Witcher 3 - Design Documents Leaked

As some people have said before. Size is actually relative to travel speed

If the hero's standard walking speed is 4km/h the having a 128km2 game world is massive but if the hero always runs at 20km/h then that isn't as big anymore as you would be able to travel anywhere quite quickly.

Also it's more about having content in that big area than just having a big area

Here is a non-spoiler for something that's REALLY important

Witcher 3 Hair Demo

For those considering GPU upgrades for Witcher 3, it looks like Nvidia hair is a consideration.

Seen the early vid, this one is awsome!

Oh and… This is exclusively on PC, am I right? nVidia if I remember correctly shoved off so-called "nextgen":
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-steam-box-machines-sff,25278.html
http://www.maximumpc.com/nvidia_calls_pc_far_superior_video_game_consoles_2013

DArtagnan, you are too grating to take seriously. Have a lovely time with the arcade-style combat of the Witcher 2, which CDPR has vowed to improve the most, and enjoy the lovely corridor romp between the cutscenes. You are right in that in no way should the Witcher series be compared to the first two Gothics.

W2 full hour of opening linear talk and hack fest bored me to tears. "Go from point A to point B and kill a mob of enemies." Now watch seven minutes of cut scenes. "Walk slowly along a path inside a magic bubble and kill things that approach" Now enjoy seven more minutes of a video game movie about characters you don't give a crap about.

I hope they make W3 less like an interactive movie.

I finished W1:EE, and enjoyed it quite a bit. W2 looks better, but I couldn't get past the first few hours of it. It's like a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book populated by Rennaisance-Faire scumbags and some combat between chapters.

CDPR has stated the combat in the W2 moves too fast, has bad camera angles, it doesn't flow smoothly from target to target, and the controls aren't responsive enough due to being committed to combos. I would add that dying in a couple of hits on normal to most things also kind of sucks, but moreso for all the problems mentioned above. The enemies surround you and move like lightning, while you have to either kite and run away or roll like mad to get time to use the signs and gadgets at your disposal.

Hopefully they get it right, and the Witcher is on the screen and it doesn't rely on the uber skillset of some dumbass with a controller. Because that's what I am, I am no controller ninja. I was way too slow to play normal until through my superior intelligence in perk selection (AKA Gamefaqs, what's a viable build? All igni actually works? Sweet), I got my fireball of doom rolling, and then it just felt cheesey and lame. I saw the Dark and Insane modes, and I don't know who rocked out those, but they aren't normal gamers.

Burress said:

DArtagnan, you are too grating to take seriously. Have a lovely time with the arcade-style combat of the Witcher 2, which CDPR has vowed to improve the most, and enjoy the lovely corridor romp between the cutscenes. You are right in that in no way should the Witcher series be compared to the first two Gothics.

Click to expand...

Your reasons for failing to provide a rational argument are your own, but let's just say it's hardly a surprise that you've still not been able to support your "interesting" proposition

Your smileys, quotes, and claims of rational superiority are high-grade obnoxious. I can tell you enjoy the non-substantive parts of argument.

I have missed that at least last year CDPR has claimed that the Witcher 3 will be 20% larger than Skyrim. I haven't seen the claim in recent interviews, but I haven't been seen every one of them either.

The sites reporting the leaks don't date the documents in the production cycle. Are they pre-production or are they current? Most assume they are relatively current. That makes a difference. I saw a post E3 interview where it appears they have run in to lots of challenges. It may be the case they were thinking 4x Skryim at the start, 20% more than Skyrim last year, and now maybe not as large as Skyrim in the final product.

You think very highly of the W2. I think it is weaker than the first game. I don't see the basis of your calling my comparison with the Gothic series stupid. You claim W2 custom built engine is a big deal, both Gothic games ran on an engine PB built. The crux was both series try to go big on entry 3, the W3 is probably a bigger step up than G3. The W2 was pretty small, one dev said 20x bigger for W3 is a good estimate for comparison.

