Witcher 3 Developer Calls Skyrim "Casual"

[Machine Man 1992]

Speaking purely as a an ignorant pleb, who's only got Yahtzee's review of the Witcher 2 to go on, I can safely say I'd prefer Skyrim's hodgepodge of underdeveloped mechanics to the Witcher's needless complexity added only to justify it's existence on the PC.

Unless the Witcher is actually really good, and not tedious at all. Somebody give me the lowdown on it?

Quite a few will say that both games are great, but Witcher 1 is in fact tedious for many. If they weren't great, the Witcher franchise wouldn't be growing in scale and popularity at such a massive rate as it is.

You should take Yahtzee's videos with a full saltshaker ready, because he's the only one who's called the Witcher games needlessly complicated as far as I know. I don't really understand his alchemy comments, the mechanic is easier to handle than that of the Elder Scrolls series.

But then again, on the other hand, Yahtzee has a history of calling out gameplay mechanic issues that other critics over looked, or even praised.

And I prefer elegant simplicity over needless complexity any day. If a game is one of those games that requires you use the entire keyboard, like a flight sim, or space combat game, then fine. If a game arbitrarily adds steps to a process other games have done faster and simpler, then I want nothing to do it.

Again- ignorant pleb. Probably won't play the Whitchers. Only have a half decade old mac and consoles.

 

[mrhateful]

Casual isn't a curse word, it just means the game has been watered down to appeal to a broader audience, which was what happened to Skyrim.

You don't think calling a game "watered down to appeal to a broader audience" is not a curse word? That said I completely agree

 

[mitchell271]

Well, I call your games needlessly obtuse, user unfriendly and incredibly boring so I guess we're on equal footing now, aren't we.

 

[Norrdicus]

Well, I call your games needlessly obtuse, user unfriendly and incredibly boring so I guess we're on equal footing now, aren't we.

No, really not, Mattson made a very neutral comment about Skyrim's style of gameplay

You're just being "Well, umm, YOUR FACE!"

 

[Lightknight]

So, by casual do they mean less involved? Like fewer stat charts and less of a need for the player to do real paper work during the game? I can understand that. Hell, I had the game guide for morrowind and clearly remember working out numbers on paper for character generation and for some quests.

That being said, I'd say that advancements to the GUI and quest tracking has made games significantly more user friendly. I wouldn't put a game in a casual category just because it's user friendly. I'd call games that aren't user friendly poorly designed and not user friendly. If I want to pull out a stat sheet three pages deep and do that work myself, I'll play table top games, not video games.

The mechanics of the game should be able to get out of the way of the player. The ability to go into ultra depth in game mechanics is now a feature, not mandatory and that's a good thing. Fortunately, I think these developers got that. Unfortunately, they've done it with the difficulty level of the game rather than via some other method. But that's just telling of why they'd consider Skyrim casual when it is a very involved and full-blown AAA title.

 

[RyQ_TMC]

Wow, 3 pages into the thread and it seems only like 5 people swallowed the bait and went straight to the comments to rage. More forumites calling Andy out on shoddy journalism than buying it, my fondness of the Escapist forums is growing.

OT: Different game styles. You can't just put any of the Witcher games away for a month and jump right in. TES games? Easily. I prefer the tighter narrative structure, but still had loads of fun with Skyrim. I'd interpret the quote from Jonas as: "Yes, we're going for open world, but no, we're not riding Skyrim's coattails. We'll be doing it our own way."

EDIT: OK, 6 people.

 

[josemlopes]

Dude, way to bend a story for a meaty title, eh?

Even you, who created this piece of news, say in it that you dont believe that this is what happened

In all fairness, I don't think Mattson is actually suggesting that Skyrim is a "casual game" in the usual sense (although it's a funny thought), but rather that Bethesda's approach to storytelling is less focused than CDPR's. The Elder Scrolls games are basically settings in which you can do whatever you want, while The Witcher has been a much more directed experience; trying to bring the two together is a risky move, especially for a studio taking its first run at an open-world game, but if it works it could be flat-out amazing.

Then why create this story? I would kind of get it if the source was already put like that but its just an interview about a demo or something, you are the one that saw this and took it out of context for clicks.

Its the second time today that I see this in here, in a year even Kotaku will look better then The Escapist if you guys keep creating these baits

 

[Do4600]

It is casual and simplified and not nearly as deep as the previous elder scrolls games, still a good game, just.....casual........and not as good as it could have been. But it sold millions so none of that actually matters to people who make decisions about games.

