I'd just install the Developer console and make Geralt level 20-30 right at the beginning.

 

Getting to level 1 at the beginning of each game is asinine, Geralt should be powerful.

 

Yes I agree entirely two (almost complete) resets now with no real reasoning behind them.

 

 

He's got amnesia at the start of Witcher 2 and he's lovesick and not thinking straight in Witcher 3.  See?  Rational explanations for decrease in skill.

 

 

He has the amnesia at the beginning of the first game as well, his mental state does not alter in between the first and second so this is not satisfactory to me. A better explanation would have been that Alvin's Dreamrealm drained him in some manner. Lovesick and not thinking straight is an almost perpetual condition for Geralt in the Witcher novels, it does not affect his skills in any way so I find this unsuitable as well.

 

Sorry to be so finnicky, however i'm rather anal about internal consistency and in other areas the Witcher games are fantastic about maintaining that.

It's the difference between storytelling in books and storytelling with an eye toward gameplay.

 

From a "logical" point of view, Geralt should not start at "level 1" each new game.  But from a gameplay point of view, part of the design decision is to allow new players a chance to experience Geralt getting stronger as they play along.  Leveling up has always been one of the "cool" features of RPGs.  There's something rewarding for the player to see their character improve or get stronger as they progress.  So if they made Geralt powerful and have the highest possible skills right at the beginning, already they're denying the gamer that one key feature of RPG gaming -- watching your character progress as you level up.

 

I mean, don't get me wrong.  I get where you're coming from.  It would be like Luke Skywalker constantly being a "level 1" in each subsequent movies, as though he's forgotten everything he learned at the end of the prior movie.  But that's just one of the problems with transferring existing characters into a game setting.

It's the difference between storytelling in books and storytelling with an eye toward gameplay.

 

From a "logical" point of view, Geralt should not start at "level 1" each new game.  But from a gameplay point of view, part of the design decision is to allow new players a chance to experience Geralt getting stronger as they play along.  Leveling up has always been one of the "cool" features of RPGs.  There's something rewarding for the player to see their character improve or get stronger as they progress.  So if they made Geralt powerful and have the highest possible skills right at the beginning, already they're denying the gamer that one key feature of RPG gaming -- watching your character progress as you level up.

 

I mean, don't get me wrong.  I get where you're coming from.  It would be like Luke Skywalker constantly being a "level 1" in each subsequent movies, as though he's forgotten everything he learned at the end of the prior movie.  But that's just one of the problems with transferring existing characters into a game setting.

Incidentally you could make the previous game level 30 your level one by keeping the same enemies and having base skills while subsequently escalating the difficulty.

I agree and am a firm proponent of progression being a key feature of games, challenge and satisfaction rest upon it for me, however an easy way to combat this would have been to simply continue Assassins of Kings skill trees. They were far from complete even at max level, indeed one could barely complete a single one, and they could easily (I assume) have redesigned the existing skillset of the Wild Hunt to accomodate this as they're really quite similar, apart from a few new tricks.

 

Swap throwing knives for crossbows etcetera.

 

That said i'm more than happy with the game, and probably wouldn't be quite as critical of a product that I wasn't so enraptured of, which is a double edged sword if I think about it. I suppose it would have helped if they had a rule system developed at the outset of the trilogy, but too much forward thinking might have ruined the ambition and passion they poured into the first Witcher I think.

 

Edit: Extremely fine Ninjitsu.

Edited November 4, 201510 yr by Nonek

I agree and am a firm proponent of progression being a key feature of games, challenge and satisfaction rest upon it for me, however an easy way to combat this would have been to simply continue Assassins of Kings skill trees. They were far from complete even at max level, indeed one could barely complete a single one, and they could easily (I assume) have redesigned the existing skillset of the Wild Hunt to accomodate this as they're really quite similar, apart from a few new tricks.

 

Swap throwing knives for crossbows etcetera.

 

That said i'm more than happy with the game, and probably wouldn't be quite as critical of a product that I wasn't so enraptured of, which is a double edged sword if I think about it. I suppose it would have helped if they had a rule system developed at the outset of the trilogy, but too much forward thinking might have ruined the ambition and passion they poured into the first Witcher I think.

 

Edit: Extremely fine Ninjitsu.