The stuff about Skyrim and W2, that was covered above.

Burress said:

Your smileys, quotes, and claims of rational superiority are high-grade obnoxious. I can tell you enjoy the non-substantive parts of argument.

Click to expand...

There's nothing objectively superior about being rational, it's just the only thing that will help your case if you want to be convincing.

As for enjoying an argument, that's only when it's interesting - and so far, this isn't. Well, not very interesting anyway.

Since you're still talking, I could claim you're enjoying the same bits as well - but no, we're just trying to make our points. Enjoyment doesn't really enter into it, though I suppose it's a way of passing the time.

I have missed that at least last year CDPR has claimed that the Witcher 3 will be 20% larger than Skyrim. I haven't seen the claim in recent interviews, but I haven't been seen every one of them either.

Click to expand...

Yes, you've clearly missed their claim of huge size that exceeds Skyrim significantly - as it's been quoted and repeated on countless occasions.

I still don't think it's a very interesting claim, but such is how we differ. I'm much more interested in the actual content than the size of the landscape - and there's no way to know unless you're CDPR or have played the game.

This is why worrying about it is pointless.

The sites reporting the leaks don't date the documents in the production cycle. Are they pre-production or are they current? Most assume they are relatively current. That makes a difference. I saw a post E3 interview where it appears they have run in to lots of challenges. It may be the case they were thinking 4x Skryim at the start, 20% more than Skyrim last year, and now maybe not as large as Skyrim in the final product.

Click to expand...

Yes, you seem to enjoy speculating based on weak information and extrapolating based on fantasty scenarios. You admit you've done no research and yet you're still using the numbers you seem to have conjured up in terms of a context you can't be anywhere near certain about.

Hardly a very convincing, much less rational, argument. This is what you call interesting? Really?

You think very highly of the W2. I think it is weaker than the first game. I don't see the basis of your calling my comparison with the Gothic series stupid. You claim W2 custom built engine is a big deal, both Gothic games ran on an engine PB built. The crux was both series try to go big on entry 3, the W3 is probably a bigger step up than G3. The W2 was pretty small, one dev said 20x bigger for W3 is a good estimate for comparison.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your point is, here. What relevance does my opinion of W2 have? I don't get it.

You were trying to make a case of The Witcher 3 being the Gothic 3 of CDPR - and I explained to you why it's irrational - as the evolution of the games have been entirely different. So there's no basis for making that particular comparison except that they share the same number in the series.

That's an absurdly weak basis, but whatever floats your boat.

That doesn't mean The Witcher 3 can't be too ambitious or that it can't fail - as it obviously can. It simply means there's zero solid support for that claim - and worrying about it based on an entirely different franchise by an entirely different developer, published by an entirely different publisher - with an entirely different budget - is highly irrational.

Unless, of course, you're biased against it.

I think it is most rational that we end it here. You are right, this isn't interesting, it is tedious. You ignore relevant relations like you equate deductive certainty with rationality. You also gratingly repeat your qualitative judgments of my claims, which adds nothing but an obnoxious quality to discourse with you, since you conveniently ignore points we have gone back and forth on already. Your standard for acceptable statements about unreleased games is too high, especially for informal forums. You can say any speculation ever done is irrational based on your standards, which leaves nothing interesting to say about unreleased games.

Let's never do this again, shall we?

Burress said:

I think it is most rational that we end it here. You are right, this isn't interesting, it is tedious. You ignore relevant relations like you equate deductive certainty with rationality. You also gratingly repeat your qualitative judgments of my claims, which adds nothing but an obnoxious quality to discourse with you, since you conveniently ignore points we have gone back and forth on already. Your standard for acceptable statements about unreleased games is too high, especially for informal forums. You can say any speculation ever done is irrational based on your standards, which leaves nothing interesting to say about unreleased games.

Let's never do this again, shall we?

Click to expand...

If you don't enjoy having your propositions challenged, then a public forum is probably not the right place for them.

