Batman is exactly why I don't PC game

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

"Will" have are VERY strong words. They already lost 40 years of gaming.

So the PS had limited BC that it dropped. And now wants to milk money ...

Well fair enough. But it IS the AI you are looking for. (and the best game ever made )

It's obvious Sony has made the effort for BC in the past, why wouldn't they continue in the future if it's possible on a technical level? Playing PS3 games on PS4 isn't possible. Plus, you can play all those old games on a shitty ass PC, which everyone has anyways. And gaming is a much different medium where there's not many games that are wanted to be replayed because game mechanics usually get better (thus older games are dated in gameplay) and games are much longer than a movie or music album, you can't just replay them in a couple hours.

The world of Stalker doesn't interest me. Most medieval fantasy RPGs don't either; I'm tired of the same races and usually shitty combat systems. That's why I haven't played an Elder Scrolls game or a Dragon Age. I'm anticipating CD Project Red's Cyberpunk a lot more than Witcher 3 because it's not medieval fantasy.

But that's just baseless conjecture. Not every PC game is low priority, and the ones that are are from short sighted publishers who don't understand that the same amount of gamers play on PC as well as on consoles. And you're lucky cause from having my signs not work, to having the game crash completely during the fight with the ice giant (yes, on PS4 the game completely crashed for no reason and booted me back to the PS4 menu), from improper modeling so trees start 5 feet in the air rather than connect to the ground, I've seen a lot of bugs. And your point about consoles being hooked up to TV's is kind of baseless conjecture because most PC's have HDMI ports and most PC games have controller support, so they could very easily be hooked up to a TV or sound system in a living room and played comfortably. And you don't even have to go that far, just get a comfortable chair to sit on while playing at your desk. No one is forcing you to be uncomfortable while gaming from your PC. Point and click games? Gotcha covered, get a wireless mouse and keyboard, then you're gaming from your living room with ease...

And you're wrong. Console games have the exact same issues as PC games. For example: Witcher 3's bugs. Bloodborne's exhausting load times. Splatoon's lack of content upon release (though kudos to Nintendo for continuing to update, but still, 4 maps at launch give me a fucking break) and that's to say nothing of Splatoon and Smash Bros shaky online stability. Assassin's Creed Unity's pathetic console release, Sonic Lost World being a completely broken, rushed to make the holiday release date mess of a game. There are tons of examples where console games came with just as many problems as PC games, the only difference is while the PC community works together to iron out bugs, console games you either have to deal with the shit, or take it back and have nothing.

It's not baseless conjecture. Witcher 3 sold more on PS4 than PC. Witcher is series that originated on PC with a strong user-base and a developer that cares about the PC who doesn't release bad PC versions. You think most other multiplatform games that are much more well-known on a console even have the slightest chance of selling more on PC if even Witcher 3 cannot? You do have more console gamers than PC gamers, it's not conjecture. Skyrim's interface was designed for the console first and foremost and sold way more on consoles. Why would Bethesda design the interface for consoles if the PC version was going to sell more? Even Diablo 3 was designed so it would play well with a controller. The PC version does get the lowest priority while having more inherent issues as it has to run on so many different hardware/software configurations.

Most people don't have their PCs located close to their TVs. It's not that you can't hook up a PC to a TV (as TVs & monitors are literally the same, it's just that TVs need speakers and a tuner to be sold as a TV). When I went to hook up my PS3 controller to my computer to play Dungeon Fighter Online so many years back, I had to download some Japanese drivers for it to work, it's just not plug and play. If you do want to play with a keyboard and mouse, you can't really lean back in a comfy chair and play that well, you'll want have the KB/M on a computer desk. The convenience factor is a huge factor. Most people know that the PC version is usually better yet they choose the console.

Game bugs (bugs on all platforms) and version specific bugs are different. Games have bugs, but you'll encounter more PC-only issues than console-only issues. I'd be guessing most of Witcher 3's bugs are game bugs as open world games usually have quite a few graphical bugs, I'm actually surprised I haven't seen more bugs. Bloodborne's load times were fixed plus From is known for being horrible at coding (both on console and PC). How is a game launching with low content a console issue, that makes no sense. For every console example, I can give like 10 PC issues at least.

