Originally Posted by rune_74
I have bloodbourne as well…tough game…I suck at it.

Yep, not the best game to play to try and get used to using a controller.

Since it will never see the light of day on PC though, I have to do what I have to do.

I haven't played witcher 3 long enough to know if it lives up to the external hype but I think it will be quite sufficient for my hype.

Really, aren't all these action swordfighting games similar, in that you should dodge and then strike from the side or back? Perhaps parry (or block) too if it actually helps with counterattacking?

Blade of Severance at least had a bunch of different combo attacks (apparently, as I haven't played it, yet).

Originally Posted by rune_74
Did I hurt your feelings saying that? It filled the village witha bunch of generic npc's and one shop keeper…it looked decent but it was superficial. I don't have an example other then heavily scripted scenes that change over a game…but that's what it does.

Explain to me how it is more then superficial if all it does is put npc's in the village that don't have effect on the rest of the world?

I get the feeling another personal insult will be typed by you instead of actually you know talking about the game.

You're claiming it's only superficial, and I simply asked if you could give an example of where it's done better.

Of course you chose to reply in your typical manner that we're all used to - where you pretend you're being victimized in some way. What a surprise.

Why is it superficial because a repopulated village doesn't affect the rest of the world? Why does that village have to affect the rest of the world? The change to the area itself is the effect. If that's not enough, then again I ask if you can provide examples in other games where it's done better.

Or you can just keep trying to convince everyone that you're being insulted.

Originally Posted by sakichop
The witcher combat is ok but it can't touch bloodborne or dark souls combat but your right certain tactics are transferable between the 2 games.

I wouldn't expect it to. Combat is the primary focus in those games.They don't offer much else.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I wouldn't expect it to. Combat is the primary focus in those games.They don't offer much else.

True their main focus is combat but they also offer excellent atmosphere,exploration and character progression.

Obviously they can't compete with the witchers story, quests, companions or npc's.

They're different kinds of games but since the comparison was made I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents.

Originally Posted by JDR13
You're claiming it's only superficial, and I simply asked if you could give an example of where it's done better.

Of course you chose to reply in your typical manner that we're all used to - where you pretend you're being victimized in some way. What a surprise.

Why is it superficial because a repopulated village doesn't affect the rest of the world? Why does that village have to affect the rest of the world? The change to the area itself is the effect. If that's not enough, then again I ask if you can provide examples in other games where it's done better.

Or you can just keep trying to convince everyone that you're being insulted.

If all it does is add npc's to a spot that was empty how is that anything other then cosmetic? You basically strengthend my point…I'm not saying anyone has done it better but I think they could have added more to it, and they probably will next game. It has zero effect on the game if you repopulate them other then giving you another npc to buy from. If it does more please share because I have liberated a ton of places.

how about focusing on what I said instead of the other stuff. Getting tiring.

Originally Posted by rune_74
If all it does is add npc's to a spot that was empty how is that anything other then cosmetic? You basically strengthend my point…I'm not saying anyone has done it better but I think they could have added more to it, and they probably will next game. It has zero effect on the game if you repopulate them other then giving you another npc to buy from. If it does more please share because I have liberated a ton of places.

how about focusing on what I said instead of the other stuff. Getting tiring.

What wouldn't be "cosmetic" to you? I'd ask you to give an example, but something tells me I'd be wasting my time.

How about an entire village being either saved or destroyed because of a decision you made? Is that also just cosmetic?

I guess I just find it curious that someone would attempt to criticize a certain aspect when it hasn't been done better elsewhere.

Originally Posted by JDR13
What wouldn't be "cosmetic" to you? I'd ask you to give an example, but something tells me I'd be wasting my time.

How about an entire village being either saved or destroyed because of a decision you made? Is that also just cosmetic?

I guess I just find it curious that someone would attempt to criticize a certain aspect when it hasn't been done better elsewhere.

Think about it for a second…if I save that village what changes other then some npc's showing up in the village…does the city down the way know I did anything? How about the other bandits in the area?

