|
Megazver posted:The first Cyberpunk trailer: 1. Wow these people know how to make beautiful CG trailers (or do they hire somebody else to do it?) 2. Why would you give a hookerbot knife arms? That's just silly.
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:34 |
|
|
The Witcher 2 EE intro was made by another studio (Platige Image) so it might have been them. EDIT: Yup, Platige already has it up on their website: http://platige.com/en/page/292-Cyberpunk_2077
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
I think they also made the intro to the first Witcher game. That one is definitely my favourite intro movie in any game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
As someone not familiar with Cyber Punk, that looks really cool and Blade Runner-esque. Hope they will have some gameplay for the W3 reveal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
CD Projekt really has the best CG videos in the business, I'm extremely excited for this new game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
I hope they make the Witcher 4,5,6, and 7
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
dud root posted:I hope they make the Witcher 4,5,6, and 7 What, you mean an MMO?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
notZaar posted:1. Wow these people know how to make beautiful CG trailers (or do they hire somebody else to do it?) The premise is that people have begun to augment themselves with prosthetic and computer parts more and more, eventually reaching a tipping point where the machine rebels against the flesh and they become psychotic attacking anything biological around them. The knife arms are probably the 2077 equivalent of pepper spray.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 02:11
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:What, you mean an MMO? I meant stand alone single player, but what do they mean by "open world"? More sandbox or an actual MMO?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
dud root posted:I hope they make the Witcher 4,5,6, and 7 Geralt would just be a twitching mass of scars and spooge by the end of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
dud root posted:I meant stand alone single player, but what do they mean by "open world"? More sandbox or an actual MMO? I was just joking. Bioware at one point billed The Old Republic as Kotors 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 combined. From the interviews it sounds like it'll be a regular open world sandbox , in contrast to how the previous Witcher games had large segmented hubs. This was in reference to the Cyberpunk game, but they've used the same terminology wrt to this new other game (Witcher 3). Rinkles fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Jan 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
I have trouble imagining The Witcher as a sandbox game. At least not as a direct continuation of Witcher 2. There's a narrative that needs to be resolved here. That said, once it's done, I'd love a more open world Witcher game, too. Something like the first short stories and Act 1 of the first game, except you choose your destination, roll into town, right/cause wrongs, then move on. Like a western, only with drowners.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 09:28
|
|
|
pentyne posted:The premise is that people have begun to augment themselves with prosthetic and computer parts more and more, eventually reaching a tipping point where the machine rebels against the flesh and they become psychotic attacking anything biological around them. I see. Still, when you want to defend yourself from a cyborg, a knife probably isn't a great idea. I mean the bullets barely scratch the surface, so what's a knife going to do? Get bent, that's what.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 13:47
|
|
|
notZaar posted:I see. Still, when you want to defend yourself from a cyborg, a knife probably isn't a great idea. I mean the bullets barely scratch the surface, so what's a knife going to do? Get bent, that's what. Even if it's a PSY DAGGER???!
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 13:50
|
|
|
The Sharmat posted:I never really got the impression he "looked up to" Geralt. They seemed like peers to me. But that might just be a mistaken impression on my part because in most of their interactions in game Letho has the upper hand, due to being more clued in on the situation. Letho: I mean in the flashbacks Geralt saves him, and the group seems to treat Geralt as the most capable/best Witcher. Plus he also has the super powerful sorceress girlfriend, so maybe they just don't want to get on his bad side. Ending: I got the feeling Yennifer doesn't have as much amnesia as Geralt, but she's being held captive since they are probably scared to death of her. Maybe they get her to do some magic for them now and then if they can. And they would be scared of her, especially if they knew who/what she was. I guess it's possible she's free and working for the empire, but she's also very powerful and very self-serving so I can't imagine they'd let her run around. Plus I think they aren't big fans of magic, but I could be confusing things. Yennifer does like Triss, though Yennifer's relationships with everyone are quite contentious. It's more like a big sister/little sister thing. Though in this case the little sister is in love with the big sister's boyfriend. Those two are the two sorceresses that actually get along for most part. As opposed to the others which are always scheming to undermine the others (not that Yennifer and Triss don't do that!). Triss is the least manipulative of the sorceresses from what I recall (ie, not involved in every scheme everywhere all the time, like philippa). Though she did once magically force/induce Geralt into sleeping with her, so she's not above manipulation either! They could do some really interesting and hilarious interactions between Triss and Yennifer though - there's lots and lots of potential there. One of the stories implies that Geralt and Yennifer's relationship is magically induced (been awhile since I've read any, but I actually think it's The Last Wish) so breaking that spell would be an easy way out. It would piss off the fans of the books and would be a major change to things. Either way I fully expect Yennifer to attempt to incinerate both Geralt and Triss. Openworld would be cool, especially if you had to hunt some monster across it. Though it'd be more like roll into town, cause havoc, kill monster, call up sorceress girlfriend for a pointer to next area/get action, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 15:16
