rAND-ohm vIDeO game NEW$

[Chilloutman]

4 minutes ago, Wormerine said:

No, Poland is the centre of the world.

But yeah, I meant west, past the big water. USoA

pff, look at the map, its clear center of the world is czech rep

[Wormerine]

4 minutes ago, Chilloutman said:

pff, look at the map, its clear center of the world is czech rep

Feed me full of smažený sýr and Kozel and I might be willing to concur. 

[Chilloutman]

Just now, Wormerine said:

Feed me full of smažený sýr and Kozel and I might be willing to concur. 

cmon, have some class and drink proper beer

 

[Wormerine]

3 minutes ago, Chilloutman said:

cmon, have some class and drink proper beer

That will do nicely as well, but I am more interested in fried cheese anyway.

EDIT. Damn, now I am hungry. Supper time I suppose. 

Edited July 28, 2020 by Wormerine

[Keyrock]

14 minutes ago, Wormerine said:

Yeah, my mention of CDPR doesn't really make sense. Originally, my comment was a bit long-winded and I mentioned that I feel some polish games touch western subjects but do it with foreign mentality. That's were Cyperpunk comment came from, not awkward edgyness. 

There's always the chance that a developer fails to capture the tone or spirit of any given subject matter, especially when tackling a genre foreign to them. It definitely helps that CDPR have been working with Mike Pondsmith who quite literally wrote the Cyberpunk pnp source books that this video game is adapting. Short of working with William Gibson, I have a hard time thinking of someone who is better suited to helping CDPR capture the tone and feel of Cyberpunk.

[Malcador]

Isn't Pondsmith still working with them or has that ended ?

[Keyrock]

AFAIK they are still working together.

[Malcador]

Apparently people have been upset about lack of communication about Squadron 42, so CIG has responded -

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/squadron-42-roadmap-update/3260782

The part of about planning a new roadmap is somewhat suitable for CIG

 

 

 

[Hurlshort]

4 hours ago, Malcador said:

Apparently people have been upset about lack of communication about Squadron 42, so CIG has responded -

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/squadron-42-roadmap-update/3260782

The part of about planning a new roadmap is somewhat suitable for CIG

 

This is going to be great when it comes out in 2035.

[ComradeYellow]

On 7/28/2020 at 6:02 PM, Keyrock said:

There's always the chance that a developer fails to capture the tone or spirit of any given subject matter, especially when tackling a genre foreign to them. It definitely helps that CDPR have been working with Mike Pondsmith who quite literally wrote the Cyberpunk pnp source books that this video game is adapting. Short of working with William Gibson, I have a hard time thinking of someone who is better suited to helping CDPR capture the tone and feel of Cyberpunk.

I got a feeling that The Witcher 3 was the pinnacle of CDPR and I doubt their future games will live up to it.

[Orogun01]

2 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

I got a feeling that The Witcher 3 was the pinnacle of CDPR and I doubt their future games will live up to it.

I like 2 better.

[ComradeYellow]

Just now, Orogun01 said:

I like 2 better.

There's some things I liked better about 2 and even 1 but all-in-all 3 is the most revered both from a capitalist perspective and as an an acclaimed title and I doubt that they'll ever achieve a higher mark in that regard.

[the_dog_days]

2 hours ago, Orogun01 said:

I like 2 better.

I really liked 1, loved 3, and always felt 2 was the oddball of the family. Like the middle child that suffering from an identity crisis.

[Orogun01]

2 was a good in between a larger story with approachable mechanics. The open world of 3 gets a bit too much, I'm specially resentful of Skellige and all it's nautical treasures.

[ComradeYellow]

23 minutes ago, the_dog_days said:

I really liked 1, loved 3, and always felt 2 was the oddball of the family. Like the middle child that suffering from an identity crisis.

This is how a No. 2 should always be.   The best trilogies have that super high quality original, the dark oddball sequel and that number 3 that takes the number 1 and injects it with steroids aka a quantum masterpiece but not quite as charming as the original.

[the_dog_days]

1 hour ago, ComradeMaster said:

This is how a No. 2 should always be.   The best trilogies have that super high quality original, the dark oddball sequel and that number 3 that takes the number 1 and injects it with steroids aka a quantum masterpiece but not quite as charming as the original.

That's not exactly what I meant.  In the Witcher and W3, just like in the novels and most of the short stories, Geralt isn't the main character. The Witcher 2 is the odd one out because it toes the line in making Geralt the main character. As such he seems to have an undue amount of political influence in W2 whereas in the rest of the witcherverse he has no political power, zero social standing, and only a unique physical skill set. The combination of unique skills and no political power meant Geralt was always getting drafted into everyone else's fights against his will. He's supposed to be a convenient pawn, not a power player and it's that lack of power that is the only thing that really makes him relatable 'cause otherwise he's a super mutant who can see in the dark with his hot sorceress girlfriend and time traveling daughter.

[ComradeYellow]

12 hours ago, the_dog_days said:

That's not exactly what I meant.  

But it's exactly what I meant.  I'm not a Witcher fanboi by any means but if it comes close to the formula, chances are it's a trilogy done right.

