Game News CD Projekt Summer Conference: Witcher 3 pre-order and trailer, Witcher digital board game, and more

[ZagorTeNej]

Sword drawing animation is different in the first Witcher, he kinda jerks it out of the scabbard and grabs it in the air, I preferred it that way mostly for gameplay reasons as it was much faster. Many times in Witcher 2 when the cutscene ended enemies would charge you with their swords already out beating up on Geralt while he draws the sword from his back (and on top of that you couldn't roll with your sword sheathed so it was often very hard to avoid that first post-cutscene enemy attack).

 

[Deleted member 7219]

by the way, The Witcher draws his sword from his back via mini_telekinesis. I thought this is common knowledge...

I call bullshit on that.

It's mentioned in the books multiple times, and witchers are pretty much the only people there who carry weapons on their back.

I assumed it was some European thing. The Gothic and Risen games also seemed to be all about having weapons on the back instead of at the side (except for Risen 2).

 

[Darth Slaughter]

Sword drawing animation is different in the first Witcher, he kinda jerks it out of the scabbard and grabs it in the air, I preferred it that way mostly for gameplay reasons as it was much faster. Many times in Witcher 2 when the cutscene ended enemies would charge you with their swords already out beating up on Geralt while he draws the sword from his back (and on top of that you couldn't roll with your sword sheathed so it was often very hard to avoid that first post-cutscene enemy attack).

The witcher 1 had no scabbards, unless you use a specific mod.

 

[Excidium]

You are supposed to use your imagination, it's not like he used magnets

 

[Dr Schultz]

by the way, The Witcher draws his sword from his back via mini_telekinesis. I thought this is common knowledge...

I call bullshit on that.

It's mentioned in the books multiple times, and witchers are pretty much the only people there who carry weapons on their back.

I assumed it was some European thing. The Gothic and Risen games also seemed to be all about having weapons on the back instead of at the side (except for Risen 2).

It's more a programmer thing. It reduces polygon compenetrations and helps standardize animations. It's hardly a coincidence that the vast majority of modern "Crpg" (from Dragon Age to Amalur, from Gothic to The Witcher) uses this trick.

 

[bonescraper]

Also, it just looks better in a 3rd person perspective, and works better with animation.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

The witcher 1 had no scabbards, unless you use a specific mod.

Yeah, I used a mod but that's besides the point which is that I don't care about realism but about Geralt drawing his weapon faster and not being caught with his pants down after a cutscene.

 

[Darkforge]

Did no one here actually play with mods? Most of the stuff you guys are complaining about was fixed

 

[ioanvonhans]

I gotta say, nothing against The Witcher 3, might turn out to be a great game, but after watching the realistic historical gameplay footage of Kingdom Come: Deliverance, The Witcher trailers just looks so silly. I realize all games take liberties with realism, but something about a guy walking around with two two-handed swords on his back makes me smile. Considering their length, he wouldnt be able to get either out of their sheath, but if he did, he d then run around with the other still on his back messing with him, which is especially ironic considering how much he rolls (based on previous games). And then the spell casting during fighting, so Bethesda-like. I expect this kind of thing from Elder Scrolls, but seems given The Witcher's mature themes, they might have been better served with a more realistic and toned down combat system. That's just me though.

Games are not a very good source for historical information.

It is moot to talk about drawing a sword since, as a rule, a sword would always be unsheathed when entering battle (this also applies to Japanese samurai, as opposed to the spergy movie depictions on the matter). Furthermore, the swords were typically carried in hand (sheathed in their scabbard), and very rarely worn.

Noteworthy is that, before the 16th-17th centuries (great age of dueling, when rapiers became fashionable), few people would carry swords anyway. Entering a city, an inn or a house armed was illegal and enforced (France, England, German states) and unless you were a medieval knight or a noble, you were required to leave it outside when entering the city or lodging, or whatever. That meant 97% of the population of Europe would not carry swords (unless traveling).

Furthermore, these weapon-type things were incredibly expensive at the time and few could afford them.

 

[bonescraper]

It is moot to talk about drawing a sword since, as a rule, a sword would always be unsheathed when entering battle (this also applies to Japanese samurai, as opposed to the spergy movie depictions on the matter)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iaijutsu

Computer role-playing video game forums aren't a good source for historical information either.

Inb4ur spergy reply. Of course they didn't use Iaijustu techiques every time they drew their swords. But yeah, all those "spergy movie depictions" are, in fact, true.

 

[Modron]

Eh, the whole iajutsu crap is kind of a cliche though because of all the movie depictions makes it look like samurai never draw their sword in advance of a fight and instead must reserve unsheathing for some "cool" attack.