OTOH, implementing a bunch of throwaway features for your game is kind of a waste of time and they might find the old system a bit too restrictive. Transferring is not as simple as it seems as there is a lot of bugs to fix and balancing to do, and if you do all that just to essentially start from scratch then it is a lot of wasted effort.

So it is not a one size fits all solution, it could certainly work for games that have a linear progression across games (Assassin's Creed comes to mind) and that stay within the same engine.

Agreed, but i'd have settled for a simple block of 35 points being given in acknowledgement of a savegame import: A simple system, the importers are experienced in the game and know the skills well enough (as they're not really that dissimilar from the second games,) and maybe allow a few respec potions for making a desired build. And there is plenty of room for advancement still.

 

It's the difference between storytelling in books and storytelling with an eye toward gameplay.

 

From a "logical" point of view, Geralt should not start at "level 1" each new game.  But from a gameplay point of view, part of the design decision is to allow new players a chance to experience Geralt getting stronger as they play along.  Leveling up has always been one of the "cool" features of RPGs.  There's something rewarding for the player to see their character improve or get stronger as they progress.  So if they made Geralt powerful and have the highest possible skills right at the beginning, already they're denying the gamer that one key feature of RPG gaming -- watching your character progress as you level up.

 

I mean, don't get me wrong.  I get where you're coming from.  It would be like Luke Skywalker constantly being a "level 1" in each subsequent movies, as though he's forgotten everything he learned at the end of the prior movie.  But that's just one of the problems with transferring existing characters into a game setting.

Incidentally you could make the previous game level 30 your level one by keeping the same enemies and having base skills while subsequently escalating the difficulty.

 

 

 

Agreed, but i'd have settled for a simple block of 35 points being given in acknowledgement of a savegame import: A simple system, the importers are experienced in the game and know the skills well enough (as they're not really that dissimilar from the second games,) and maybe allow a few respec potions for making a desired build. And there is plenty of room for advancement still.

 

It's been a few months since I last played, so my memory is foggy.  But didn't they essential do the above?  At the beginning of TW3 you had access to all the signs, they just weren't very strong.  So they sort of did avoid making Geralt a true, genuine "level 1" since he already had access to skills that a true level 1 wouldn't have had.

You had all of the signs in the second game, it was only the first game (when Geralt's amnesia was total) that saw him have to gather signs.

 

On another note, I've been playing TW3 everyday past week and I'm still amazed how good the game is, I haven't found a single flaw yet. Also, Gwent is great change of pace when ever you get a chance to play it, and I think it's big part of what makes exploring the huge world interesting because you don't just move from question mark to question mark, you take a break between them every now and then.

The only thing I might have wanted that wasn't in the game was a stealth mode, and then there's a good role-playing reason for its absences; your a witcher not a ninja.

 

 

But then they add silly stuff like underwater crossbow shooting and horse racing, perfunctory mechanics at best. A good stealth system would have added far more to the game. 

Agreed, but i'd have settled for a simple block of 35 points being given in acknowledgement of a savegame import: A simple system, the importers are experienced in the game and know the skills well enough (as they're not really that dissimilar from the second games,) and maybe allow a few respec potions for making a desired build. And there is plenty of room for advancement still.

The problem with gifting points is that it screws with the combat balance, same thing with overpowered items (although they did that in 2). Maybe they could retroactively modify some skills while normalizing other ones and then have progression be more about customizing said skills to your play style. So for example keep the adrenaline finishers from 2 nerf them for balance reasons and let the player progressively invest in this skill choosing quantity over quality. Like causing damage and status effects to a group of enemies or dealing lethal damage to a single one. So a remnant of the previous game becomes a good feature of the next one.

 

Quite frankly, I just came up with that but it sounds like it would be a better use of Adrenaline than anything they came up with. Done tooting my on horn

Human Revolution had some fake-out abilities in the skill tree that would already be filled at the start regardless of what you had done previously. It was good for verisimilitude in that it showed that Sarif didn't just throw you out there with a completely off-the-shelf civilian class augments, and justified how you were much more effective than the average augmented street thug. These fake skill choices covered things like the radar system, your intercom, your basic hacking connectivity, stuff like that.