 

[freedash22]

I think he has a reasonable point. Now I don't think Skyrim is a full-blown casual game, but true enough, it does feel more "casual" than its predecessors. Does it make it a bad game? No. Does it make it less challenging? Yes. Some people like it and some people don't. But being casual in a positive way, like Skyrim, is a good thing appreciated by many so I respect that. All that I ask from developers is moderation in everything. Especially in "casualization".

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Well, first of all, I am not complaining about it having a great story (and yeah, it is great). How did you draw a correlation between excessive dialogue and story? last time I checked, there are numerous ways to convey a story; relying mostly on dialogue is not efficient.

Because more recently we've seen that most "modern" game developers have the subtlety of a sledgehammer when it comes to non-verbal storytelling which in turn means that most of their story comes from dialogue or written words. When those dialogue and written words are lacking, then the story is left shit.

Secondly, when it comes to games, gameplay is the most important element, not story. You can have a good game without a good story, you cant have a good game without good gameplay. Dont get me wrong, I love a good story, but gameplay is always a priority.

For some people maybe. I don't think anyone will disagree that gameplay takes priority, but a poorly written story can bring a game down. Especially for games that try to bite off more than they can chew.

 

[Silverbeard]

Skyrim was definitely casual in the sense of being less challenging than Witcher 2. I'll never forget getting trounced by Aryan and his goons during the opening bits of Witcher 2, especially since I approached that fight with all the cock and swagger of a player determined to pill as much blood as the game would let me. That never happened in Skyrim unless I wandered into a dragon's maw a few hours too early.
The difficulty of the Witcher 2's combat created a real incentive for wanting to avoid fights. Players knew the combat was going to be challenging and thus approached it very carefully, likely in the same manner Geralt would in his world. The risk of dying against a deadly foe coloured ones decisions. That did not happen very often in Skyrim, apart from a few very rare occasions- dragons and giants, mostly.

 

[Zeldias]

Casual? I dunno. I take casual to generally mean impossible to fail (so reaching max level in WoW for example, or something like that). You can screw yourself pretty easy in Skyrim from what I understand. So I'd agree with simple, but not really casual. I can only really see "casual" in relation to the previous, more hardcore nature of the series.

Anyways, I fail to see how the Witcher is more hardcore than Skyrim.

 

[BloodRed Pixel]

So Witcher 3 is not casual because they use a different color scheme?

sorry that's all I understood from that message.

 

[DataSnake]

But then again, on the other hand, Yahtzee has a history of calling out gameplay mechanic issues that other critics over looked, or even praised.

And I prefer elegant simplicity over needless complexity any day. If a game is one of those games that requires you use the entire keyboard, like a flight sim, or space combat game, then fine. If a game arbitrarily adds steps to a process other games have done faster and simpler, then I want nothing to do it.

Again- ignorant pleb. Probably won't play the Whitchers. Only have a half decade old mac and consoles.

Let me put it this way: I roll my eyes at people who ***** about Skyrim being "dumbed down" compared to Morrowind because I prefer a good game where you don't have to RTFM to know how to perform simple tasks. I like that Skyrim's perk tree system lets me level up without having to juggle a bunch of stats. And the Witcher series is one of my all-time favorites. The Witcher 2 is available on 360, and I highly recommend at least renting it. Incidentally, after Yahtzee's review came out lambasting the game for not telling you how to do things, CD Projekt added a tutorial mode to the Enhanced Edition (that's their equivalent of a GOTY edition, except it's available at no charge if you bought the original version; even if I didn't like the game I'd have bought it just to encourage that kind of business practice).

 

[teh_gunslinger]

While it's a stretch to call Skyrim casual and I like the game quite a bit (140 hours before I got bored) the game is very light on actual systems and reactivity. It's ultimately a hollow game where you may be the guy who is the leased of every guild and saved the world but nobody in said world will note that.

The new skill system is also considerably more pointless than the earlier games and the game can't be lost and it never pushes back towards the player. Nothing has consequences and nothing ultimately matters. You may be able to sneak stab a dragon in the tail and kill it with that one stab but some dude will still call you milk drinker.

Casual game it may not be, but a game that doesn't demand anything or indeed give anything, that it is.

