attempt to sell more, while in the 90's the two groups were more separated.

I really have no desire to argue bullshit numbers with you. We can twist and invent numbers until our faces turn blue.

If you don't think the average RPG fan was different back in the mid-nineties, then that's your business. If you don't agree that we have a larger percentage of mainstream RPG fans today than we did in the mid-nineties, that's your business.

End of line.
 
OK, I'm convinced. The Witcher 2 is a modern "AAA" cinematic RPG, and as such it's normal with only 5 spells throughout the game and a character system that barely affects the gameplay.

I think you're confusing "depth" with "breadth." True, there are only 5 spells within the game, but the upgrades to these spells and the other non-magical abilities have a real impact on how the game plays, which in my opinion leads to much more depth than "you leveled up 'ice missile.' Now you do 17 damage instead of 15" or a system that has a lot of spells, but the spells are static and the function of the spell can't be changed beyond doing more damage.
 
Joined
Nov 18, 2010
Messages
1,022
What I meant was, it's perfectly possible that reduced complexity will hurt sales or that increased complexity will help sales - depends on your market and product.

I thought it was plain as day.

But, if we must, I meant that if you want to sell the MOST copies - you want to appeal to the mainstream, as it's the LARGEST market. If you want to appeal to the largest market, then you have to make your game accessible for the most people.

Boiled down and simplified:

Complexity = fewer copies sold.

But you're right, if you want to sell a Chess game to Chess fans - you should probably not have a cutscene every time a pawn moves, and you should probably not reduce the amount of pieces available on the board.
 
If you don't think the average RPG fan was different back in the mid-nineties, then that's your business. If you don't agree that we have a larger percentage of mainstream RPG fans today than we did in the mid-nineties, that's your business.

The term "RPG fan" is irrelevant. The gamer who's ideal RPG is Icewind Dale or ToEE is probably more likely to appreciate a non-RPG like "King's Bounty" than Skyrim.

I'm saying that the percentage of gamers who prefer a more complex, tactical game to a simpler one hasn't changed that much.
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
188
But, if we must, I meant that if you want to sell the MOST copies - you want to appeal to the mainstream, as it's the LARGEST market. If you want to appeal to the largest market, then you have to make your game accessible for the most people.

I totally agree. But it's pretty obvious that everyone doesn't HAVE to appeal to the largest market and infact, everyone CAN'T do it since the "mainstream" do not automatically buy every simple and accessible game.
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
188
The term "RPG fan" is irrelevant. The gamer who's ideal RPG is Icewind Dale or ToEE is probably more likely to appreciate a non-RPG like "King's Bounty" than Skyrim.

I'm saying that the percentage of gamers who prefer a more complex, tactical game to a simpler one hasn't changed that much.

No, it's not irrelevant - as we're talking about RPGs without defining them. If you want to try and define them - good luck, but it'll be without me. Case in point, I'm a huge RPG fan and I adore complex tactical games - and yet I'll play 10 Skyrims before I play 1 King's Bounty. That's because I'm an even bigger fan of exploration and immersion driven games.

As for your last point, I couldn't disagree more.

We have a MUCH lower percentage of RPG fans who prefer a more complex and tactical game to a simpler one. In fact, I'd say a complex tactical game used to be what you expected back in the day. These days, it's what you DON'T expect. The market is much, much larger - and our "kind" represents the tiny minority - where we used to be pretty significant for RPG developers.

The reason "RPG fan" is relevant, is because genres sell games. People need to have an idea what they're getting - and that's why developers use these terms.

We're talking about PC games primarily, and we're talking about RPGs. That's why it's VERY relevant.

I know you're including casual console games to try and prove your desperate point - but it has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
 
I totally agree. But it's pretty obvious that everyone doesn't HAVE to appeal to the largest market and infact, everyone CAN'T do it since the "mainstream" do not automatically buy every simple and accessible game.

I'm not sure why you keep saying that.

Don't you think we all know that around here?
 
Now you do 17 damage instead of 15" or a system that has a lot of spells, but the spells are static and the function of the spell can't be changed beyond doing more damage.

Really? Morrowind's spells had no variety? Personally I found spells like Open, Mark&Recall, Telekinesis, Summon, Levitate more interesting than an upgraded spell that lets me trap 2 enemies instead of 1. And there was a nearly infinite amount of combinations to play with when making your own spells.
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
188
TES magic system is about as boring as I can imagine.

