The Witcher 3 - What we want to see @ PC Gamer

ChienAboyeur · January 20, 2013

MigRib said:
Well, in my opinion, and based on my experience as a pen & paper role player it isn't that hard to emulate the RPG experience in a computer game, even with the limited AI of today. Why do I say this?
Because, again in my experience, the average pen & paper gamer rarely speaks in-character. He indulges in long discussions about rules with the GM, he makes thorough plans to steal keys from guards, to bribe city officials and to storm heavily guarded compounds to loot money and (maybe) rescue a damsel in distress. The average gamer does all this off-character. He doesn't mind spending hours pondering about the pros and cons of mystical claymore swords versus enchanted scimitars, and if this or that spell will be better suited for his purposes. In my experience, the average pen & paper role player likes to discuss every combat to the most boring detail - before it even begins. After that, it's just the rolling of dice…
On the other hand, in modern computer RPG games the average NPC has dozens of scripted lines, usually voice acted by professionals. The player character, normally, has a few scripted responses to those dozen of scripted NPC lines. Sometimes this exchange, and the characters actions, brings some choices and, latter, consequences to the game world. Sometimes the choices and consequences are very limited. Sometimes they don't exist at all, but there's (almost) always an illusion of choice and consequence. If the player is not obsessive compulsive, and if he does not test all the options available to him, he will probably never break the illusion of choice and consequence. If a game is well made it will even have a generous dose of the replay factor. But not to the obsessive compulsive gamer, of course.
In my experience (unfortunately, of course) my most gratifying role playing moments were spent playing modern day computer RPGs, and not around a table with the average pen and paper role playing gamer (to explain better, I'll say that, in my experience, 4 out of 5 average pen and paper role players are "old school geeks" who lack the social skills to interpret a character, with no real interest in exploring anything else but the evolution of the character - rules wise, only -, and looting and amassing gold coins - or credits, or whatever is the game's currency. In my experience 4 out of 5 P&P RPGers lack the imagination, but have a very cunning analytic thinking and like to indulge in strategic approaches to solving problems. They hate talking in-character, but love solving intricate puzzles. They have very little interest in literary fiction, except for a few choice high fantasy and hard sci-fi writers, have very little interest in other arts, except for a few choice fantasy and sci-fi cult movies and heavy metal bands from Nordic countries. In my experience 4 out of 5 pen and paper role playing games should have another hobby - maybe playing MMORPGs - but definitely not playing pen & paper RPGs).
That is why, in my opinion, and based in my experience, modern day computer RPGs are doing a good job of adapting P&P RPGs. It's damn easy not to do worse than what happens around most RPG gaming tables!
Even not being perfect, usually they convey a sense of immersion, a degree of entertainment and an illusion of "being there" (reinforced by the gradually perfected graphics, voice acting and musical score) that the average pen & paper game session does not have. So, CRPGs are not perfect, but people are not perfect as well. Both of the Witcher games do, in my opinion, a very good job and I would like very much to see a 3rd one.

Quite a few things:

-playing a pen & paper game is different from playing a role playing pen & paper game.
Role playing is not about rules, mechanics, so called RPG elements, it is about role playing.
ADD or any pen and paper role playing game is no insurance of playing a role playing game.

ADD ruleset can indeed be used to play a skirmish game, with role playing absent from the game. It is all about taking decisions to optimize the efficiency of the character mainly in combat, excluding the role of the said character. It is nothing different from wargaming

The consequence: as players do not role play when they play this way, nobody shall refer to this as a role playing experience, it is munchkin experience.

-Emulation of role playing experience: it is quite hard and developpers are struggling to do this. They still have to consolidates ways to bring role playing to computers.

-Wargaming is a large segment of computer gaming and developpers know how to do. They know how to make party based wargames, skirmish games.

CRPGs are not doing a good job at bringing role playing to the computer.

What they are doing a good job is telling that skirmish games or narrative games (or even more like platform Ghost and Goblins) are RPGs.