 

[Ninja-Jordan]

"Will" have are VERY strong words. They already lost 40 years of gaming.

So the PS had limited BC that it dropped. And now wants to milk money ...

Well fair enough. But it IS the AI you are looking for. (and the best game ever made )

It's obvious Sony has made the effort for BC in the past, why wouldn't they continue in the future if it's possible on a technical level? Playing PS3 games on PS4 isn't possible. Plus, you can play all those old games on a shitty ass PC, which everyone has anyways. And gaming is a much different medium where there's not many games that are wanted to be replayed because game mechanics usually get better (thus older games are dated in gameplay) and games are much longer than a movie or music album, you can't just replay them in a couple hours.

The world of Stalker doesn't interest me. Most medieval fantasy RPGs don't either; I'm tired of the same races and usually shitty combat systems. That's why I haven't played an Elder Scrolls game or a Dragon Age. I'm anticipating CD Project Red's Cyberpunk a lot more than Witcher 3 because it's not medieval fantasy.

But that's just baseless conjecture. Not every PC game is low priority, and the ones that are are from short sighted publishers who don't understand that the same amount of gamers play on PC as well as on consoles. And you're lucky cause from having my signs not work, to having the game crash completely during the fight with the ice giant (yes, on PS4 the game completely crashed for no reason and booted me back to the PS4 menu), from improper modeling so trees start 5 feet in the air rather than connect to the ground, I've seen a lot of bugs. And your point about consoles being hooked up to TV's is kind of baseless conjecture because most PC's have HDMI ports and most PC games have controller support, so they could very easily be hooked up to a TV or sound system in a living room and played comfortably. And you don't even have to go that far, just get a comfortable chair to sit on while playing at your desk. No one is forcing you to be uncomfortable while gaming from your PC. Point and click games? Gotcha covered, get a wireless mouse and keyboard, then you're gaming from your living room with ease...

And you're wrong. Console games have the exact same issues as PC games. For example: Witcher 3's bugs. Bloodborne's exhausting load times. Splatoon's lack of content upon release (though kudos to Nintendo for continuing to update, but still, 4 maps at launch give me a fucking break) and that's to say nothing of Splatoon and Smash Bros shaky online stability. Assassin's Creed Unity's pathetic console release, Sonic Lost World being a completely broken, rushed to make the holiday release date mess of a game. There are tons of examples where console games came with just as many problems as PC games, the only difference is while the PC community works together to iron out bugs, console games you either have to deal with the shit, or take it back and have nothing.

It's not baseless conjecture. Witcher 3 sold more on PS4 than PC. Witcher is series that originated on PC with a strong user-base and a developer that cares about the PC who doesn't release bad PC versions. You think most other multiplatform games that are much more well-known on a console even have the slightest chance of selling more on PC if even Witcher 3 cannot? You do have more console gamers than PC gamers, it's not conjecture. Skyrim's interface was designed for the console first and foremost and sold way more on consoles. Why would Bethesda design the interface for consoles if the PC version was going to sell more? Even Diablo 3 was designed so it would play well with a controller. The PC version does get the lowest priority while having more inherent issues as it has to run on so many different hardware/software configurations.

Most people don't have their PCs located close to their TVs. It's not that you can't hook up a PC to a TV (as TVs & monitors are literally the same, it's just that TVs need speakers and a tuner to be sold as a TV). When I went to hook up my PS3 controller to my computer to play Dungeon Fighter Online so many years back, I had to download some Japanese drivers for it to work, it's just not plug and play. If you do want to play with a keyboard and mouse, you can't really lean back in a comfy chair and play that well, you'll want have the KB/M on a computer desk. The convenience factor is a huge factor. Most people know that the PC version is usually better yet they choose the console.