Infinite combinations of a small selection of effects = zzzz.

The end result is always a handful of strictly functional spells that do anything but excite or impress.

The worst thing you can do as a designer, is to give your job to the player.

Incidentally, that seems to be one of Bethesda's trademarks.
 
The reason "RPG fan" is relevant, is because genres sell games. People need to have an idea what they're getting - and that's why developers use these terms.
So let's rebadge Icewind Dale 3 a "tactical squad-based RTS" then ;)
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
188
Really? Morrowind's spells had no variety? Personally I found spells like Open, Mark&Recall, Telekinesis, Summon, Levitate more interesting than an upgraded spell that lets me trap 2 enemies instead of 1. And there was a nearly infinite amount of combinations to play with when making your own spells.

I'll give you that, the spell creation system was one of my favorite features of Morrowind, and one that I wish other RPGs would implement as well. I guess "depth" to me also applies to pure gameplay mechanics and story elements that include meaningful choice and consequence, and The Witcher 2 beats Morrowind in those two areas.
 
Joined
Nov 18, 2010
Messages
1,022
TES magic system is about as boring as I can imagine.
I´m sorry to say it, but you sorely lack in the imagination department ;).

Infinite combinations of a small selection of effects = zzzz.
The selection is not that small.
Also, note the amount of utility spells usable in situations other than combat.

The worst thing you can do as a designer, is to give your job to the player.
There´s still a solid variety of spells even if you don´t engage in customizing.
However, if you´re playing a mage-y character some research and experimenting with spell effects kinda makes sense from a roleplaying perspective, don´t you think?
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
2,437
Location
Prague
I´m sorry to say it, but you sorely lack in the imagination department ;).

Well, it was a bit of an exaggeration for effect :)

The selection is not that small.
Also, note the amount of utility spells usable in situations other than combat.

I know the selection, but my experience with all TES - is that you end up with quite a limited selection of spells that you "scale" as you grow in power.

There´s still a solid variety of spells even if you don´t engage in customizing.
However, if you´re playing a mage-y character some research and experimenting with spell effects kinda makes sense from a roleplaying perspective, don´t you think?

Oh, it makes sense and I love the concept of being able to make my own spells.

I also loved the concept in Alpha Centauri of doing my own units.

The end result, however, is that I always end up with a few basic designs that serve their purpose. I know I'm not the only one, because I used to play Alpha Centauri in LAN sessions, and most people did the same thing.

We did have a guy who was pretty creative and "gamed" the system, as I recall - though.

So maybe it IS my imagination lacking.

Personally, I simply prefer having pre-made spells that a professional has done the art for, and I MUCH prefer the kind of meaningful variety you get with hand-made stuff.

Another problem with the TES system is that the spell effects LOOK so very boring. It just doesn't feel like you're "slinging" magic. It's because they always go for the simplest way out. Just like they handle their loot mechanics and character mechanics.

Everything is boiled down to the most basic stuff, completely lacking in flavor. The item designer is the same way. So…. systemic, you know? I don't think they're lazy or anything. I just don't think they're interested in game mechanics that might upset balance or disturb the whole "flow" of doing whatever you want whenever you want. They don't want to make the player sweat over choices.

So, if they put more effort into making the spells look like spells, and did something a bit more interesting than "range, damage, area, duration" - then the system would probably fantastic. The most obvious thing to do would be to allow the player to COMBINE the core effects, and let them affect each other in interesting and unique ways.

But that wouldn't be Bethesda. That's just not what they're about. They're all about the big picture and the first impressions.

Ok, maybe that's harsh - as I found Fallout 3 a lot better. But at least as far as TES is concerned, that's been their approach so far.

Also, credit where it's due: They're FANTASTIC at the "big picture" - in terms of letting you do what you want and roam free. No one else comes close, really.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I simply prefer having pre-made spells that a professional has done the art for, and I MUCH prefer the kind of meaningful variety you get with hand-made stuff.

Another problem with the TES system is that the spell effects LOOK so very boring. It just doesn't feel like you're "slinging" magic. It's because they always go for the simplest way out. Just like they handle their loot mechanics and character mechanics.

