What if CD Projekt made a Fallout Game?

[a721402]

Did they already removed Obsidian from the credits ?

I wonder.
Yesterday I had someone over at TTW Discord ask me for proof that FNV wasn't made by Bethesda, I am still not sure if it was a joke or a serious question.

Not yet, so the person most likely just been ignorant.

 

[Lexx]

Witcher 3 is a good game, but this as a Fallout title? No thanks.

 

[Kohno]

So as title, what if CD Projekt made a Fallout Game?]

As some others have pointed out already... a spectacularly good looking and generally decently to well written game that has boring as fuck gameplay and horrible character systems. Not as bad as Bethie, but not a savior either.

 

[0wing]

As some others have pointed out already... a spectacularly good looking and generally decently to well written game that has boring as fuck gameplay and horrible character systems. Not as bad as Bethie, but not a savior either.

At least they're moving foward, not backwards like Bethestards. The Witcher 2's character system is too simple and barebones but has at least three branches, TW1's is just boring. Bloated with perks but still boring, like Fallout 4 boring. How good CD Projekt Red now? CP2077 will tell.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

I feel as though CD could EASILY copy Fallout 1-2-NV's gameplay no problem.

Witcher has its own gameplay which people are happy with, I feel as though if they were to make Fallout, they'd put effort into making the game how Fallout fans would like it.

 

[Atomkilla]

I feel as though CD could EASILY copy Fallout 1-2-NV's gameplay no problem.

Fallout 1 and 2 have radically different gameplay from NV.

It's not whether CDPR could do it, it's whether they would do it and how profitable it would be for them. Making Fallout in vein of first two games would probably generate less income than making a NV/TW3/something. Sure, hardcore fans would probably praise them but we're a niche. Less money around here than with people who prefer TW3/Skyrim style.
Plus, I don't know how REDEngine would handle isometric, turn-based gameplay. Probably well, but eh, I'm not an expert.

 

[Kohno]

At least they're moving foward, not backwards like Bethestards.

Gameplaywise? I think they've been moving to the wrong direction ever since Witcher 2 -- I was disappointed that they opted for that god awful somersault simulator instead of building upon what W1 did. There's the difference to Beth, though, yes. CDPR is just on the wrong path, not going in reverse.

 

[Atomkilla]

Gameplaywise? I think they've been moving to the wrong direction ever since Witcher 2 -- I was disappointed that they opted for that god awful somersault simulator instead of building upon what W1 did. There's the difference to Beth, though, yes. CDPR is just on the wrong path, not going in reverse.

I thought TW1 was okay in its combat, if simple. I liked various techniques but it all got repetitive after a while, basically just unlocking new animation.
TW2 was a failure for the most part. Horrible combat.
TW3 on the other hand had a fairly well-balanced combat mechanics. It was obviously designed to play on highest difficulty and it was rewarding for that. Not a shitty rollfest like TW2 or a clickfest like TW1, but solid action with variety that can suit your style. Problem is you get OP relatively fast.

But that's combat only. Outside of it I still have mixed feelings over skill systems in all three games.

 

[Kohno]

I thought TW1 was okay in its combat, if simple. I liked various techniques but it all got repetitive after a while

Yeah, it did. No different from the sequels in that regard though. They too got old pretty fast. But yeah, I also liked the different stances and I actually even liked the cursor mechanics to some degree, and combat was - at its best - pretty fun from birds eye perspective (that was sorely absent in the sequels). They really should've built upon that instead of going for a Dark Souls-like.

TW3 ... Not a shitty rollfest like TW2 or a clickfest like TW1, but solid action with variety that can suit your style.

That I don't quite see. Half of the rolling was handled by the sidestep (which I admit was nifty, at first) but it served the same function and as such... well what's really the difference to rolling. And the combat... well, yeah, it was a frantic clickfest on normal difficulty. I didn't even bother to try the highest for all the frustration I'm sure it would've produced.

But that's combat only. Outside of it I still have mixed feelings over skill systems in all three games.

Agreed. Character systems never were CDPR's strong suit... I hope they don't fuck up Cyberpunk because of that (or for any other reason I don't quite see the Witcher games as some weird new messiah's like some seem to).