Game bugs (bugs on all platforms) and version specific bugs are different. Games have bugs, but you'll encounter more PC-only issues than console-only issues. I'd be guessing most of Witcher 3's bugs are game bugs as open world games usually have quite a few graphical bugs, I'm actually surprised I haven't seen more bugs. Bloodborne's load times were fixed plus From is known for being horrible at coding (both on console and PC). How is a game launching with low content a console issue, that makes no sense. For every console example, I can give like 10 PC issues at least.

Well it's funny that you bring up skyrim, because what I remember seeing most on reddit and neogaf when that came out wasn't anything to do with the console version, it was all the amazing PC mods that were being designed for it. And speaking of the clunky stupid interface that Skyrim had, remember when that guy made that awesome PC mod that organized and optimized the menus better? I sure do: http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/elder-scrolls-v/1221976p1.html

I don't think you can confidently say it gets low priority, while having the most issues probably having never talked to any devs or anyone who codes for PC versions of games, (I myself haven't) I say we meet in the middle and say any dev/publisher who creates a game for all platforms gives equal priority to all, while trying to work out all the issues, lest they look like a bunch of shady pricks, much like Warner Bros. It's not like it's an inherent thing that when a game comes out on PC it's going to be rife with problems. And if it does, it happens equally on consoles.

And whether or not people are going to do it or not, the fact remains that you can, so the convenience of consoles is really neither here nor there. And I'm sure it was a real drag to download a few drivers, but most games that come out to steam these days have basic controller support, so that's hardly an argument. And I don't know about you, but I've played PC games from the comfort of my bed a bunch of times. Laptop on lap, mouse at my side, and I don't imagine I couldn't do that from a PC.

And I'm pretty sure people chose consoles over PC because they don't have $1500 to invest in a dedicated gaming PC. While I'll admit that the convenience factor does come in a little, it's really a numbers game. That might be why games sell better on consoles, they're easier to attain than PC because your average gamer doesn't want to have to go through the rigmarole of building a competent gaming PC, and anything out of stores is always going to cost more than a console. So it's not that people WANT consoles more than a PC, it's just that people can afford consoles over PC.

But really, a comfortable, semi-reclining office chair and a footrest and you're good to go.

And I always thought bugs come from improper coding, so console and PC versions would share the same bugs if they shared the same code, which they do for the most part. PC specific problems, I imagine, arise from improper or outdated sound cards, graphics cards, drivers etc, which isn't even that big of a problem. But I'm no coder so I don't really know.

What I don't get is, this whole thing started with you saying batman's shitty PC launch was why you don't PC game, but it wasn't the fault of PC owners it was the fault of Warner Bros. The game under performed on PC's that had the highest specs, as Jim Sterling pointed out on his playthrough of it. But Batman doesn't reflect every game. Can you confidently say, that almost every game on PC is more likely to have problems? What I don't get is why you shrug off problems with console games, sure Bloodborne got fixed, but it never should've launched like that in the first place. Same with Splatoon. For an $80 game, a lack of content is a SERIOUS PROBLEM. You wouldn't be happy if you paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house, then only got 1/3rd of a house. All I'm saying is, don't act like console gaming so so innocent, when the problems are exactly the same. Buggy, broken games get released on consoles too.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Because it is a much better idea to just milk money from people for remakes or remasters. Why go the extra mile and protect gaming legacy when you can milk the poor uninformed console gamers for money...
Sony are not good people (neither are MS or Nintendo). Why work for little or no pay?

The second part is heresy to me and I wont comment on it.

STALKER is somewhat realistic Science Fiction. Kinda the way Strugatsky do it. Cyberpunk 77 is not really a realistic Science Fiction .
Witcher is a "realistic" fantasy series. In all the classic tropes and stuff EE authors use.

Remasters do make the game better though. Remakes can be good and are rather rare. I have zero interest in ever playing FF7, although its remake with a possibly good combat system and no random battles would interest me. I've only ever bought one remaster of a game I've already played and that was the Team ICO collection as those are some of the best games ever made. I'm not a fan of remasters as I've said before if I was interested in playing the game, I would've played it when it came out anyways. You can play old console games on a shitty old PC as well.

