The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt - An Open Letter

[Paul_cz]

Fun fact:

Witcher 1 was released october 2007 PC only

Witcher 2 was released may 2011, 43 months after Witcher 1, PC only.

Witcher 3 will be released may 2015, 48 months after Witcher 2, on 3 platforms simultaneously.

Now consider scope and complexity.

Plus the X360 version took time and effort, plus the enhanced editions..

 

[Scholdarr.452]

He didn't say, "what will appeal to new players" or "what will appeal to most players" he said, " we know that will appeal to players."

Well, the only players of Witcher 1 and 2 they gots is us! We're it, baby. We're the test bed. For good or bad, these forums are the primary player-response base for CDPR. Followed by Steam and GoG of course.

Well, he said only "players", so it's not sure whether he means all possible players or only people who played W1 and W2. I think it would be a bit naive to believe than CDPR only get feedback from those who played their previous games. I'm pretty sure that they also investigate what is "trending" and what other games that sell well offer. In the end, the crucial decisions are made by the business people (or at least they have a weighty word in the process) and they care more about what sells than about what their former target group wants. I mean, W1 was a PC-only kind of niche game and W2 followed the same basic principles while being more open to newer trends and later to Xbox consumers. But for W3 their goal is to reach the console market and therefore what we kind of have to call mainstream. They reach for the Skyrim and Dragon Age consumers and even beyond...

So with that in mind the quote gets another dimension, another level to fear about the development of the game. I mean do we know exactly that features X is made in a specific way because people who played W1 liked it that way or is it made that way because the millions of customers who play Skyrim like it that way? I think both could be possible and it probably depends on the situation but even the possiblity scares me.

And then again, I'm fundamentally opposted to the idea in general that video game creators should implement something in their games which they don't really like themselves. I just don't think good games evolve from that design philosophy. I mean listening to forum feedback is great and necessary and good devs should always test their own approaches against public opinion. If they acknowledge in the process that the community might be right and feature X could be more fun when doing it differently everything is cool. In that case the community could convince the devs. But in that case the devs agree and they've taken over that opinion and they like the feature. That's not the same than implementing something you don't believe in. That way you lose motivation, passion and your vision brickles. Like I've said, it's the easiest way to make a mediocre game... :/

 

[His_Majesty]

I don't think the ending was "ruined". It certainly wasn't what many people expected it to be. But I rather take a controversial but original idea than a brainwashed one, doing "what people expect you to do". (And althoug that's off-topic: the original ME ending suffered a lot from its lacking execution and lazy staging and not so much of its original idea imo. The "changes" ending followed the same main principle but it was quite a lot more enjoyable due to more care to the details...)
.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

I don't think the ending was "ruined".

Wasn't ruined? EH? It was practically a valid reason to sue the company for false advertising. "There will be no A B C endings" my ass...

Please read and quote my whole post...

I never read any marketing messages about the ending before playing so I can't comment on that on. Maybe they lied about it or didn't deliver on certain promises. My assessment was only based on my own playing experience here.

@KingXVI
I'm not sure if I understand what you want to tell me...

 

[His_Majesty]

Please read and quote my whole post...

I never read any marketing messages about the ending before playing so I can't comment on that on. Maybe they lied about it or didn't deliver on certain promises. My assessment was only based on my own playing experience here.

@KingXVI
I'm not sure if I understand what you want to tell me...

The Mass Effect 3 ending is often ridiculised because it boils down to choosing between three colours. Not to mention the deus ex machina space child.

 

[TmTapani]

Please read and quote my whole post...

I never read any marketing messages about the ending before playing so I can't comment on that on. Maybe they lied about it or didn't deliver on certain promises. My assessment was only based on my own playing experience here.

Fair enough. They did lie though, and everything in ME3 related PR was one of the shittiest stunts a developer has ever engaged in, in my experience.

 

[ReptilePZ]

Uhm... could we stop discussing the ME3 ending, please?

 

[Geralt_of_bsas]

I don't think the ending was "ruined". It certainly wasn't what many people expected it to be. But I rather take a controversial but original idea than a brainwashed one, doing "what people expect you to do". (And althoug that's off-topic: the original ME ending suffered a lot from its lacking execution and lazy staging and not so much of its original idea imo. The "changes" ending followed the same main principle but it was quite a lot more enjoyable due to more care to the details...)