 

Likewise for the Witcher, there could have been some fake skills that always start out learned, such as for each of the signs, the ability to parry-counter, enabling the adrenaline system, etc. The effect would be purely cosmetic but at least it removes the impression that Geralt is just some greenhorn Witcher that was recruited yesterday.

Edited November 5, 201510 yr by Humanoid

But then they add silly stuff like underwater crossbow shooting and horse racing, perfunctory mechanics at best. A good stealth system would have added far more to the game.

There's a balancing reason they didn't add it too, the only place it would have been useful is during monster contracts which were supposed to end in a boss fight not a stealth kill.

 

Also, I hear everyone dig on the crossbow, but it wasn't that bad when used as it should be. In every class there's a means of performing all combat function; the crossbow is for crowd control in the combat class, not for dealing damage. Its not as good a crowd control option as bombs or most of the signs, but you can still use bombs and signs even with a combat build.

I have to say I liked the crossbow, as the_dog_days says it's a CC weapon not a damage weapon, you use it so that you can bring down griffins and other flying enemies so that you can then damage it with your sword.  Bombs may have been better for CC but the crossbow used cheaper and more plentiful ammo.

Only time I actually used a crossbow (other than the "recommended" time with Vesemir) was underwater against those swimming things that try and drag you under.

Best crowd control was Axii.

Axii is the single biggest reason I wished there'd been a stealth mechanic. It would've been so much fun to cast it from a distance and watch from cover as you make bandits attack each other.

On a Death March playthrough that attempts to skip all Velen and Novigrad main quests before completing the Skellige main quests in their entirety.

 

It was possible, but gaddamn, I had to go from POI to POI all Ubisoft checklist style to get myself to level 11 before hopping on the boat to Skellige. Won't repeat.

On a Death March playthrough that attempts to skip all Velen and Novigrad main quests before completing the Skellige main quests in their entirety.

 

It was possible, but gaddamn, I had to go from POI to POI all Ubisoft checklist style to get myself to level 11 before hopping on the boat to Skellige. Won't repeat.

Unless CDproject changed something in the most recent patch, you should be able to grind on monster nests in White Orchard. The gold rings you get when looting the nests are enough to cover the cost of alcohol for bombs. The hard part is all your equipment and alchemy still sucks.

 

It's the difference between storytelling in books and storytelling with an eye toward gameplay.

 

From a "logical" point of view, Geralt should not start at "level 1" each new game.  But from a gameplay point of view, part of the design decision is to allow new players a chance to experience Geralt getting stronger as they play along.  Leveling up has always been one of the "cool" features of RPGs.  There's something rewarding for the player to see their character improve or get stronger as they progress.  So if they made Geralt powerful and have the highest possible skills right at the beginning, already they're denying the gamer that one key feature of RPG gaming -- watching your character progress as you level up.

 

I mean, don't get me wrong.  I get where you're coming from.  It would be like Luke Skywalker constantly being a "level 1" in each subsequent movies, as though he's forgotten everything he learned at the end of the prior movie.  But that's just one of the problems with transferring existing characters into a game setting.

Incidentally you could make the previous game level 30 your level one by keeping the same enemies and having base skills while subsequently escalating the difficulty.

 

 

A games reviewer had an idea once about starting the player at the maximum level and stripping levels, skills and equipment from him as he progressed. I have no idea if that could actually work or if there'd be any kind of audience for it but it sounded like an interesting idea on how to mix up level and difficulty progression. You'd basically be turning the level pyramid on it's head by starting overpowered and after a certain point every level right to the end of the game is balanced and challenging. There might also be a thrill from having to make hard choices and think carefully and adapt your play-style as your options become more limited. 

Unless CDproject changed something in the most recent patch, you should be able to grind on monster nests in White Orchard. The gold rings you get when looting the nests are enough to cover the cost of alcohol for bombs. The hard part is all your equipment and alchemy still sucks.

I do not quite understand how that'd help me any, unless you mean "keep the monster nests alive, keep killing infinite monsters for XP", or White Orchard has some bug where monster nests come back even after exploding and looting them.

 

Anyway, wow, Skellige main quest chain in Act 1 is super short, did not remember that from my first time. Really, the banquet was the longest bit. Now back to rushing through Velen main quests.

 

 

It's the difference between storytelling in books and storytelling with an eye toward gameplay.