Some games just aren't worth playing anymore like how Syphon Filter is such a shitty TPS both in gameplay and story compared what's out now. There's literally no reason to have anyone play it outside of showing them what a good TPS was on PS1 and how far the genre has come. Nothing against preserving games or anything, it's just that the medium is definitely unique and different like how you tell someone you HAVE to watch these 10 movies, you can't do that with games as playing 10 games could take someone a whole year.

I really wouldn't call any "fantasy" game realistic. I really don't care about realism, I really only care if the world is interesting.

Well it's funny that you bring up skyrim, because what I remember seeing most on reddit and neogaf when that came out wasn't anything to do with the console version, it was all the amazing PC mods that were being designed for it. And speaking of the clunky stupid interface that Skyrim had, remember when that guy made that awesome PC mod that organized and optimized the menus better? I sure do: http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/elder-scrolls-v/1221976p1.html

I don't think you can confidently say it gets low priority, while having the most issues probably having never talked to any devs or anyone who codes for PC versions of games, (I myself haven't) I say we meet in the middle and say any dev/publisher who creates a game for all platforms gives equal priority to all, while trying to work out all the issues, lest they look like a bunch of shady pricks, much like Warner Bros. It's not like it's an inherent thing that when a game comes out on PC it's going to be rife with problems. And if it does, it happens equally on consoles.

And whether or not people are going to do it or not, the fact remains that you can, so the convenience of consoles is really neither here nor there. And I'm sure it was a real drag to download a few drivers, but most games that come out to steam these days have basic controller support, so that's hardly an argument. And I don't know about you, but I've played PC games from the comfort of my bed a bunch of times. Laptop on lap, mouse at my side, and I don't imagine I couldn't do that from a PC.

And I'm pretty sure people chose consoles over PC because they don't have $1500 to invest in a dedicated gaming PC. While I'll admit that the convenience factor does come in a little, it's really a numbers game. That might be why games sell better on consoles, they're easier to attain than PC because your average gamer doesn't want to have to go through the rigmarole of building a competent gaming PC, and anything out of stores is always going to cost more than a console. So it's not that people WANT consoles more than a PC, it's just that people can afford consoles over PC.

But really, a comfortable, semi-reclining office chair and a footrest and you're good to go.

And I always thought bugs come from improper coding, so console and PC versions would share the same bugs if they shared the same code, which they do for the most part. PC specific problems, I imagine, arise from improper or outdated sound cards, graphics cards, drivers etc, which isn't even that big of a problem. But I'm no coder so I don't really know.

What I don't get is, this whole thing started with you saying batman's shitty PC launch was why you don't PC game, but it wasn't the fault of PC owners it was the fault of Warner Bros. The game under performed on PC's that had the highest specs, as Jim Sterling pointed out on his playthrough of it. But Batman doesn't reflect every game. Can you confidently say, that almost every game on PC is more likely to have problems? What I don't get is why you shrug off problems with console games, sure Bloodborne got fixed, but it never should've launched like that in the first place. Same with Splatoon. For an $80 game, a lack of content is a SERIOUS PROBLEM. You wouldn't be happy if you paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house, then only got 1/3rd of a house. All I'm saying is, don't act like console gaming so so innocent, when the problems are exactly the same. Buggy, broken games get released on consoles too.

The fact that Bethesda didn't alter the interface for PC means they really didn't care (and made the PC community do it for themselves), they prioritized the console versions. There aren't enough Skyrim mods to make the game worth playing for me. I hate Bethesda's writing and the combat isn't very good at all.

The PC version of lots of games gets the lowest priority, the version that will sell the most will get the most priority and the PC version rarely sells the most. It's just that simple. I never said every PC version inherently has more issues but overall you will encounter more issues on gaming on PC. I was able to play Batman just fine whereas I wouldn't on PC. Same goes for Splinter Cell Blacklist and its massive PC issues. Mortal Kombat X had a Steam issue where it couldn't even run.

