Eredin says 12 sentences during the whole game and.....

[SpacemanCometh]

for Geralt, them wanting to kill her (not take her, but kill her!!!), so why would he really care about their reasons? Would you try to find out whats behind the notion of a killer, who wants to kill your daughter? (plus, Geralt knows... one stupid prophecy about a child of elder blood kid wiping Aen Elle and becoming ruler of worlds) i would definitely not... that guy would be good as dead.

Again, the problem is not that we need Eredin to explain his motivations. We know why he does what he does but that isn´t the point. The point is that the game fails to present him as a serious threat. We are supposed to fear him and we are supposed to hate him but the game does a poor job of conveying these feelings because he ends up being a totally unthreatening chump. You meet him, he says some "yo momma sux Geralt" shlock and then you EASILY kill him.

This is it? This is the big bad guy the people are terrified of? This is the guy Geralt sees in his nightmares? This is the guy Ciri has been running from for years? Why didn´t she just turn around and cut off his fucking head if he was such a wimp the whole time. Ciri and Geralt are chopping up the members of the Wild Hunt like they´re nothing, and then Geralt finally gets a confrontation with his archnemesis and he doesn´t even get grazed. Why would we ever have been worried about Eredin in the first place when he´s a total all talk no walk chump character.

This is my point, we know Eredin´s motivations, we don´t need him to give some cliche supervillain speech to Geralt about why his actions are justified. But Eredin needs to have SOME interaction with SOMETHING in the story to support the image the game paints of him as being some sort of super tough scary guy. Because otherwise WHAT WAS CIRI EVEN RUNNING AWAY FROM? If Eredin is a wimp, the whole chase aspect of the story is nonsensical.

 

[moonknightgog]

Eredin needs to kick Geralt's ass, as Azar Javed, Vilgefortz and Letho did.

 

[TudorAdrian]

But Eredin needs to have SOME interaction with SOMETHING in the story to support the image the game paints of him as being some sort of super tough scary guy. Because otherwise WHAT WAS CIRI EVEN RUNNING AWAY FROM? If Eredin is a wimp, the whole chase aspect of the story is nonsensical.

Blunt but straight to the point

 

[moonknightgog]

Because otherwise WHAT WAS CIRI EVEN RUNNING AWAY FROM? If Eredin is a wimp, the whole chase aspect of the story is nonsensical.

Well....to be fair, Ciri kicked his ass when she was 15 years old.

 

[jj284b]

Again, the problem is not that we need Eredin to explain his motivations. We know why he does what he does but that isn´t the point. The point is that the game fails to present him as a serious threat. We are supposed to fear him and we are supposed to hate him but the game does a poor job of conveying these feelings because he ends up being a totally unthreatening chump. You meet him, he says some "yo momma sux Geralt" shlock and then you EASILY kill him.

This is it? This is the big bad guy the people are terrified of? This is the guy Geralt sees in his nightmares? This is the guy Ciri has been running from for years? Why didn´t she just turn around and cut off his fucking head if he was such a wimp the whole time. Ciri and Geralt are chopping up the members of the Wild Hunt like they´re nothing, and then Geralt finally gets a confrontation with his archnemesis and he doesn´t even get grazed. Why would we ever have been worried about Eredin in the first place when he´s a total all talk no walk chump character.

This is my point, we know Eredin´s motivations, we don´t need him to give some cliche supervillain speech to Geralt about why his actions are justified. But Eredin needs to have SOME interaction with SOMETHING in the story to support the image the game paints of him as being some sort of super tough scary guy. Because otherwise WHAT WAS CIRI EVEN RUNNING AWAY FROM? If Eredin is a wimp, the whole chase aspect of the story is nonsensical.

then play it on harder difficulty if those duels against Eredin, or for example Imlerith were too easy for you... at Deadmarch, killing Imlerith was much harder to accomplish than anything thrown at me in Witcher 2, Letho was much simpler to kill off...

and regarding his interactions, again, im sorry, but this is story from Geralt perspective, and Eredin had minimal contact with him.. for Eredin, Geralt is just small nuisance, quite insignificant for his plans.. why would he lose any time wiht him?

I will strange actually with that notion that everything needs to be given to players on a silver platter... i hate it actually.. best books usually leave a lot for reader's imagination, and Witcher 3 story is quite close to that experience with benefit to be able to find a lot of background clues about a lot of background stories...

 

[moonknightgog]

I will strange actually with that notion that everything needs to be given to players on a silver platter... i hate it actually.. best books usually leave a lot for reader's imagination, and Witcher 3 story is quite close to that experience with benefit to be able to find a lot of background clues about a lot of background stories...