Expecting people to agree with you or to see the profound nature of your insight, is also somewhat naive. I remember struggling with something like that when I was younger, and didn't quite understand that because I think something is interesting or amusing - it's not necessarily an objective fact.

If you DO want people to agree, it's really no good to just say I'm ignoring your good points and that my standard is too high. You have to qualify such claims with details - and you should explain why my standard is too high because it differs from your own. That's not a good argument in itself, as I'm sure you understand.

If you fail to do that, it'll seem like weak support for a weak argument - and we're back to square one.

In the future, if you want to make a claim about something you have no way of knowing - it's key to have a solid reason or some kind of support for it. Just because I dismiss your current "reasons" as weak and irrational - doesn't mean it can't be interesting to make a solid proposition about The Witcher 3, based on limited information. It's just that you've failed to provide anything solid, unless you consider pure speculation based on essentially nothing at all solid. Interesting? Maybe, but not to me. Beyond that, you've been proven wrong when it comes to CDPR not harping on the size, which just goes to show how little effort you've made to have a good reason for your doubts.

Again, it smacks of bias - just like your apparent dislike of the TW1 - TW2 progression makes your objective disposition dubious.

It's perfectly legitimate to dislike what they did with the sequel - but you can't correlate that with TW3 being Gothic 3 - as that baseless proposition would have no direct relationship with an overall change in design that you simply happen to dislike.

There's no connection between the two - and the only support you seem to have is your negative reaction to TW2 - which makes you biased, as the emotion obviously still lingers - based on your attempt to bait me with my positive TW2 opinion several times.

I tend to challenge everything I find irrational when I'm in that mood, and I don't necessarily bother noticing the source of any such proposition or claim.

I'll try to remember that you don't enjoy being challenged by me, but I can't make any promises. Safest bet is to put me on ignore.

Actually, it makes a lot of sense to compare Gothic's rise with Witcher's rise. Both had a first game that came out of nowhere and was broken/haphazard/thickly European and caught fire amongst the hardcore crowd....then the sequel was given more attention from developers and stretched out into a big showcase title for the developer....

Then with the third, they tried to re-write the series with the most dangerously ambitious game they could possibly make.

In PB's case, it failed.

In CDP's case, it might not. Too early to say yet.

DungeonHack said:

Actually, it makes a lot of sense to compare Gothic's rise with Witcher's rise. Both had a first game that came out of nowhere and was broken/haphazard/thickly European and caught fire amongst the hardcore crowd….then the sequel was given more attention from developers and stretched out into a big showcase title for the developer….

Then with the third, they tried to re-write the series with the most dangerously ambitious game they could possibly make.

In PB's case, it failed.

In CDP's case, it might not. Too early to say yet.

Click to expand...

Gothic was broken/haphazard and caught fire amongst the hardcore crowd? No, not in the real world.

The sequel was given more attention by the developers and became more popular? That's unheard of for a sequel, isn't it?

Trying to "re-write" the series? As if TW2 didn't already rewrite TW1 almost completely. It was completely different - and Gothic 2 was essentially just a larger Gothic.

How about making a bit of sense next time? At least, try to stick with reality please.

You are an intellectual troll. You just hitch condescension to obstinance and you are the single most annoying person I have encountered.

That the second game was exactly alike is not the most the essential part of the comparison. They were more ambitious in their own ways, Gothic 2 was bigger, the W2 had many more cutscences.

The essential part of the comparison was that chasing the wild success of an Elder Scrolls game, they departed from what they had done before and tried to create huge open world experiences. Gothic went 3-5 times larger, but didn't change the size of the team. The Witcher 3 goes about 20x larger and doubles the team. If you don't see this part, you are just obtuse.

It is a comparison. The essential similarities are worth pointing out. But not to you, because where you don't play blind, you go about insisting that it is irrational because it didn't happen to the same people, with the same publisher, in the same series.

You are ridiculous to argue with. You are not rational, you just have a desire to be condescending and you use whatever tricks are necessary to achieve it.