It's rather inconvenient to have your PC within cords reach of your TV. How many people do you know of where their PC is located next to their TV? PC gaming on your TV can easily be done but it's not convenient. Even gaming with a laptop and a mouse isn't very convenient; the laptop is on your lap (vs nothing on your lap with a console) plus you have to be sitting with table or something flat next to you to use the mouse properly.

A gaming PC doesn't cost that much. You can buy an AMD 6-core desktop for about $400 and spend $100-$150 on a video card and it's a gaming PC. A lot of people are moving away from desktops entirely though and prefer a laptop or even a tablet with a keyboard. People have money to spend as they buy consoles, expensive phones (for whatever reason, makes no sense to me as $100 phone does everything), tablets, etc.

I'm not blaming the PC for anything. It's that there's quite a few major PC-only issues that do occur each year from major releases. Yeah, most PC games don't have serious issues. I buy the console version because I know it's going to work outside of a rare anomaly.

-Bloodborne worked just fine. If the worst thing about a game is the loading is too long, that's much less of an issue vs a game not working or serious framerate issues. And, you can put a SSD in a console just like a PC if you want faster loading.
-Any game can have a lack of content. If Splatoon had a PC version, it would have the same content. How is that a console issue? It varies from gamer to gamer how much content is worth full price as some won't buy a really good 8-hour shooter just because it's 8 hours long. Lots of people won't buy that 8-hour game until a price drop because something like Witcher 3 offers them over 100 hours of content at the same price. You kinda know how long a game is, what is included, and whatnot before buying a game. Splatoon wasn't a bait and switch.

 

[Erttheking]

So what, console games are never buggy ever? I would like to point out every Bethesda game ever made, every game ever reviewed by the Angry Video Game Nerd, Brink, Dark Souls on blighttown where the framerate chugs like hell, the horrible load times on Bloodborne, and many other things. PC and console both have drawbacks, let's stop pretending one is superior to the other.

Also call me back when you can play Sunless Sea on Xbox.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

So what, console games are never buggy ever? I would like to point out every Bethesda game ever made, every game ever reviewed by the Angry Video Game Nerd, Brink, Dark Souls on blighttown where the framerate chugs like hell, the horrible load times on Bloodborne, and many other things. PC and console both have drawbacks, let's stop pretending one is superior to the other.

Also call me back when you can play Sunless Sea on Xbox.

Why do people assume the thread is about consoles being better than PCs? I don't run into any major issues playing games on consoles because they just work (outside of the very rare anomaly). I didn't have thought that Batman would possibly not work when I bought it. Game bugs (that are across all platforms) are different than version specific issues like Batman. I didn't have any issue with Blighttown, the framerate was probably like 5fps less there, it's not like the area was even hard just annoying with the stupid flies and dart guys, take it slow like any area in a Souls game and you probably won't die. If loading times are the worse part of a game, then the game must not be too bad, and you can always put a SSD in like a PC for faster loading. From Software are horrible coders, you kinda know what to expect from them at this point.

I console game because I spend more time gaming in my gaming time.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Playing 10 games can take a year if you are a pathetic gamer. No, the medium is not unique in that aspect. By your logic, simply because Witcher 3 has better characters and story than any other game out there, all those that have their own themes and or attempts to show evolution do not matter?
So War and Peace means that the Illiad is irrelevant? God Damn...

The medium is the same as the others. Not protecting it is vandalism as far as I care.

Here is a video about fantasy and realism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRsqAmuxjNk

Cyberpunk is not such a genre btw . At least not by default.

If they are 10 RPGs, it could take someone over a year to play given their free time. I wouldn't be able to play 10 Witcher games in a year even if I wanted to. Tell a person to watch 10 movies and they'll probably be able to do that in a month or so at most.

Writing is completely subjective so you can't have one game that has better characters and story than another. That's why books or movies are good forever, a new book/movie isn't going to make another obsolete. Game mechanics become archaic though. There's literally no reason to go back and play Syphon Filter, which couldn't be said of a book or movie. And Witcher 3's writing is good but nothing special.