 

[Atomkilla]

That I don't quite see. Half of the rolling was handled by the sidestep (which I admit was nifty, at first) but it served the same function and as such... well what's really the difference to rolling. And the combat... well, yeah, it was a frantic clickfest on normal difficulty. I didn't even bother to try the highest for all the frustration I'm sure it would've produced.

A friendly advice is to try it out on max difficulty. Don't expect a revelation, but the game was definitely designed to be played that way. The side-stepping clickfest is lost in favor to careful approach to combat and using various stuff at your disposal - alchemy becomes way more important than before, for instance. Sure, at some point you will inevitably become a walking god of death (not including some boss fights), but it's far more rewarding than normal difficulty.
To be honest, I personally couldn't play it on normal. Got boring way too fast.

Agreed. Character systems never were CDPR's strong suit... I hope they don't fuck up Cyberpunk because of that (or for any other reason I don't quite see the Witcher games as some weird new messiah's like some seem to).

I dunno much about Cyberpunk, but I hope they do it well. After all, they got a guy who designed it on board.

 

[Kohno]

A friendly advice is to try it out on max difficulty. Don't expect a revelation, but the game was definitely designed to be played that way. The side-stepping clickfest is lost in favor to careful approach to combat and using various stuff at your disposal - alchemy becomes way more important than before, for instance. Sure, at some point you will inevitably become a walking god of death (not including some boss fights), but it's far more rewarding than normal difficulty.
To be honest, I personally couldn't play it on normal. Got boring way too fast.

I'll probably give it a shot at some point when I get over the first runthrough. I just didn't dare before for the thought of having the same experience, but with 5 reloads per fight.

I dunno much about Cyberpunk, but I hope they do it well. After all, they got a guy who designed it on board.

I liked the PnP back when I still played those things, good, easy to grasp ruleset and interesting world. That's mostly why I'm looking CDPR's 2077 and hoping Mike pushes some buttons that it's not just a scifi GTA/Witcher action popamole.

 

[0wing]

I liked the PnP back when I still played those things, good, easy to grasp ruleset and interesting world. That's mostly why I'm looking CDPR's 2077 and hoping Mike pushes some buttons that it's not just a scifi GTA/Witcher action popamole.

I think he will, no other Cyberpunk project besides some small cellphone action game survived the development process. Mike sure loves his PnP child and wouldn't throw it to untrustworthy developer without having direct control over the game.

 

[Kohno]

I think he will, no other Cyberpunk project besides some small cellphone action game survived the development process. Mike sure loves his PnP child and wouldn't throw it to untrustworthy developer without having direct control over the game.

Wish I could be as trusting as you are.

 

[CerberusGate]

TW3 on the other hand had a fairly well-balanced combat mechanics. It was obviously designed to play on highest difficulty and it was rewarding for that. Not a shitty rollfest like TW2 or a clickfest like TW1, but solid action with variety that can suit your style. Problem is you get OP relatively fast.

I wonder what replaying Witcher 3 on Death March will be like now that I've started playing the Souls games? Will I be more reliant on rolling and dodging this time?

The combat is akin to a lesser version of Dark Souls now that I think about it (not that it's a bad thing since Dark Souls combat is fun).

 

[Atomkilla]

I wonder what replaying Witcher 3 on Death March will be like now that I've started playing the Souls games? Will I be more reliant on rolling and dodging this time?

The combat is akin to a lesser version of Dark Souls now that I think about it (not that it's a bad thing since Dark Souls combat is fun).

I have little experience with Souls (midway on my first playthrough of DS1 which is fantastic so far, but I have little time to play) but when it comes to TW3, there is a bit more of Souls feel to it when you play heavier difficulty, but not too much. More parrying, dodging, rolling and sidestepping, sure, but it's still The Witcher - fast action, combos and Signs/alchemy play an equally important role as well, especially the latter.
I can't say for sure, really. Max difficulty is definitely the closest to Souls that TW3 gets, but it's still an entirely different thing from Souls combat. Not a bad thing though. I personally enjoy both a lot.

 

[eissa]

i still miss the alchemy from witcher 2, it something that recreate the feel from the book

 

[CerberusGate]

I have little experience with Souls (midway on my first playthrough of DS1 which is fantastic so far, but I have little time to play) but when it comes to TW3, there is a bit more of Souls feel to it when you play heavier difficulty, but not too much. More parrying, dodging, rolling and sidestepping, sure, but it's still The Witcher - fast action, combos and Signs/alchemy play an equally important role as well, especially the latter.
I can't say for sure, really. Max difficulty is definitely the closest to Souls that TW3 gets, but it's still an entirely different thing from Souls combat. Not a bad thing though. I personally enjoy both a lot.