I'm sorry but it sounds like you prefer a shallow game with fancy effects and graphics.

Morrowind's spells certainly have a large impact on gameplay in a variety of ways. The entire Witcher 2 spell arsenal would be a small percentage of what you can do in Morrowind. Quen - Shield-Spell Absorption, Igni - Fire damage, Axii - Command creature/humanoid, Aard - Paralyze/Damage fatigue. Ok, you can't lay traps - but you cast spells that make you go invisible, fly, teleport, use telekinesis or run faster.

I think Morrowind would have benefited more from better AI and a more transparent way of showing status effects on you/your target rather than nicer spell graphics.

Maybe you simply prefer a more handholding experience where the game designer controls your approach and it's more about "figuring out" how to beat encounters with a limited set of options as opposed to coming up with your own thing.
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
188
I'm sorry but it sounds like you prefer a shallow game with fancy effects and graphics.

I'm sure it sounds like that if you don't actually follow what I'm saying. But it's true that I definitely enjoy fancy effects and beautiful graphics.

You're the only here thinking The Witcher 2 is a shallow game. That's probably your entire reasoning behind everything people say for it, or against Morrowind. You're not even making the effort to understand other people.

Morrowind's spells certainly have a large impact on gameplay in a variety of ways. The entire Witcher 2 spell arsenal would be a small percentage of what you can do in Morrowind. Quen - Shield-Spell Absorption, Igni - Fire damage, Axii - Command creature/humanoid, Aard - Paralyze/Damage fatigue. Ok, you can't lay traps - but you cast spells that make you go invisible, fly, teleport, use telekinesis or run faster.

You don't seem to appreciate that Geralt isn't supposed to be a fully fledged mage. I'm not saying the magic system in The Witcher 2 is fully satisfying. I'm saying the spells are cleverly designed, they look great, and they create interesting tactical gameplay.

In Morrowind, they give you the basic tools and ask you to design your own spells, resulting in zero flavor and zero discovery.

That said, I never actually play a mage - and only use spells to complement whatever build I'm going for.

I think Morrowind would have benefited more from better AI and a more transparent way of showing status effects on you/your target rather than nicer spell graphics.

I think it would benefit from a lot of things, and I don't necessarily think better visuals take precedence over any of the other many, many severe flaws of that dreary game.

Maybe you simply prefer a more handholding experience where the game designer controls your approach and it's more about "figuring out" how to beat encounters with a limited set of options as opposed to coming up with your own thing.

I suppose it's meant to provoke me with that handholding bit? You seem to be a bit obsessed with Morrowind - and you don't seem able to make emotionally disconnected observations.

For instance, I can fully understand the appeal of spellmaking in Morrowind - but it's simply not good enough to satisfy my personal demands of such a system.

Maybe it's simply that you like one thing and I like something else. It doesn't mean I'm a little child that needs the designer to hold my hand when I cross the dangerous pixel street.

I simply enjoy the idea of spells being "discovered" - and I like growing in power and looking forward to larger and more versatile powers. I don't like having everything handed to me at the beginning - and then have it simply scale incrementally. That's incredibly predictable and boring to me, no matter how many variations I can make of the same basic functionality.

I'd love a spellmaking system if it was handled right. Much like I wrote above - Bethesda don't know an interesting gameplay mechanic from a sea of paperdoll NPCs.
 
Good one. RPG and Mythos cosmic entities, same battle. You talk of them without defining them…

I'd rather not define them, than be foolish and arrogant enough to think I get to decide what they are for other people.
 
Yes, speaking of RPG definitively drives into madness. Mulud Al-Jirad, the author of the RPGmicon, a book speaking of RPG, bad fate...
People should whisper RPG...

And RPGs are decided for other people. This site is a good example of with a distinct section on RPGs and non RPGs. So why participate to such a site? It must be such a pain...
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
Yes, speaking of RPG definitively drives into madness. Mulud Al-Jirad, the author of the RPGmicon, a book speaking of RPG, bad fate…
People should whisper RPG…

And RPGs are decided for other people. This site is a good example of with a distinct section on RPGs and non RPGs. So why participate to such a site? It must be such a pain…

I'm not sure I could stand it if you were not here to entertain :)
 
Back
Top Bottom