 

[ioanvonhans]

It is moot to talk about drawing a sword since, as a rule, a sword would always be unsheathed when entering battle (this also applies to Japanese samurai, as opposed to the spergy movie depictions on the matter)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iaijutsu

Computer role-playing video game forums aren't a good source for historical information either.

Inb4ur spergy reply. Of course they didn't use Iaijustu techiques every time they drew their swords. But yeah, all those "spergy movie depictions" are, in fact, true.

I mentioned combat. Quick draw is a defensive/counter attack technique, employed for defensive/surprise (as opposed to offensive) purposes. It says exactly so in that wikipedia article of yours.

In any case, how is this relevant in any way to the whole "game realism" meltdown?

I'll raise you, carrying swords to fight off armored targets (or big game/monsters) as you see in Witcher is quite silly from the historical trufax point of view. Historically, long swords were secondary weapons on the battlefield (and were mostly meant to deal with unarmored targets), and they make as much sense as ultimate fighting weapons as dragons, sorcerers, undead and swords worn on the back.

Pole arms, blunt weapons, missile weapons and shields were the main combat equipment of the middle ages until the dawn of fire arms and the consequent extinction of body armor. Big game (as an analogy to monsters in witcher) were put down with big ass pikes or clubs for a long time (until fire arms in the 17th century). You could send an arrow up a boar's face, but that still meant you needed a bunch of idiots with clubs on foot to chase it down until it bled to death.

Would I play a game that expects me to half sword or bludgeon down a guy in full armor with a club or mace for literally an hour? Historical sources state that armoring was so effective, people would eventually throw their weapons in frustration and just grapple until someone would give up due to exhaustion. Impale a big ass halberd up a dragon's ass? Sign me the fuck up, but I am pretty sure it is going to make for shitty game experience.

Maybe it is me, but I never found particularly exciting the historically accurate pole arm, mace and half sword combat in games, as well as people taking their sweet time to die by a thousand cuts as combat usually go (because why would they want to die quickly, in the first place?).

Probably that's the reason we never really see any of this historically-accurate approach in video games because it is either fucking boring or horrifying (depending on how you look at it).

 

[Irenaeus]

I think more games should have polearms as primary weapons and swords as secundary, provided gameplay is designed to reflect the differences in their usage and effectiveness. Also, warhammers.

 

[Dr Schultz]

Probably that's the reason we never really see any of this historically-accurate approach in video games because it is either fucking boring or horrifying (depending on how you look at it).

No, probably because they don't bother to study the matter. There are lots of misconceptions about swords and their supposed lack of effectiveness against armored targets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SijLXKmlsw

Of course they weren't nearly as effective as poleaxes (my favorite medieval weapon) and warhammers against plate armors, but they WERE effective, and deadly. It's not by accident that swords continued to evolve during all Middle-Age and even in the Modern Age, with or without rigid armors to deal with.
Swords were used and also appreciated by the ones with a proper training to use them. Military tactics accounts better for the dominant role of pole-arms in the battlefield than their supposed greater effectiveness.

As for the Witcher's swords. There isn't any particolar logic behind them. The author decided that you need a magical silver sword to kill a monster in this world (probably because he tought it was cool), so witchers, who are monster hunters, pecialized in sword-fight. Thas it

 

[tuluse]

I think more games should have polearms as primary weapons and swords as secundary, provided gameplay is designed to reflect the differences in their usage and effectiveness. Also, warhammers.

I'm pretty much a noob at medieval combat, but weren't polearms more for formations? With swords, hammers, and axes better for 1 on 1 fights?

In an RPG where you have at most 4 people under your control, formation tactics are not really viable.

 

[Irenaeus]

Yes. I'm also noobish on realistic medieval combat, but that's my understanding. But a good use of polearms should never underestimated, even on 1v1.

 

[bonescraper]

I mentioned combat. Quick draw is a defensive/counter attack technique, employed for defensive/surprise (as opposed to offensive) purposes. It says exactly so in that wikipedia article of yours.

No, moron. Iaijustu was both an offensive and defensive technique, and the wikipedia article doesn't say otherwise. It was equally a attack as well as a counter-attack technique.

Looks like you have no clue about the samurai and medieval Japan. Some swordsmanship history expert you are.

The samurai were allowed (hell, the were supposed) to carry their swords everywhere and everytime. Their swords were a sign of their social status. They could kill peasants for mere offense, and in some regions, even just for lulz practice. They aslo dueled pretty often. And look! Medieval Japan is actually a perfect example of a society where swords were carried around (by approximately 10% of the population) on daily basis! Iaijutsu was created exactly because of that fact.