Current population of so called RPGers is divided in two segments:

-small scale wargamers, skirmishers etc... who want to be given skirmishing gameplay

-narrative game players (skyrim type) who want to be involved in grand stories and want to be able to shape stories as their input go (as this is what you do when you play pen & paper narrative games)

Both segments could stop immediately to call RPG what is not RPG, and start calling their games what they are, skirmish or narrative games. They wont be hurt in the doing. But they wont do it.

JDR13 · January 20, 2013

1. +1 to no QTEs.

2. I want a longer game this time. Yes, I realize that TW2 was actually pretty long if you were to add the differences between the Iorveth and Roche paths, but I want more length in a single playthrough.

3. Bring back the music and atmosphere of TW1. They were simply better than what they were in TW2 (imo). In fact, I preferred TW1 in most aspects other than combat.

DArtagnan · January 20, 2013

I would like them to expand upon the open world aspects - and do away with rigid "acts" entirely. I'd like the game to be longer and I wasn't a big fan of having a single huge choice instead of a series of smaller choices. It's just too much work for too little reward, especially if you're like me - who don't enjoy replaying games that much. I'd rather get to experience more of the content - and have the details change on some future playthrough.

I would like development diversity - and though I know this won't happen, I'd like to develop my own character - instead of being forced into the Geralt persona with the Witcher arsenal. It's a bit limiting for my tastes. But if I must be that character - at least let me develop him with more freedom, like expanding stealth/ranged choices.

Beyond that, there's really not that much I'd change. I thought the game was very, very good overall.

MigRib · January 20, 2013

Quite a few things:

-playing a pen & paper game is different from playing a role playing pen & paper game.
Role playing is not about rules, mechanics, so called RPG elements, it is about role playing.
ADD or any pen and paper role playing game is no insurance of playing a role playing game.

Yes, that's a fact. Though most people who play games who are included in the genre of RPG called themselves role players even if they are playing them as wargames. The same thing you criticize about computer RPGs

ADD ruleset can indeed be used to play a skirmish game, with role playing absent from the game. It is all about taking decisions to optimize the efficiency of the character mainly in combat, excluding the role of the said character. It is nothing different from wargaming

The consequence: as players do not role play when they play this way, nobody shall refer to this as a role playing experience, it is munchkin experience.

Nobody should refer to that as role playing experience, but munchkins usually don't call themselves munchkins. There are exceptions, of course.

-Emulation of role playing experience: it is quite hard and developpers are struggling to do this. They still have to consolidates ways to bring role playing to computers.

When I said it was easy I was using irony. Of course it is difficult. What is easy is to emulate a bad role playing experience (or a wargaming experience labeled as role playing).

Current population of so called RPGers is divided in two segments:

-small scale wargamers, skirmishers etc… who want to be given skirmishing gameplay

-narrative game players (skyrim type) who want to be involved in grand stories and want to be able to shape stories as their input go (as this is what you do when you play pen & paper narrative games)

Both segments could stop immediately to call RPG what is not RPG, and start calling their games what they are, skirmish or narrative games. They wont be hurt in the doing. But they wont do it.

I don't mind that. I, myself, go for narrative games and never skirmish type games. Do they have to be called RPG? I don't know, for me they can be called whatever they like. I don't think this is a marketing thing. RPGs are a niche, most people never played one, most people above 30/ 40 years old don't even know what is an RPG and the ones who know associate it with computer games, not pen and paper. Probably it's more of a habit than a marketing maneuver. For many years games which had skills, attributes, manageable inventory, character customization were called RPGs, even when it was obvious they were not. So the "genre" created roots. Probably would be a bit strange starting calling narrative games to what, nowadays, is called RPG. I would understand it, you would understand it, but most people who buy games would be confused. So, in the end I don't disagree that much with you (probably in the matter of tastes, but not in this "RPG or not RPG thing"). But I think you are wasting your time always trying to point out that what are called RPGs are not really RPGs. Well, to each is own… Next time you criticize something about the RPG label I will recall your point about narrative vs skirmish.

The Witcher 3 - What we want to see @ PC Gamer

ChienAboyeur

SasqWatch

JDR13

SasqWatch

DArtagnan

Guest

MigRib

Sentinel