That doesn't mean you should act against your consumers on purpose. You shouldn't just do anything that you personally don't support.

Well to me that wasnt very original, and controversial for the sake of controversy is a sad excuse one can give in my opinion, if that would be one.

I think you went all to the other side of the matter, instead of considering the shades of gray, nobody wants a brainwashed "player-developed" game, but i certainly also dont want a game that says fuck you to everyone that likes it, expects it, or follows it.

The problem wasnt that the ME3 ending wasnt what many expected it to be, the problem is two folded:

1) the ending sabotages the entire franchise's own main goals and tone: optimism, childish power hero fantasy role playing, idealism.

2) the ending sabotages the idea of having a significant choice regarding important story events, and with the most important of them all, the ending, it was missing.

If the ending would've fit the actual games, i guarantee very few people would complain that it didnt reflect choices well, after all, most people that play ME play it in the idealistic galaxy saving hero way it was meant to be played.

But yeah this thread is not for ME, so after your reply lets just end it.

 

[Lahiri.308]

CDPR, I don't care if you release Witcher 3 in may or even 2016, i don't plan to stop playing video games anytime soon in my life. All i want is to play the best RPG ever made, TAKE YOUR TIME. If you really bit more than you could chew, it doesn't matter by this point, JUST DO YOUR BEST to keep your promise to revolutionise the RPG genre with this amazing universe of the Witcher. The real fans will wait and support, no matter what. Just make our wait worth.

 

[Vigilance.492]

I have to admit, I'm pretty upset, because everything was going to line up perfectly for me with ending my job and yada yada.

However if this is what it takes for them to release the game "perfect", then so be it.

Just remember though CDPR: There are no excuses. There is nothing now you can get away with. When you delay a game twice like this, you either use the time wisely, and come out with a polished game, the game looking and playing as good as we both saw and read about over the last couple of years, or you will get completely dragged through the dirt by consumers.

(That's not just for The Witcher 3, Batman Arkham Knight sits in a similar boat and other games that get long delays. You either prove that delay was worth it and necessary or people will seriously question your studios ability to work and manage because they wonder what the delay even did)

 

[Manowar0264]

Well, I hope it's for the best. :cheers:

 

[jjensson]

My respect goes out to CDPR, for having the balls to take as much time as they need to make the game proper. I decided to not cancel my preorder.

If the delay is because of the ever hated consoles, we'll probably never know.

Take your time, CDPR. Make TW3 true to your vision!

 

[joshmosh]

Awww it was due to be released on the same week as my birthday and I had already booked 2 weeks off work so I could do nothing but play the game.

Still, I always appreciate honesty, no matter how hard it is to take, so kudos to Marcin and CDPR. Some people are going to take this news to mean their fears and worries were justified, which isn't entirely unreasonable. However, and no matter how disappointed we are about waiting another 3 months for it, I hope everyone can agree this will be much better in the end. As the legendary Shigeru Miyamoto once said. "A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad".

P.S
I know you don't need me to tell you this CDPR, but in future, plan WAY WAY WAY ahead so that you don't have to delay a game twice. Once might earn you plaudits for doing whatever it takes to get it right, but any more and it just seems like bad project management.

 

[-Alligator-]

A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad .. unless the Enhanced Edition fixes it.

 

[nightrain50]

respect gained

 

[jjensson]

Right now i'm reminded about Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl, which too was delayed multiple times. In the end, despite all the issues the game had, it was one of the absolute best experiences of my gaming life.

 

[glesson.685]

CDPR, I don't care if you release Witcher 3 in may or even 2016, i don't plan to stop playing video games anytime soon in my life. All i want is to play the best RPG ever made, TAKE YOUR TIME. If you really bit more than you could chew, it doesn't matter by this point, JUST DO YOUR BEST to keep your promise to revolutionise the RPG genre with this amazing universe of the Witcher. The real fans will wait and support, no matter what. Just make our wait worth.

Well, a 3 month delay is not much, so it may be just the time to polish the game more. However judging from the trailers, the 35 minute gameplay and some claims stated by the confirmed insider on neogaf a few months ago TW3 might have more serious issues. The simultaneous release on different platforms with the ambitious ideas incorporated in the game might take it's toll on the developers. Bigger and more experienced studios never reached the goals set by TW3, because it's not that easy. The fans expectations will continue to grow and if the title doesn't live to them fully it would be a dissapointment. I'm sure if another delay occurs it would be a major blow to CDPR's credibility after their talk for no more delays in may 2014. Keep in mind the most imporant issue here - more development time means more money spent and it will take it's toll on the company no matter what anyone claims. When you have money restraints you're pushed against the wall to release the product you currently have.