Edited July 30, 2020 by Amentep
Edited to remove negative ethnic reference

[Zoraptor]

Witcher 2 was a bit too clunky. Its formula was far better realised in 3. I don't think either 2 or 3s overall plot worked that well as part of a trilogy of games (purely as narrative and individually they're fine) because most (all?) the main decisions in 2 had zero impact on the plot of 3 and 3's plot relied heavily on nazi elves from outer space an alternative dimension which is about as silly as you can get. It was the subsidiary plots in W3 that lifted the game.

Even then W3 had problems with some subplots, most notably the ludicrous plot ending for Dijkstra. I imagine it was originally intended to be the elves v humans inflection point that you had multiple times in the previous games, if they'd kept Iorveth's W3 plot, and you would have had a far more sensible choice between backing BRoche/ Temeria and Dijkstra/ Iorveth. As it is it's just stupid, makes everyone involved look stupid and is only there to determine a world end state in a Radovid less scenario.

And of course neither W2 nor W3 has consequences for the most major world changing thing you could do in W1, uncurse Adda so she marries Radovid keep Berengar alive when fighting Azar Javed. Still disappointed.

So, Witcher 1 is the best game of the three, and it's a hill I'm willing to die on.

[Lexx]

"Exploration" in Witcher 3 was just so boring. Also I don't remember anything from the environment, because my eyes were constantly glued to the dotted line on the minimap.

Don't know what exactly it was, but somehow the game really didn't click with me very well.

[ComradeYellow]

31 minutes ago, Lexx said:

"Exploration" in Witcher 3 was just so boring. Also I don't remember anything from the environment, because my eyes were constantly glued to the dotted line on the minimap.

Don't know what exactly it was, but somehow the game really didn't click with me very well.

It was designed with tunnel vision Westerners in mind.  What do you expect?

However, the game did excel at fleshing out characters and imo had a really good character building system.  Alchemy was a bit "dumbed down" sure (any alcohol with no ingredients can refill your entire alchemy arsenal magically) but there's definitely no lack of content here.

[Humanoid]

The biggest praise I have for W3 is probably that I didn't give a rat's about exploring the open world (and that's not a reflection on the game, I don't give a damn about it in any game) but still feel I got a game and a half out of it.

Edited July 30, 2020 by Humanoid

[Wormerine]

8 hours ago, Lexx said:

"Exploration" in Witcher 3 was just so boring. Also I don't remember anything from the environment, because my eyes were constantly glued to the dotted line on the minimap.

That's unfortunate downside of GPS in video games. Whether it is Skyrim like, Ass Creed or others, one quickly starts ignoring enviroment and just follows icons.

However, you can disable GPS and game still works pretty well actually. A lot of quests have verbal descritions, and if in trouble one can always refer to the map. I plan to make a full playthrough like that, as soon as I upgrade my computer at some point in the future. 

[kanisatha]

This is a very interesting discussion for me. I started with and have only played Witcher 3. I loved that game and fully completed it, but abandoned the game upon moving into the DLCs because the combat in the DLCs even at the lowest setting just became a brutal and aggravating slog. I've been wondering about whether it would be worth my gaming time to try either of the previous Witcher games, so you guys' feedback here helps a lot. But also as an added question about the Witcher 3 DLCs, any recommendations on how to handle the combat in them, especially the boss fights?

[Humanoid]

10 minutes ago, kanisatha said:

But also as an added question about the Witcher 3 DLCs, any recommendations on how to handle the combat in them, especially the boss fights?

Take all the drugs.

Never tried it myself since I never tried anything but default difficulty (and am far too lazy to craft anything or use any consumables), but I keep hearing that Alchemy hybrid builds are the way to break the game even on the highest difficulties.

[Wormerine]

1 hour ago, kanisatha said:

I've been wondering about whether it would be worth my gaming time to try either of the previous Witcher games, so you guys' feedback here helps a lot. 

Take my advice with a grain of salt - I have been a fan of Witcher IP since I read books in high school, so I enjoyed all three games on that basis alone. I think all 3 games a worth giving a go.

Without a doubt W3 is the best out of three.

Still, CDPR subversive quest designs is there from the beginning, although in Witcher1 There are couple ones that stand out from the crowd, rather then being a standard. Combat is the biggest offender - it’s not action RPG just yet - rather it’s roll based RPG with a rhythm game to continue performing attacks. It’s not interesting in any way, but I also found it fairly inoffensive. It doesn’t take much brain power and doesn’t waste much time. plot is all over the place, Geralt’s amnesia gets old very quickly, however, it has some great moments. To say more would be a spoiler. Eurojank and it’s finest and jankies.

W2 is closer to witcher3. Its more polished game, but also my least favourite in the series. Mostly as game’s narrative doesn’t play to Geralt strengths as a character IMO. Also you need to play it twice to see all of it. There are two different 2nd chapters (really) depending on a choice at the end of chapter 1. My favourite example of overambitious reactivity. Rather then focusing on characters, this game is very focused on politics of the witcher world - something that gets completely overwritten in W3 anyway. Still, like with w1 there are some really good bits. Both games are a much shorter time investment then w3.