How does the game notice as a whole I saved or let the village burn?

I walk away from that little scene and that's the end of the involvement in the game.

I'm not saying this is some damning feature of the game, just that it is like say you finished a quest and a tree sprouted up…it would have the same effect on the game as villagers reappearing(sure I simplified that down a bit sine you wouldn't have a selling npc in the treee) You save a village and you know it will get a few background npc's and one to two people who will sell things to you. Interesting as it looks like it does something but pretty cosmetic in the sens of the overall affect on the game.

At first I thought it was pretty cool then it was, yep saved another village people moved in…It's not even a huge issue just something I noticed. Do I think it can be done better? Yes, but it would most likely take a lot more work to make each area matter in more ways…especially in a game this big.

I think that makes it pretty clear.

Originally Posted by rune_74
Think about it for a second…if I save that village what changes other then some npc's showing up in the village…does the city down the way know I did anything? How about the other bandits in the area?

How does the game notice as a whole I saved or let the village burn?

I walk away from that little scene and that's the end of the involvement in the game..

I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record here, but give me an example of how the game would "notice as a whole".

You have a village that's now populated by regular people instead of bandits or monsters, and people will randomly make comments praising your efforts and thanking you. On the other hand, villagers will spit at you and make hateful comments if you made a decision they didn't like.

If you want to say that's purely cosmetic then that's fine. Point is, it's a lot more dynamic than anything I'm seeing in TES or similar games.

Could it be done better? I'm sure it could. For instance, maybe it would be cool if someone in a different village mentioned something about your actions down the road. I don't consider that much more than a nitpick though.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record here, but give me an example of how the game would "notice as a whole".

You have a village that's now populated by regular people instead of bandits or monsters, and people will randomly make comments praising your efforts and thanking you. On the other hand, villagers will spit at you and make hateful comments if you made a decision they didn't like.

If you want to say that's purely cosmetic then that's fine. Point is, it's a lot more dynamic than anything I'm seeing in TES or similar games.

Actually now that you mention TES it was done a few times as well in Skyrim…you clear out a castle and the imperial legion moves in…not as often and not as focused.

You are right the do spit etc when you do something they don't like…but it is limited to that location and has no long term effects…it doesn't spread throughout the world. I did give an example that a village down the way doesn't notice you saved a village.

I think the game does use an overall morality system that tracks your choices…which changes the way the npc's react to you. But saving a village only adds nameless npc's to the game and I would assume adds a bit to your global morality value. That's the equivalent of clearing out a barn and slapping a new coat of paint on it.

It does do a very good illusion that you have done so much more though…

Originally Posted by rune_74
You are right the do spit etc when you do something they don't like…but it is limited to that location and has no long term effects…it doesn't spread throughout the world.

Realistically, I don't see why it would. Given the circumstances in the game (That the entire north is currently being invaded by Nilfgaard, and people are dying left and right), how many people are really going to give a shit that you saved some small village down the road?

I find it enough that you see changes in the immediate area and hear it mentioned by the people there.

I agree that it would be a nice touch if someone in another village mentioned it, but like I said, it's a nitpick at best.

I haven't played it yet, but is this "save a village" scenario a good example of the type of random questing in the game? Where you're yet again the chosen one to save the masses and/or condemn them? Seems pretty trite if so.

Originally Posted by Drithius
I haven't played it yet, but is this "save a village" scenario a good example of the type of random questing in the game?

No, not even remotely close as the type of random quest in the game at all. The random quests are numerous and varied and even the traditional "fetch" quests are not all they seems. What I am saying is that LOT of care and attention went into all the random quests in the game. Some of the random/side quest in the game are much better than some of the main quests in other games.

Sometimes when you are wondering about, you will see an abandon village full of monsters or bandits and if you kill them, the villagers might come back and they may have some vendors but this is just flavour of the world and not quest.

Originally Posted by Drithius
Where you're yet again the chosen one to save the masses and/or condemn them? Seems pretty trite if so.