Of course, it wasn't used in large scale battles (Witcher games don't have such either), but i haven't seen a single movie when something like that happens. And i own a pretty large collection of classic samurai movies, so don't feed me this kind of bullshit, mkay? But feel free to name at least one. Unless you're talking about some B grade "American ninja" shlocks of course.

So, one title? One scene?

In any case, how is this relevant in any way to the whole "game realism" meltdown?

It isn't. I'm just pointing out an obvious fallacy. Carry on.

 

[Dr Schultz]

Some gameplay form Microsoft conference at the E3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVlE8BXEbpE

 

[ioanvonhans]

No, moron. Iaijustu was both an offensive and defensive technique, and the wikipedia article doesn't say otherwise. It was equally a attack as well as a counter-attack technique.

Yes, it clearly does.

I do not get why anyone would want to waste time drawing his sword to the other guy's zero seconds of having sword ready in hand. Unless you want to intentionally penalize yourself because you want to look cool or some other dumb shit.

Meanwhile, I tend to believe this guy.

It isn't. I'm just pointing out an obvious fallacy. Carry on.

I think you meant factual inaccuracy, not logical fallacy.

I skipped the rest because I am quite sure Geralt is not a samurai, and the witcher game is not some animu's wet dream. Although, with people tastes in games these days, I do not even know anymore.

Personally, I would prefer to see Geralt screwing around with a bunch of other medieval melee weapons other than swords. But whatever, it is not canon, and therefore we will play Witcher waving a bunch of swords around and we will like it, because reasons.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

It is moot to talk about drawing a sword since, as a rule, a sword would always be unsheathed when entering battle (this also applies to Japanese samurai, as opposed to the spergy movie depictions on the matter). Furthermore, the swords were typically carried in hand (sheathed in their scabbard), and very rarely worn.

Not sure where you are getting this info. I've seen a ton of depictions of europeans and japanese samurai with swords (in movies, paintings, statuettes, etc), and in pretty much all of them, the swords were "worn", not carried in hand. In fact, the point you make later on in one of your posts , that swords were primarily a secondary weapon in battle (which i agree with) supports them being "worn", since obviously a side-arm would be kinda useless if it had to be carried in your hands.

As far as weapons being unsheathed when entering battle, yeah that's probably true in most cases, but we are playing RPG/adventure games, not battle simulators. Just moving around the world as an adventurer/mercenary, you wouldn't have advance warning the same way a soldier entering battle would, so it would be very important for you to be able to draw out your weapon at a moment's notice.

In general, I am not obsessive about realism or anything, there are times when it can be compromised, but at the same time, I don't like the whole argument that since games have some unrealistic elements (fantasy, etc), we should just throw all realism out and let developers come up with whatever crap feels the coolest to them at the time. My take on it is that if realism clearly leads to bad gameplay, can it, but otherwise, try to stick with it. The reason being, based on my experiences with games, those that take a more realistic approach usually tend to have more fun, deeper gameplay (as long as they dont take it overboard as mentioned earlier). Think of it like this, realistic combat systems are already deep inherently, because of how they came about and for what aims, so if developers model them somewhat (removing the parts harming gameplay), good, challenging and deep gameplay is likely to result. On the other hand, if developers just pull some unrealistic combat system out of their ass, because they believe it's fun, sure, sometimes that might work, but generally speaking, that's how we end up with so many games with crappy combat.

 

[Infinitron]

PorkyThePaladin I am not sure whether you're aware that Geralt of Rivia is a character from a book

 

[Excidium]

PorkyThePaladin I am not sure whether you're aware that Geralt of Rivia is a character from a book

But what about dem scabbards

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

PorkyThePaladin I am not sure whether you're aware that Geralt of Rivia is a character from a book

I am aware, but I've never read those books. Does he wear two longswords on his back and roll around during combat in the books as well?

 

[Infinitron]

PorkyThePaladin I am not sure whether you're aware that Geralt of Rivia is a character from a book

I am aware, but I've never read those books. Does he wear two longswords on his back and roll around during combat in the books as well?

He wears longswords on his back and casts spells (signs).

Why would you think he wouldn't? These are pretty iconic things. It's like how if Western developers made a game about Drizzt he'd have two scimitars and a panther.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

He wears longswords on his back and casts spells (signs).

Why would you think he wouldn't?

I didn't say I thought that, I said it looked silly to me, regardless of whether it's based on the books or not, which I wouldn't know, since I haven't read them.