Agreed. TW3's combat is somewhat close to Souls combat but that is definitely not a bad thing (plus it means I can kill higher levelled monsters with the right gear, potions and spells though I will get killed in one hit). It's not as hard but that enables accessibility.

i still miss the alchemy from witcher 2, it something that recreate the feel from the book

What I don't miss is not being able to drink potions during combat. It's bizarre that Geralt can only drink Swallow before a battle when he is fine than in battle where he would be dying.

 

[Atomkilla]

What I don't miss is not being able to drink potions during combat. It's bizarre that Geralt can only drink Swallow before a battle when he is fine than in battle where he would be dying.

That's more of a book thing. In those, Geralt (and all witchers in general) carefully prepares for each monster contract and drinks potions before an encounter. They take a while before they come into effect, which lasts for a few hours usually. In other words, drinking potions during combat is not that Witchereqsue.
IIRC TW2 didn't allow that (which was okay), but potions there had a shitty duration of 5min average, which was annoying and not very lore-friendly either.

On the other hands, games in general made many weird book-to-game transitions for the sake of gameplay. From introducing stuff like meditation (and no sleep), over alchemy which while often entertaining is fairly wonky, to Signs which are absolute joke - from becoming a fairly simple magic tool to full-blown sorcery and Jedi mind tricks. It also introduced bombs and crossbow, but at least their introduction isn't overly jarring.
Similar goes for stuff like forging swords and armors - the first game was probably the best in that regard, since it offered very little in terms of loot but was more faithful to the books - Geralt, in essence, carries a leather jacket, a sword, knife and his wits and reflexes into battle - everything else comes before it. But, you know, players demanded more loot and customization so you get more stuff in sequels. At least TW3 introduced Witcher gear which was best IMO and made most of the other stuff redundant, at least after early game.

 

[CerberusGate]

That's more of a book thing. In those, Geralt (and all witchers in general) carefully prepares for each monster contract and drinks potions before an encounter. They take a while before they come into effect, which lasts for a while then. In other words, regardless of how you put it, drinking potions during combat is not that Witchereqsue.

Hmm... didn't know that. Good to know.

IIRC TW2 didn't allow that (which was okay), but potions there had a shitty duration of 5min average, which was annoying and not very lore-friendly.

Yeah, 5 minutes of weak regeneration is no use if you can't finish off your opponents within that time. Witcher 1's Swallow appeared better than 2's at times though the drinking during battle was a thing then too.

On the other hands, games in general made many weird book-to-game transitions for the sake of gameplay. From introducing stuff like meditation (and no sleep), over alchemy which while often entertaining is fairly wonky, to Signs which are absolute joke - from becoming a fairly simple magic tool to full-blown sorcery and Jedi mind tricks. It also introduced bombs and crossbow, but at least their introduction isn't overly jarring.
Similar goes for stuff like forging swords and armors - the first game was probably the best in that regard, since it offered very little in terms of loot but was more faithful to the books - Geralt, in essence, carries a leather jacket, a sword, knife and his wits and reflexes into battle - everything else comes before it. But, you know, players demanded more loot and customization so you get more stuff in sequels. At least TW3 introduced Witcher gear which was best IMO and made most of the other stuff redundant, at least after early game.

The games probably did that for accessibility. I agree that some of it is odd, like Geralt being willing to hoard loot (I mean, a rich Witcher?) and being willing to carry more than the necessities.

It's not too awful but it is evident of a transition from book to game.

 

[Gizmojunk]

So, as title, what if CD Projekt made a Fallout Game?

Which CDProjekt? [Meaning the one who did Witcher, or the ones who did W2 & 3]

If the first one, then I'd have all the confidence in the world —short of if Troika had done it
If the second or latter... meh.

So, about the world space, what if, a "semi open world" like witcher 3,

Or a semi-open world like Fallout's [or even FO3's]?

3 Can't fast travel, at least it would be much more restricted.

I've nothing against [so-called] fast travel, so long as it is indeed a misnomer, and the game truly tracks the time it would take to cover the distance; and preferably accounts for the time's effect buffs and quests.