THIS.
Exactly how I feel about all the TES games I know (Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim), and exactly why I never really got engaged in them, I felt this from the start, everything felt like a cardboard scenery (not because of graphics). Games to me are (/should be) mainly about messing around with interconnected systems and experiencing the emergent scenarios it results in, but I never found anything connected to anything in any meaningful way in TES games... And that's why I never understood the people who love those games religiously. I mean, I still like them a lot, they show and realize big parts of the potential of the genre, but they neglect the one part that is most important (to me personally).

Messing about with interconnected systems? Have you played STALKER? If not, I think that might scratch that itch for you.

 

[Magmarock]

I couldn't agree more the way Skyrim's gameplay is structured and the the upgrade system works is very casual.

 

[SageRuffin]

An RPG that non-reactive to the players actions cannot be considered a 'full-on, heavyweight RPG'.

Sorry, but that depends entirely on how you define RPG, and from what I've seen, no one can come up with a definition that satisfies everyone.

I know what defines an RPG in my eyes: a game where you play a role irrespective to the one you're currently holding.. Sure, that makes virtually every game in existence some sort of RPG if you wanna get into semantics, but there you go, and there's nothing anyone can tell me that'll make me think otherwise.

Skyrim is like a giant ballpit. The Witcher is more like an adventure playground.

Nice analogy. Really, it is.

 

[CharrHearted]

With its massive open world - not that big...

competing factions - red v blue

huge array of NPCs - soulless shards of nothingness.

widely varied environments - oh look, a different shade of ice!

hundreds of dungeons - All look the same mostly.

and deep, flexible character creation options - Few bits and pieces, not flexible, just average.


Just my opinion on that subject...

 

[Machine Man 1992]

But then again, on the other hand, Yahtzee has a history of calling out gameplay mechanic issues that other critics over looked, or even praised.

And I prefer elegant simplicity over needless complexity any day. If a game is one of those games that requires you use the entire keyboard, like a flight sim, or space combat game, then fine. If a game arbitrarily adds steps to a process other games have done faster and simpler, then I want nothing to do it.

Again- ignorant pleb. Probably won't play the Whitchers. Only have a half decade old mac and consoles.

Let me put it this way: I roll my eyes at people who ***** about Skyrim being "dumbed down" compared to Morrowind because I prefer a good game where you don't have to RTFM to know how to perform simple tasks. I like that Skyrim's perk tree system lets me level up without having to juggle a bunch of stats. And the Witcher series is one of my all-time favorites. The Witcher 2 is available on 360, and I highly recommend at least renting it. Incidentally, after Yahtzee's review came out lambasting the game for not telling you how to do things, CD Projekt added a tutorial mode to the Enhanced Edition (that's their equivalent of a GOTY edition, except it's available at no charge if you bought the original version; even if I didn't like the game I'd have bought it just to encourage that kind of business practice).

Witcher 2's on 360? Damn, better update my gamefly queue.

 

[Krantos]

An RPG that non-reactive to the players actions cannot be considered a 'full-on, heavyweight RPG'.

Sorry, but that depends entirely on how you define RPG, and from what I've seen, no one can come up with a definition that satisfies everyone.

I know what defines an RPG in my eyes: a game where you play a role irrespective to the one you're currently holding.. Sure, that makes virtually every game in existence some sort of RPG if you wanna get into semantics, but there you go, and there's nothing anyone can tell me that'll make me think otherwise.

I'm not really going to respond to your RPG definition, as you've already brought up the biggest problem with it. Instead, I'm just going to point out that I said no one can come up with a definition that satisfies everyone.

Anyone can come up with a definition that suits them (most people here probably already have one). My point wasn't that such definitions can't be made, they already are. My point was that speaking in absolutes as the person I quoted was (saying something can't be an RPG unless if satisfies specific criteria) is futile, as it is completely subjective.

Let me put it this way. Saying an RPG has to or can't have certain aspects, be they gameplay or narrative constructs, is akin to that Wall Street Journal review of Borderlands. For those unfamiliar, it raised quite a stir as the game was compared to things like Halo and Call of Duty, but only in those aspects where the latter two were most proficient (Competative Multiplayer most notably). The problem comes when people fail to distinguish between elements central to the genre and elements they simply enjoy.

Obviously, that's not a problem with the definition you provided, I just wanted to make it clear what I was referring to and arguing against in my initial post, as your reply wasn't really related to that point.