Now I expect a PR blackout for the next 3 - 4 months and then a new and revised strategy how to push the game, because I highly doubt it the goals set from day 1 can be reached. Don't get me wrong - the game will be great, just not as advertised. There are too many limitations at hand, especially with consoles. Many other developers crashed into them head on. Rocksteady included.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Well to me that wasnt very original, and controversial for the sake of controversy is a sad excuse one can give in my opinion, if that would be one.

It wasn't meant as an excuse. I don't want developers implementing stuff for a certain "effect" if they are no fully convinced of it themselves. Stuff doesn't have to be controversial or original, the devs themselves should just like it. I have no idea how Bioware internally came to the ending in ME3 and whether they really like it or not. That's mostly speculative and given Boware's obvious mainstream appeal in general I'd say the whole discussion about it is a bit out of place...
I just want CDPR to develop a game they 100% like themselves. That's how really good games are made imo. Of course you can almost never make true mainstream games that way because such an approach doesn't offer much space for compromises. But also these games are often the most remarkable ones, the real classics.

A certain interview with Swen Vincke from Larian comes to my mind again:

Interviewer: Do you think European developers aim their games towards older audiences?

Swen: I think European games developers aim their games at themselves. And that American developers aim them towards a ‘target audience’, and that’s a very big difference. I’ve seen this myself – I mean, this one [Original Sin] is made for me and my girlfriend, because we were playing Dark Alliance and I said “ah, I like the fact that I am playing together with you, but there’s nothing to do. It’s just hacking and slashing,” and so from there came Original Sin. If I like it, and he likes it [points to imaginary co-developer, not his girlfriend], then there are probably other gamers who will like it too.

Interviewr: That seems very logical.

Swen: Yeah, but it’s surprising how that logic is ignored when you look at it from a publisher perspective, when you have your stocks, charts, percentages… When you sit into those meetings – you lose your head, right! You’re just following numbers [mocks number crunching and talking about stocks] “who can release an RPG without Facebook intergration!” What the hell? [laughs].

http://pcgmedia.com/interview-with-ceo-of-divinity-series-developer-larian-studios-swen-vincke/

That's what I fear when reading such statements about implementing stuff the devs don't like themselves. Maybe it's just a minor thing but even following the approach is imo wrong, at least from a creative point of view. Of course you're following business principles and games that completely build on that stuff sells millions of copies but as a core-gamer myself I can't say I like that. I actually don't like it at all. Such thinking makes video games just more boring, more uniform, more of the same. Not following what "players want" is also a way of offering variety and probably even inventing a new demand. Without that every new game will mostly be based on what worked in other game before and the result will be that many games more or less play and feel the same (I mean we're already experiencing that in the AAA games market)...

 

[Leorgrium]

I'm so sad now ;((((((

 

[Doctalen]

Well, a 3 month delay is not much, so it may be just the time to polish the game more. However judging from the trailers, the 35 minute gameplay and some claims stated by the confirmed insider on neogaf a few months ago TW3 might have more serious issues. The simultaneous release on different platforms with the ambitious ideas incorporated in the game might take it's toll on the developers. Bigger and more experienced studios never reached the goals set by TW3, because it's not that easy. The fans expectations will continue to grow and if the title doesn't live to them fully it would be a dissapointment. I'm sure if another delay occurs it would be a major blow to CDPR's credibility after their talk for no more delays in may 2014. Keep in mind the most imporant issue here - more development time means more money spent and it will take it's toll on the company no matter what anyone claims. When you have money restraints you're pushed against the wall to release the product you currently have.

Now I expect a PR blackout for the next 3 - 4 months and then a new and revised strategy how to push the game, because I highly doubt it the goals set from day 1 can be reached. Don't get me wrong - the game will be great, just not as advertised. There are too many limitations at hand, especially with consoles. Many other developers crashed into them head on. Rocksteady included.

What astounding goals is everyone talking about? People make it sound like they are trying something that nobody has done before. Other than world size I don't honestly see what's so groundbreaking for The Witcher 3. I know it may sound weird to say that, but an open world RPG isn't anything exactly new.