OMG.
I see my new best friend…

But let's return to the topic.
CDpr says this:
http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threads/30569-IMPORTANT-A-message-from-the-developers

As you might have heard, because of a breach of our security systems, some of the production files for The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt have surfaced on the web. We don’t yet know the full scale of the leak, nor the complete list of files that were accessed, but some of them definitely contain spoilers. We strongly encourage you not to read them as they might significantly spoil your experience. Let’s wait for the launch of the game in February, OK?

Click to expand...

I will not touch those leaks.

Me neither.

Burress said:

You are an intellectual troll. You just hitch condescension to obstinance and you are the single most annoying person I have encountered.

That the second game was exactly alike is not the most the essential part of the comparison. They were more ambitious in their own ways, Gothic 2 was bigger, the W2 had many more cutscences.

The essential part of the comparison was that chasing the wild success of an Elder Scrolls game, they departed from what they had done before and tried to create huge open world experiences. Gothic went 3-5 times larger, but didn't change the size of the team. The Witcher 3 goes about 20x larger and doubles the team. If you don't see this part, you are just obtuse.

It is a comparison. The essential similarities are worth pointing out. But not to you, because where you don't play blind, you go about insisting that it is irrational because it didn't happen to the same people, with the same publisher, in the same series.

You are ridiculous to argue with. You are not rational, you just have a desire to be condescending and you use whatever tricks are necessary to achieve it.

Click to expand...

Yes, yes… I'm ridiculous and condescending and yet you keep going

Your reason for comparison is that one game failed because it went for a more ambitious scope, so this game might fail for the same reason. That's it.

Quite a conclusion, let me tell you.

While the Gothics and Elder Sausage Rolls games have competent world simulation (NPC AI, ability to make decisions through actions rather than just in dialog), the Witcher games are scripted and all decisions are made through dialogs.

This world simulation might make it easier for developers to fill a large game world with computer generated missions (particularily true for Elders Rolls games).

This means that the Witcher team has worked extremely hard to fill a huge and open world with hand-crafted quests rather than fillers. Thus I would expect to see a much higher quality of quest design and story telling.

Having said that, the Witcher 3 developers were a bit shy of comparing to Elder Sausuage Rolls and they have a good reason for this: indeed they have a huge world but it is divided into a number of (maybe separate) regions; this may also be in the fashion that progression into newer regions is limited by finishing quests in the current regions and so on (just like in Divinity II). This is perfectly acceptable, as having interconnected huge world with hand-crafted, high quality quests is a significant and maybe a not so practical and fruitfull excercise.

Prime examples of a balance between world simulations and excellent story telling in (huge) open worlds is Fallout New Vegas, Gothic 3 and Vampire Bloodlines (in my view any way).

DungeonHack said:

Actually, it makes a lot of sense to compare Gothic's rise with Witcher's rise. Both had a first game that came out of nowhere and was broken/haphazard/thickly European and caught fire amongst the hardcore crowd….then the sequel was given more attention from developers and stretched out into a big showcase title for the developer….

Then with the third, they tried to re-write the series with the most dangerously ambitious game they could possibly make.

In PB's case, it failed.

In CDP's case, it might not. Too early to say yet.

Click to expand...

QFT

I predict Witcher III is going to be the best of the series. Theyve had 2 games to mess w/ the combat and find out what works and doesnt, and I'm sensing a return to a more monsterlicious and Witchery-themed and less politcal game. Open world can only make things better IMO.

One can only hope!

DungeonHack said:

Both had a first game that came out of nowhere and was broken/haphazard/thickly European and caught fire amongst the hardcore crowd….

Click to expand...

I have to agree with DArtagnan here.. at least concerning this particular part of your post.

How was Gothic broken or haphazard? I played it at release and found it easy to get into and without any major issues. Sure, the controls took a little getting used to, but that's the only thing I could see being a legitimate complaint, and it's a nitpick at best.

The Witcher had more legitimate issues upon release, but I still wouldn't call it "broken".