|
|
|
Why would you spoiler an event from the first book, but not one from a book after the third?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
There's something that's been bugging me about Witcher 2. Letho mentions that he (or someone did it for him) turned Triss into a statue at some point so she wouldn't run away, but no one really bats an eye at that. Is that a common thing in The Witcher? It kind of threw me for a loop, especially since once you see her there's no mention of it again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:There's something that's been bugging me about Witcher 2. Letho mentions that he (or someone did it for him) turned Triss into a statue at some point so she wouldn't run away, but no one really bats an eye at that. Is that a common thing in The Witcher? It kind of threw me for a loop, especially since once you see her there's no mention of it again. Did you do Roche's path? I think you get less information than you would in Iorveth's. It's not common, but it is a doable spell, especially since Phillipa's assistant (?- I forget who, exactly, did it) took Triss by surprise. It's also incredibly painful, particularly getting turned back into a live person.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
Cheston posted:Did you do Roche's path? I think you get less information than you would in Iorveth's. No I did Iorveth's, so she was mentioned in passing, then I went to save the king's daughter so she was barely in the game after Act 1. Still, it seemed like something the game just sort of glossed over. I should really do that run through of Roche's half of the game some time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:No I did Iorveth's, so she was mentioned in passing, then I went to save the king's daughter so she was barely in the game after Act 1. Still, it seemed like something the game just sort of glossed over. I honestly think you might be misremembering something. I'm pretty sure Letho had nothing to do with that and I don't remember him saying anything about it. I'm pretty sure that the last Letho saw her was when he left her behind after the teleportation. After that was her run-in with the trolls, and then came the statue-fication. I believe it's firmly established that Cynthia did the spell, and then either took her back across herself (Roche's Path) or gave her to another Nilfgaardian spy that was killed on the way (Iorveth's Path). Edit: Dude, if you saved the king's daughter, then you did Roche's Path, not Iorveth's. Lycus fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Jan 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
Lycus posted:I honestly think you might be misremembering something. I'm pretty sure Letho had nothing to do with that and I don't remember him saying anything about it. I'm pretty sure that the last Letho saw her was when he left her behind after the teleportation. After that was her run-in with the trolls, and then came the statue-fication. I believe it's firmly established that Cynthia did the spell, and then either took her back across herself (Roche's Path) or gave her to another Nilfgaardian spy that was killed on the way (Iorveth's Path). I was with the Blue Stripes dude, whoever that was. I must be forgetting or missing something though, I thought Triss was with Letho the entire time after Act 1.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:I was with the Blue Stripes dude, whoever that was. I must be forgetting or missing something though, I thought Triss was with Letho the entire time after Act 1.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:I must be forgetting or missing something though, I thought Triss was with Letho the entire time after Act 1. Lycus fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Jan 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
I know this is a question regarding the first game...but has anyone EVER been able to bring themselves to let the mob kill Abigail in the first act? Of all the grey moral choices in the game, this one seems like Abigail is SO much the lesser evil that it almost becomes black and white. Who would EVER stand up for those reprehensible village folk? (I am on this, my 4th playthrough)
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 04:29
|
|
|
The other option involves the possibility of killing half the town. Which ends up happening more or less. Geralt isn't a non-entity in this calculation. If you want to enforce the decision to save one person, you have to kill like eight. Maybe they're in the wrong but putting your sword through their vital parts isn't a morally neutral act. I like that the first game gives you the option of traipsing through the village one last time before the act ends so observant players can notice that they killed 1/5 of the town in their noble defense of that one woman. In most games that wouldn't even register but the Witcher series does a good job of reminding you that killing isn't just a gameplay element that everyone around you will immediately forget. Whatever else Geralt may be, he's a cold-blooded butcher who has carved his way through hundreds of warm bodies and the people around him would be fools to forget that fact. Dethmold suggests that Geralt should be locked up in the interest of public safety and, while it's incredibly ironic coming from a backstabbing warmonger who's a driving force behind the sack of Vergen, he's got the core of a point. In a world that was ruled better (a Nilfgaardian world?) Geralt would stand out as a threat to peace and order, but in the North where your random king is ten times the butcher the Witcher gets a pass for his behavior. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Jan 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:The other option involves the possibility of killing half the town. Which ends up happening more or less. Geralt isn't a non-entity in this calculation. If you want to enforce the decision to save one person, you have to kill like eight. Maybe they're in the wrong but putting your sword through their vital parts isn't a morally neutral act. I like that the first game gives you the option of traipsing through the village one last time before the act ends so observant players can notice that they killed 1/5 of the town in their noble defense of that one woman. This is actually a REALLY good point, one that I hadn't even considered. However, didn't Geralt get killed by doing the exact same thing? Standing up for someone during a pogrom and getting pitchforked in the chest? Not saying this justifies his actions, but clearly in that story Geralt saw it as the lesser evil. Now, here's something: I forgot where I read it, but apparently you can find out that Abigail is actually a member of the Spiderhead cult. I can't remember where that evidence is, but apparently that cult consists of a devious sect of baby eaters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
One look at this ( ) should maybe give the hint she's not entirely on the level.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
This seemed worth a new post: I'm not sure why Geralt is so clearly aligned with the North against Nilfgaard. Letho seemed convinced of Nilfgaard's superior civilization, enough to kill for it out of ideology more than anything. The Northern political situation is, to put it mildly, incredibly hosed. The major Kingdoms appear to be on the verge of collapse; Henselt and Foltest were clearly terrible monarchs no matter how much of a bro Foltest might be, that one king of Aedirn was a moron even before Letho cut his head off, and the smaller kingdoms are too weak to stand on their own. Radovid may be a competent ruler but even if he manages to legally unite Temeria and Redania in a personal union it still seems like a sinking ship overall. A sinking ship full of racists and deviants and criminals. The Council of Magic-ists seems like the only political organization in the North that could find its rear end with both hands and a flashlight, yet they can't even manage to hold a meeting without somebody summoning a dragon to fry everybody and seize power. So why is Geralt on their side? From what we've heard about Nilfgaard it seems that super-powered people like Witchers and Sorceresses no longer have the freedom to run around murdering people on a whim and, as I mentioned, summoning dragons to kill everybody, but that doesn't seem like such a bad policy all things considered. You would think Foltest's egoism and Henselt's depravity and the Council's naked lust for power and the constant racism he faces every day would have made him reconsider his political affiliation long ago, but now Letho, the closest foil to Geralt we've ever seen, has up and defected for ideological reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 05:28
|
|
|
chaosapiant posted:Now, here's something: I forgot where I read it, but apparently you can find out that Abigail is actually a member of the Spiderhead cult. I can't remember where that evidence is, but apparently that cult consists of a devious sect of baby eaters. Of course in act 4 she is replaced by an old village healer who pretty much says you hosed up and killed a more or less innocent person. Abigail is a witch and probably did some bad stuff in the past and she definitely played some part in the villages wickedness but she was not to blame for the beast. Of course if you save her it does seem like she has reformed and put her baby eating cult days behind her. But the decision is really do you think saving this one woman's life who while innocent isnt exactly an upstanding member of society is worth massacring a quarter of a town which while having several prominent members who are poo poo heads will probably result in some innocent bystanders deaths as well as the deaths of people who may be following the bad men but are pretty OK themselves. Arglebargle III posted:So why is Geralt on their side? From what we've heard about Nilfgaard it seems that super-powered people like Witchers and Sorceresses no longer have the freedom to run around murdering people on a whim and, as I mentioned, summoning dragons to kill everybody, but that doesn't seem like such a bad policy all things considered. You would think Foltest's egoism and Henselt's depravity and the Council's naked lust for power and the constant racism he faces every day would have made him reconsider his political affiliation long ago, but now Letho, the closest foil to Geralt we've ever seen, has up and defected for ideological reasons. Probably because most of his friends are on the side of the North, plus while banning magic and curbing the freedom of Witchers is probably a good idea (or at least a decision that promotes stability) seeing as Geralt is a Witcher and his love interest and friend are sorceresses I can see why he would have a problem with that. Nilfgaard offers stability at the expense of being warmongering tyrants and pretty much dicks to all their neighbors. The Northern kingdoms (at east the big ones some of the smaller ones are pretty cool) really are not better than Nilfgaard but they are nowhere near as imperialistic and heavy handed as Nilfgaard although they certainly would like to be. And Letho didnt help Nilfgaard for ideological reasons, he may have used those reasons to justify his position after the fact but he did it because they promised they would restore the school of the Viper (which was probably a lie or it would be heavily controlled by the Empire). quote:Henselt and Foltest were clearly terrible monarchs no matter how much of a bro Foltest might be 