There is a sort of chosen one in the game but its not *you*. You are not saving the world or the masses for that matter. However your actions have consequences and not all of them are pretty nor can you predict them in advance however they are still *logical* consequences when you think about them afterwards. Sometime the game will also put you in difficult situations and whatever you do will not have happy ending but these situations never felt artificial to me in the sense that the game designer was trying to pull fast one to make the game feel dark and gritty but rather they made sense to me. These situations were believable.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Realistically, I don't see why it would. Given the circumstances in the game (That the entire north is currently being invaded by Nilfgaard, and people are dying left and right), how many people are really going to give a shit that you saved some small village down the road?

I find it enough that you see changes in the immediate area and hear it mentioned by the people there.

I agree that it would be a nice touch if someone in another village mentioned it, but like I said, it's a nitpick at best.

This actually happen few times for me in the game.

Lostforever please use the spoiler tag.

I already finished the game but others probably haven't.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
Lostforever please use the spoiler tag.

I already finished the game but others probably haven't.

Done! Still not in the habit of using it.

Originally Posted by rune_74
They do change, but they are very cosmetic changes…for instance you kill the monsters in a fishing village and the villagers return with a generic shopkeeper. Yes, it changed (right in front of you) but it seems very superficial. I don't think it has any other affect on the world.

Those indeed are just episodes but those aren't the only changes are they? Geralt actions (or inaction) do affect the world to quite a degree. There are local changes like who lives or dies in a given location. And then there are big changes like who rules Crow's Perch? Who becomes ruler of Skellige? Who captures Novigrad? Does the war end or continues? And, finally, does the world of TE3 ends or not?

Name me another game with so many meaningful C&Cs? RDR? GTA?

Originally Posted by JDR13
There are actually quite a few instances of that in TW3. I'm surprised you didn't encounter any yet, although 20-30 hours is only scratching the surface of this game.

For instance, there are towns/villages that you can liberate from bandits or clear of monsters, and if you come back later you'll find that those areas have been cleaned up and settled by peasants, merchants, etc.

There are also choices you'll have to make that with either save or doom people and places.

The city of Novigrad changes throughout the game as well. You should at least play until you get a chance to see it, as I think it's easily the most impressive city in an RPG to date.

You are most likely right. And I did notice Novigrad change in terms of the people there. 20-30 hours was probably a bit conservative by me, I did manage to get to Skellige.
I just think its simply me not enjoying some of the gameplay and not being that interested in the world in terms of exploring, and because of that at some point it stops being interesting for me to keep playing.

I really enjoyed the first Witcher game and was really excited for Witcher 3. But perhaps I will come back after a while. I am also playing on PS4 which doesn't help either, since I prefer to play on PC and the UI doesn't seem that well done for consoles.
But my PC is not strong enough.

Originally Posted by Drithius
I haven't played it yet, but is this "save a village" scenario a good example of the type of random questing in the game? Where you're yet again the chosen one to save the masses and/or condemn them? Seems pretty trite if so.

Not at all. They aren't even quests. You just find a village that has been destroyed and is inhabited by monsters or bandits. You kill them and then there is a cutscene of villagers returning. It's a very minor thing.

Originally Posted by Badesumofu
Not at all. They aren't even quests. You just find a village that has been destroyed and is inhabited by monsters or bandits. You kill them and then there is a cutscene of villagers returning. It's a very minor thing.

While it's not a quest and is basically something you can skip and never do, it's not a minor thing for AC:Rogue and FC3 fans.
We, and I'm one of those fans, wanted that feature in the first place, were extatic over it and we got it.
http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showp…7&postcount=29
For those who didn't play FC3 and AC:R - by conquering enemy bases, you stop them from respawning in an area.

I'm aware there are players who hate it because grinding is their thing. But they already have grinding in a form of Skellige guarded treasures and smuggler caches. They selfishly want the whole game to be a grinder so that anyone who hates grinding starts hating this game.
Sorry no bonus.

I suggest them to grab a refund on TW3 and buy themselves another Dragon Age: Hinterlands copy and knock themselves out on endless bears.