x

You have decided to merge your account with the GOG.com.

You can now start participating in the community discussions.

x

You chose to opt out from the merge process.
Please note that you will not be able to access your account until you opt in.

We strongly encourage you to merge your RED account with the GOG.com one.
If you want to do it later please try logging in again.

  • Register

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

(Article) 'The Witcher 2' Didn't Try to Offer Endless Freedom, and That's Why It Was So Good

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • (Article) 'The Witcher 2' Didn't Try to Offer Endless Freedom, and That's Why It Was So Good

    As someone who was disappointed by the third game, I just came here to post this interesting article which neatly explains the crucial difference between W2 and W3. It contains some spoilers.

    http://www.vice.com/read/the-witcher...hy-its-so-good

    "The official website of The Witcher 3: The Wild Hunt sells the game as the ultimate fantasy of going where you want to and doing whatever you want. You "chart your own path to adventure" while you "set your own goals and choose your own destinations." It's a game that requires you to "make hard choices" in order to get to one of "multiple endings that result from choices you make throughout the game." The game is a platform for freedom.

    The Witcher 2 , on the other hand, is a game that embraces the tight brutality of unfreedom. It shows what happens when people are caught making decisions they might not want to within circumstances they cannot control. In a world of games where you can do anything, it is a game that puts up blockers and blinders at every level. It tells you that you can't make choices, that you can't have freedom, and it demonstrates what happens when people are trapped. "

    Any W2 fans still around here?

  • #2
    it is indeed as described in that article, in tw2 Geralt is trapped, yet there are a lot of hard choices that indeed have "game-changing" consequences, but tw3 has more freedom, too much big and empty space, some choices change something, others won't cange a thing,
    but im not dissapointed with tw3, i just think it has some serious flaws, but not dissapointed in general

    flaws:
    Iorveth is not in the game, big and empty spaces, orange lighting system, orange? really!?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Babli.480
      As someone who was disappointed by the third game, I just came here to post this interesting article which neatly explains the crucial difference between W2 and W3. It contains some spoilers.

      http://www.vice.com/read/the-witcher...hy-its-so-good

      "The official website of The Witcher 3: The Wild Hunt sells the game as the ultimate fantasy of going where you want to and doing whatever you want. You "chart your own path to adventure" while you "set your own goals and choose your own destinations." It's a game that requires you to "make hard choices" in order to get to one of "multiple endings that result from choices you make throughout the game." The game is a platform for freedom.

      The Witcher 2 , on the other hand, is a game that embraces the tight brutality of unfreedom. It shows what happens when people are caught making decisions they might not want to within circumstances they cannot control. In a world of games where you can do anything, it is a game that puts up blockers and blinders at every level. It tells you that you can't make choices, that you can't have freedom, and it demonstrates what happens when people are trapped. "

      Any W2 fans still around here?
      More than you may think. I already posted the article in some threads. Totally agree with the author but there are more flaws in the game. TW3 didn't create a consistent story or try to create a good save import
      Last edited by Sam2305; 11-09-16, 20:01.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Babli.480
        Any W2 fans still around here?
        If by TW2 fans you mean people who liked the game, then yes. If you mean those who think TW2 is far above the other two games, then I fear I'm not among them.

        I have a hard time buying into the thesis of the article's author when he is praising the best and most significant implementation of choice and consequence in the series, and perhaps in any AAA WRPG, for restricting the player's freedom... wait, what? That does not compute.

        And while TW3 had the weakest overall main plot, I didn't feel difficult choices were lacking. There were plenty in both sidequests and the Velen arc, which was the narrative high point of the game and easily on par with anything in the previous two.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Gwydden
          And while TW3 had the weakest overall main plot, I didn't feel difficult choices were lacking. There were plenty in both sidequests and the Velen arc, which was the narrative high point of the game and easily on par with anything in the previous two.
          This.
          I mean, even if The Witcher 2 had a really big choice that changed pretty much all the game, The Witcher 3 had a lot of minor choices that you could saw the consequences later in the game, and that made them really cool.
          Great article nonetheless.

          Comment


          • #6
            Totally agree with the author. Witcher 3 is a fantastic game, but lacks a lot of the things that makes W2 the best game I've ever played.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by NS_Elwin
              This.
              I mean, even if The Witcher 2 had a really big choice that changed pretty much all the game, The Witcher 3 had a lot of minor choices that you could saw the consequences later in the game, and that made them really cool.
              Great article nonetheless.
              Like what?

              Comment


              • #8
                Although I really like Witcher 2, I do not think it is the best game of the series, it had the best writing and really hard choices that to this day I still think about even though they don't matter that much in Witcher 3, but as a game, it was too "console-ized" for me to properly enjoy it as many people do, in terms of story (even if it is murky) I think it was the most "mature" of the series and the best written by far, also enhanced by how the article puts it, it was limited, it did not give the player too much freedom therefore it preserved the storytelling strength.

                I agree with the article, Open World game design really does affect storytelling potential of an RPG, no matter how much you work hard on it there will always be a weakness in the storytelling, the main story of Witcher 3 is the prime example, mainly due to cut content of course and hiccups in writing and newcomer pandering, but that is the point, giving too much freedom means the storytelling strength suffers.
                Last edited by KingHochmeister; 25-09-16, 01:33.

                Comment


                • #9
                  TW2 is definitely the best of the series in my opinion. For me the main story is the most important part in a game series like TW and TW2's pain plot was very compelling and well written throughout. I loved the linear structure, it allowed for more focused storytelling.

                  Still really like TW3 a lot, I wasnt really disappointed by it because CDPR already made clear that it wont be like TW2 at all. The open world (even though I never asked for it) was handled well, the side quests were by far the best of the series and probably some of the best in RPG's in general. It made care more about Geralt in general too, he felt far more human in this game.

                  The expansions were fantastic too. The story went downhill after finding Ciri and before that only the Baron arc was up to par to TW2.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    easy:
                    The Witcher 2 was written by professionals, and it has all the elements of good mystery story: proper pacing, moral ambiguity, subversion of RPG and fantasy tropes, connected story strings, subtle character development, foreshadowing, twists, turns and all that jazz
                    The Witcher 3 was written by amateurs and it has little to nothing of the above (shit antagonists and poor pacing being the worst offences) and its quality begins and ends in The Bloody Baron act

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Usually when I think about wanting to play a Witcher game, TW2 comes to mind for me before TW3. I only beat TW3 once and the ridiculous length is keeping me from playing it again and the less than stellar main story keeps me from wanting to do a main story only play through. If I play it at a slow pace it will take me months to beat. In general, I still prefer games that are in that 30ish hour time frame. You can play the game two hours a day and beat it in a couple weeks. I also think the story in TW2 was deeper and more interesting than TW3. The story in closed off worlds is always tighter and filled with more detail. In an open world game you can only put so much detail and so many quests into each town or some area of wilderness. A player probably spends more time in Flotsam than in the massive Novigrad. I know for sure that I could easily tell you where everything is in Flotsam or the temple quarter or trade quarter in Vizima are without looking at a map while I could tell probably tell you nothing about Novigrad or any of the other towns in the game (except where the Baron's keep is maybe). Smaller games are more memorable. As much as I enjoyed TW3, I think it would have actually been even better with a smaller map.
                      Last edited by whiplash27; 23-03-17, 16:42.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X