SpRahl fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Jan 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 06:48
|
|
|
Foltest is a derp who prioritized nailing his sister above every obligation to his position. Terrible king.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 10:40
|
|
|
Foltest is an awesome dude with tons of intelligence, cunning, wisdom, and strength. It's all just wasted potential though because he lacks impulse control and is just too damned sentimental and straightforward to be King. Yes, I'm counting nailing his sister as sentiment. hosed up though it may be, it wasn't lust. Foltest said he genuinely loved her, and if he just wanted to have fun he could have had any other woman in the realm at smaller political cost. I never really saw Geralt as being for or against Nilfgaard. He's just kind of caught up in things, and they're in his way a lot. He has a history of trying to navigate between two evils instead of riding with one or the other, and loving everything up because of it. I don't see why Nilfgaard is necessarily that good either. Keep in mind we have plenty of opportunity to see the very worst the Nordlings have to offer in the two released games. Meanwhile, Nilfgaard is virtually absent in the first and operates almost entirely through proxies in the second. Just check out the ending cinematic. What happens to villages that succumb to a passing Nilfgaardian army? The same thing that happens to villages that succumb to an army from Temeria or Kaedwen. The only difference is that Nilfgaard is more organized and powerful. Basically iron age governments are huge dicks. Geralt'd be better to just kick back and run around pillaging with the Wild Hunt and banging sorceresses, probably.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 13:08
|
|
|
So, i'm rolling through the Witcher 1 again on my way to replay Witcher 2. I haven't played W2 since it first came out, so I have yet to experience all the new enhanced edition content. So....anyway I'm playing through W1, only this time with English subtitles and the original Polish VOs. Has anyone else done this? Really increases the atmosphere in the game, and Geralt sound like a total bad rear end!
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
Yup, the polish voice actors are much better in The Witcher.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:This seemed worth a new post: I'm not sure why Geralt is so clearly aligned with the North against Nilfgaard. Letho seemed convinced of Nilfgaard's superior civilization, enough to kill for it out of ideology more than anything. The Northern political situation is, to put it mildly, incredibly hosed. The major Kingdoms appear to be on the verge of collapse; Henselt and Foltest were clearly terrible monarchs no matter how much of a bro Foltest might be, that one king of Aedirn was a moron even before Letho cut his head off, and the smaller kingdoms are too weak to stand on their own. Radovid may be a competent ruler but even if he manages to legally unite Temeria and Redania in a personal union it still seems like a sinking ship overall. A sinking ship full of racists and deviants and criminals. Nilfgaard comes off like a Roman Empire-esque imperial power. While they have a strong infrastructure and advanced technology, countries they occupy are vassals, and will never be allowed to join the ranks of Nilfgaard citizens until the empire starts to crumble. It's permanent 2nd class citizen status for a formerly independent nation. No matter what improvements or luxuries are added, no sovereign kingdom ever wants that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
I am totally stuck in the Dungeons of the La Valettes. I killed every guard in sight on both levels, freed Aryan who is sitting down in a puddle right now, but it says "clear the way to the exit". I have cleared everything! I'm just walking in circles, I don't know where to go or what to do to get past this point. I'm trapped!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
pentyne posted:Nilfgaard comes off like a Roman Empire-esque imperial power. While they have a strong infrastructure and advanced technology, countries they occupy are vassals, and will never be allowed to join the ranks of Nilfgaard citizens until the empire starts to crumble. It's permanent 2nd class citizen status for a formerly independent nation. No matter what improvements or luxuries are added, no sovereign kingdom ever wants that. I kind of feel like the USSR and its Eastern European satellites (including and especially Poland) might be the better comparison. Even though a lot of those countries weren't taken by force they were managed the same way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
Kire posted:I am totally stuck in the Dungeons of the La Valettes. I killed every guard in sight on both levels, freed Aryan who is sitting down in a puddle right now, but it says "clear the way to the exit". I have cleared everything! I'm just walking in circles, I don't know where to go or what to do to get past this point. I'm trapped!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
Lycus posted:I'd try picking Aryan up and taking him to that last area up the stairs. If the quest advances, he'll go into one of the previously locked gates to your left at the top of the stairs. If not, I guess it might've bugged out. Load a save from before you took out the guards in that area. I can't move him or interact with him at all, he just sits there. Guess the game got bugged out? Was I supposed to get a key off of a guard at any point, or does he unlock the door at the top?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
I had that happen to me. Reloading to a point before you find Aryan fixed it for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:34 |
|
|
Kire posted:I can't move him or interact with him at all, he just sits there. Guess the game got bugged out? Was I supposed to get a key off of a guard at any point, or does he unlock the door at the top?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 02:42
|
|