That video doesn't make much sense because we've had heroic storylines in real life. Just because you make your story on a smaller scale and more intimate level doesn't make it any more realistic. I'm all for more RPGs that aren't about saving the world because that has been done to death. It's about getting variety and role-playing very different characters in very different situations instead of the same situations (even the same races, classes, and worlds over and over again). It's the same reason why people want more varied protagonists other than standard white male with a gravelly voice, which Geralt fits into himself. It's not that heroic storylines or white males with a gravelly voice are bad, but that's pretty much all we get.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Good writing is subjective. Yet some people on these forums dont think so (not talking about you). Some would argue (with logic) that the eldest pieces of literature are overall less complex than many of the more recent pieces.

Nope. As I said, to me that train of thought goes against axioms. Cant even humor you about that part of gaming.

Witcher 3's writing is the best I have seen in a video game. By an extraordinary margin.
It actually makes good on its original source. And that means a lot to me.

Actually it makes perfect sense. In Real Life, it is NEVER just that simple. Being a hero in the "classical" sense simply means that you will accomplish nothing. You cant save the world alone. No matter how hard you try. That is impossible.

But that is not really the point of that clip...
If Geralt is a stereotypical protagonist to you... well... I dont know what to say...

A more complex story isn't inherently better.

At least based on the point I am in Witcher 3 (as I haven't finished it), several games have better writing than it. The Walking Dead, lots of parts of Mass Effect (I say parts because on the whole it's just decent), Prince of Persia SoT, MGS2, Deus Ex (could be nostalgia and being much younger when I did play it), Portal 2, TLOU, and Arkham City off the top of my head. I'm disappointed in the low amount of decision making in Witcher 3, it's not much of an RPG to me (most video game RPGs are not RPGs IMO). I said Geralt fits into the "white male with a gravelly voice" protagonist that we get way too much of and not that those characters are bad but it's kinda all we get.

Alan Turing basically won WWII.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Of those that you listed none are on the same level. And I played all of them except Prince of Persia SoT and MGS 2.

No individuals won it. Arguably Hitler won it for the allies by making... questionable decisions. What Turing did was great for the war effort. Not the biggest nor the only contribution though.

I very much doubt even 5% if gamers would say Witcher 3 has the best writing in a game. Make a poll, see what happens. I'm guessing Planescape Torment would win even though I haven't played it.

Knowing what you're enemy is going to do before they do it kinda seals the deal on victory.

 

[3asytarg3t]

OP, you're really not going to like where the gaming industry is headed as it most certainly is not towards consoles.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Interestingly, the USSR was already winning. And the major strategical stupidities that sealed the war already happened. Sure did save a few (allied) lives though.

People will vote for what they like or what they want to win or what is aligned with their worldview. Most havent played Planescape. They just know it is from the "golden days" and was a "classic" .

The USSR was already winning the war in 1940?

Ditto for you.

OP, you're really not going to like where the gaming industry is headed as it most certainly is not towards consoles.

It's not going towards PC.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Obviously not in 1940...

Turing cracked the code in 1940.

 

[asdfen]

Turning cracked the code before the war even began and alies just bid their time sending millions of their soldiers to die just to make it intersting

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

You still think real life works like a standard fantasy plot where one man decides the fate of the world?

I suggest rewatching that video.

There's been very few, if any, situations in real life where the fate of the world was in jeopardy so knowing "realistically" how that would/could play out is kinda impossible. One man could've easily decided that fate of the world during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The select few already pretty much decide everything now. Realistic fantasy is an oxymoron.

Outside of the very end of Mass Effect 3, the Mass Effect series presents a rather realistic version of a galaxy fighting against a most powerful force yet the guy in the video includes Mass Effect as being "heroic". Shepard must work with and try to sway the many political institutions of the many different races and Shepard fails quite often in trying to do everything. Just because Geralt's conflict is on a much smaller scale doesn't make it "realistic" by default either. You want me to believe that with Geralt's skills and powers and lifespan, he'd be struggling for money?

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Fate is not just in jeopardy. Deciding =/= jeopardy. At least no only.

Realistic fantasy and science fiction is a real term mate...

ME does decently. If it has to be nitpicked, it will be easy. But that is not what I want to do.