 

From a "logical" point of view, Geralt should not start at "level 1" each new game.  But from a gameplay point of view, part of the design decision is to allow new players a chance to experience Geralt getting stronger as they play along.  Leveling up has always been one of the "cool" features of RPGs.  There's something rewarding for the player to see their character improve or get stronger as they progress.  So if they made Geralt powerful and have the highest possible skills right at the beginning, already they're denying the gamer that one key feature of RPG gaming -- watching your character progress as you level up.

 

I mean, don't get me wrong.  I get where you're coming from.  It would be like Luke Skywalker constantly being a "level 1" in each subsequent movies, as though he's forgotten everything he learned at the end of the prior movie.  But that's just one of the problems with transferring existing characters into a game setting.

Incidentally you could make the previous game level 30 your level one by keeping the same enemies and having base skills while subsequently escalating the difficulty.

 

 

A games reviewer had an idea once about starting the player at the maximum level and stripping levels, skills and equipment from him as he progressed. I have no idea if that could actually work or if there'd be any kind of audience for it but it sounded like an interesting idea on how to mix up level and difficulty progression. You'd basically be turning the level pyramid on it's head by starting overpowered and after a certain point every level right to the end of the game is balanced and challenging. There might also be a thrill from having to make hard choices and think carefully and adapt your play-style as your options become more limited. 

 

Wouldn't work, people like having agency not being denied options.

It'd be an interesting narrative device, but a terrible gameplay one.

 

Which means I'd totally play it along with dozens of other people.

The problems all stem from the more or less broken level implementation. Level restrictions for gear is silly. RPGs have evolved beyond that. Instead use skills to improve the effectivness of gear.

 

Monsters shouldn't scale so litterally. A vl 1 drowner is the same as a lv 50 drowner except for stats ?. No, a drowner should more or less be a drowner.

 

Make the challenge look like it's level. No lv 50 mudcrabs and no lv 5 warewolfs. Scale all the quests of lower level than you so the difficulty remains constant for all the content you missed out on.

 

Make the challenge less about the stats on your sword and armor and more gameplay oriented. Progression should be a gradual sense that you are able to take on harder enemies. 

 

Unless CDproject changed something in the most recent patch, you should be able to grind on monster nests in White Orchard. The gold rings you get when looting the nests are enough to cover the cost of alcohol for bombs. The hard part is all your equipment and alchemy still sucks.

I do not quite understand how that'd help me any, unless you mean "keep the monster nests alive, keep killing infinite monsters for XP", or White Orchard has some bug where monster nests come back even after exploding and looting them.

 

Anyway, wow, Skellige main quest chain in Act 1 is super short, did not remember that from my first time. Really, the banquet was the longest bit. Now back to rushing through Velen main quests.

The actual nests respawn after a week of game time, and blowing one up grants you 20XP. You can walk over to a nest, kill the monsters, blow up the nest, gain 20XP, meditate to pass seven days, and then blow it up again. Continue until you run out of alcohol, go buy some more, etc.

The problems all stem from the more or less broken level implementation. Level restrictions for gear is silly. RPGs have evolved beyond that. Instead use skills to improve the effectivness of gear.

 

Monsters shouldn't scale so litterally. A vl 1 drowner is the same as a lv 50 drowner except for stats ?. No, a drowner should more or less be a drowner.

 

Make the challenge look like it's level. No lv 50 mudcrabs and no lv 5 warewolfs. Scale all the quests of lower level than you so the difficulty remains constant for all the content you missed out on.

 

Make the challenge less about the stats on your sword and armor and more gameplay oriented. Progression should be a gradual sense that you are able to take on harder enemies. 

I like your idea but it is very costly in terms of production if we are talking about introducing new enemy types as the game progresses. I would prefer to approach it in terms of tactics. Instead of having drowners be more difficult, mix enemies so that it becomes more challenging. 

For example: drowners are very fast and can "DPS" the player, so If you bring a tank to the mix that will engage the player then you have a more complex situation. If you add a healer to the mix then it is even more complex, and you can vary it by simply trying out different combinations.

 

I've learnt a thing from trying my hand at designing games and that its that game should absolutely be designed holistically. The parts you produce should incorporate into the overall game in a manner that changes the whole.

 

Edit: forgot to post

Edited November 17, 201510 yr by Orogun01