Geralt's quests are not always on a smaller scale. And that is not what I am saying ...

Yes, Geralt IS struggling for money. In the books he is often broke. Completely. Poor as hell.
If it wasnt for Yennefer "modifying" his pay behind his back, he would die of starvation. Witchers simply dont get payed enough. Less there is a war. And then it is even more dangerous to work.

Science fiction makes sense, realistic fantasy really doesn't.

That's what the guy in the video was saying.

Someone with a skillset in very low supply with high demand makes lots of money. It really doesn't make "realistic" sense that Geralt would struggle for money. Plus, with Geralt's mind power thing, he could get money from anyone. Part of the reason Geralt doesn't come off as realistic is because he's overpowered as fuck, he's the fantasy version of Batman with actual powers instead of technology.

 

[Kinokohatake]

When someone releases a bad game you don't blame it on the system, you blame it on the devs. I switched earlier this year and am enjoying all the "complete" games that were on consoles that modders have given a new life. Now I will wait a year or so to play the complete Arkham Knight on Steam summer sale for like 25 bucks and get the great mods.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Uhm... your standards for Sci Fi must be quite low and very high for fantasy. That is why.
Most of the time both are just impossible. OR at least not believable.
That is not QUITE what the guy was saying ...

Anyways, this second video may help:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg_Lp5bO1U8

In the game you have a lot of quests and contracts. Partially explained by the fact that there is a war going on (that makes monsters much MUCH more active). Still, gameplay reasons.

In the books he often goes around for months on end without ANY job at all. Months.

His "mind power thing" will end up with him dead. Not everyone can be affected by it. Try that on a mage and he IS dead. Or someone with a strong will or who knows at least a bit about how to "defend" themselves from such a thing.
It also cant be used in groups. At all.

In other words, it may works a few times. But only a few. And in a few days, the people he used it on would remember what happened anyway. And get people to kill him. Or report to authority.
Try it on the wrong person? Wont work. In front of many people? Wont work...

Geralt is fairly low power in the universe. The game lets you do some amazing things, but the truth is that Yennefer for example is simply MUCH more powerful than him. She has REAL mind control, reading minds and blowing up castles powers... Almost all named mages are OP.

Actually most sci-fi I don't really care for. I'm not a fan of Star Trek or Star Wars (not really sci-fi though). Sci-fi already has "fiction" in the term adding realistic to it is just dumb like "realistic" fantasy. You either buy into the world, whether sci-fi or fantasy, or you just don't. I don't feel making a conflict smaller scale necessarily makes it more realistic or believable. The world has to "feel" right and there's lots of intangibles there that make it feel right. You can make a very intimate sci-fi show like Firefly and make it "realistic" but you can also do sci-fi on a big scale and make it feel just as realistic as well. Most fiction (science or fantasy) involves characters that have great powers (that we've never had in the real world) so you can believably have a character that could alter the fate of the world by themselves (like Superman). Saying that is something that's unrealistic is just wrong.

Geralt is one of few people with his skills, which are needed. Even in peace time humans will be expanding to new lands and will encounter monsters and need a person like Geralt. He can charge a lot due to low supply of his skills and the fact an entire village or city will likely want to chip in to get rid of monsters so monsters don't kill them. Geralt's mind thing works on any human as far as I can see. Plus, Geralt does find himself alone with rich people quite often, making them reveal their money stash and then killing them is easy money. Morally Geralt shouldn't have issue since there's always lots of bad people that are rich. Geralt should really only be poor if he just doesn't care about money. It's not believable or realistic for Geralt to be poor unless he so chooses to be.

Geralt is fantasy's Batman, he can prepare to defeat just about everything like Batman. Not to mention he has powers that Batman doesn't have. I'm guessing his magic doesn't work like it does in-game because certain things are just broken like the shield and mind power (in battle).

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

When someone releases a bad game you don't blame it on the system, you blame it on the devs. I switched earlier this year and am enjoying all the "complete" games that were on consoles that modders have given a new life. Now I will wait a year or so to play the complete Arkham Knight on Steam summer sale for like 25 bucks and get the great mods.

I don't blame the platform. The fact is if I buy multiplatform games on a console vs PC, I'll have less issues. The console versions are prioritized and the PC has millions of different hardware/software configurations it most work on. Those 2 facts make it so console games have less issues. Arkham Knight is a game I didn't want to wait on nor do I really care that much for extra content as I have like 4 things to redeem and I haven't even done that. I doubt there will be many mods of Arkham Knight as there's only a few Arkham City mods (that don't do much at all). And, I'll also end up probably only spending $25 or so on the game as well as I'll sell it in a couple months.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I was not envisioning the Star Trek or Star Wars... more like Strugatsky... you know...
Again, you repeat things I already know.
No, in the real world, one human cant simply change everything. That is not how it works. Superman, in his universe even, often cant do it. Part of the point of his character in recent incarnations...
Realistic fantasy is probably not the correct term. I will have to check. Gets the point across though.

Geralt's skills are NOT that impressive. Everything he can do, a mage can do better. Often soldiers kill the monsters themselves. Hunters and magicians work together to achiever results equal to those a "professional" achieves.

He CANT CHARGE a lot. He is a BEGGAR mostly. If he charges more than a mage or mercenaries... well he is useless.
Geralt's mind thing does not work like that. I already explained Axii to you.
Many rich people are not those that can RESIST it. Why does he never try that shit on Triss or Yen? Or on Vilgefortz? Or on Emhyr?
It WONT work.

That is exactly why Geralt gets the floor wiped with him by Vilgefortz. Twice. All that preparation and GG...
Or why in his first encounter with Yen, all 80 years of combat and experience fly out the window and his mind gets "scanned", all his resistances fly out and he is knocked out and turned into a slave in just a minute...

You are a person that has yet to complete Witcher 3. You are arguing against someone who has read the books and played all 3 games. This is not a topic you have any hope of winning.

If the world is believable, then it is realistic. One human could've changed everything during the Cold War. There are always hypothetical situations that could arise where one person could change everything. Are those situations unlikely, most definitely. Most of these fantasy stories deal with situations that are indeed very unlikely to happen even in those fantasy worlds (like end of the world scenarios). It's not like end of the war scenarios happen on a weekly basis in fantasy worlds, it's either the 1st time something like that has happen or it happened so long ago that no one remembers (or refers to it as fiction).

I said Axii has worked on every normal human Geralt has tried it on.

If mages do what witchers do, then what's the point of witchers?

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Witcher's world is believable by its own rules. Society does not bend the knee just cause elves. Nor does human nature. Nor does its internal logic colapse.

Geralt only attempts Axii on people that are kinda... within its effect . He never even attempts using it on truly smart/willful/magical people.
It would be funny if CDPR let the player attempt use it on Keira only to be humiliated when he calls out his magic

That is the thing. Mages CAN do what Witchers do. There is a logical reason why they dont. Last Wish -> Times of contempt gives insight to it.
But Witchers are not really needed all that much. Not many monsters remain. The ones that do eventually get hammered by soldiers or mages (after payment... hefty at that). Their profession is dying. Wars stimulate it for a bit. But ... for a bit. Nothing more.

If mages choose not to do what witchers do, then witchers could charge a lot of money for their services. What's the point of witchers if they are obsolete now? Why would Geralt train Ciri to basically be a witcher when that professional is obsolete?

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Because as I said, mages WOULD do the job if given enough money. A lot more than what Geralt would take.
Either them or soldiers and mercenaries. They too can and do kill monsters.

He is teaching Ciri the ONLY thing he knows. Better than nothing. And at least would help her defend herself.
Yennefer was teaching her the basics of magics. Would have made her a mage (something Geralt wanted) was it not for certain events.

Then Geralt should charge more. If he's talking say $10 while a mage would want $100, Geralt could obviously charge more if as you say mages would do it for a lot more. I'm just saying a person of Geralt's skills should not be broke unless he so chooses. He could be a king's bodyguard for example or something along the lines of a sheriff of a town.