No, this is not a problem. TW1 ending was really ambiguous, and the narrative didn't explain anything.
But, in the game there were all the necessary hints to fully understand the plot, if the player is smart enough to get them.

In TW3....there's nothing like that.

 

[jj284b]

you didn't understood the plot of Witcher 3?

 

[SpacemanCometh]

then play it on harder difficulty if those duels against Eredin, or for example Imlerith were too easy for you.

Well, this may be kind of straying from the topic here but I did play the game on Death March, wasnt overlevelled, and Eredin was still a piece of cake. And the majority of reactions I´ve read regarding the final bossfight are similar to my own

But then honestly, I feel that the best way to characterize Eredin a little further would be through his actual bossfight. At least on the harder difficulties, if it was a super tough fight then it would properly convey the idea that Eredin is a scary guy without the need for additional dialogue. I´ve stated this in another thread, but I feel that if they upped his damage drastically and maybe gave him a new attack or a third phase in the fight then it would go a long way in making Eredin seem like the skilled warrior that he´s supposed to be.

This is also something that could potentially be modded into the game by someone far more skilled at such things than me.

 

[jj284b]

Well, this may be kind of straying from the topic here but I did play the game on Death March, wasnt overlevelled, and Eredin was still a piece of cake. And the majority of reactions I´ve read regarding the final bossfight are similar to my own

But then honestly, I feel that the best way to characterize Eredin a little further would be through his actual bossfight. At least on the harder difficulties, if it was a super tough fight then it would properly convey the idea that Eredin is a scary guy without the need for additional dialogue. I´ve stated this in another thread, but I feel that if they upped his damage drastically and maybe gave him a new attack or a third phase in the fight then it would go a long way in making Eredin seem like the skilled warrior that he´s supposed to be.

This is also something that could potentially be modded into the game by someone far more skilled at such things than me.

maybe, but then he got beaten by Ciri when she was 15 or 16.. For me personally, Imlerith fight was the toughest fight in the game. It took me some time to learn how to beat him during last phase, when he started to teleport around, and because i usually prefer melee oriented characters, i didnt had quen to absorb his attacks, or alchemy resistance to survive more than 2 hits... and the ending sequence with Geralt finally kililng that bastard was the most satisfying thing of W3 game for me... he killed Vesemir, he had to die the most cruel way possible (Igni to the face)

overall, difficulty at the end of the game was not that hard, even on Dead March. i think this is something that should be addressed by CDPR, not the story itself (but if they add some stuff they cut off, as DLC i would not mind).

 

[inanimate_object]

you didn't understood the plot of Witcher 3?

The problem is that you are the one consistently misunderstanding things. Multiple posters now have listed all the reasons why the main villain is unsatisfactory in the story of Witcher 3. Their criticism would be valid in all circles of literary criticism. Yours would not.

Geralt is not consuming his own mythos. Whether Geralt cares about the Wild Hunt's motivations is MOOT. Because the PLAYER is the one consuming the mythos, and you better give him a damn good reason to feel something towards the villain. There is not one single defining characteristic of the Wild Hunt. They are big lumbering nameless aliens. And their lack of depth does not make them "complex" as you would like to suggest. Moreover, I believe you must be a very very young person to believe that achieving character depth requires a length sit down with the protagonist for a 20 minute conversation outlining each of their goals. This isn't the Matrix, depth and believability of the villain can be achieved in so many more natural ways, and DESERVED to be so.

I'm not sure whether at this point you actually believe the stuff you are posting, or if you are ignorantly trying to defend Witcher 3 to the death. In either case, I suggest reading a few books before trying to defend the legitimacy of a villain so contrite and one-dimensional it makes Halo seem like Citizen Kane.

 

[jj284b]

The problem is that you are the one consistently misunderstanding things. Multiple posters now have listed all the reasons why the main villain is unsatisfactory in the story of Witcher 3. Their criticism would be valid in all circles of literary criticism. Yours would not.

Geralt is not consuming his own mythos. Whether Geralt cares about the Wild Hunt's motivations is MOOT. Because the PLAYER is the one consuming the mythos, and you better give him a damn good reason to feel something towards the villain. There is not one single defining characteristic of the Wild Hunt. They are big lumbering nameless aliens. And their lack of depth does not make them "complex" as you would like to suggest. Moreover, I believe you must be a very very young person to believe that achieving character depth requires a length sit down with the protagonist for a 20 minute conversation outlining each of their goals. This isn't the Matrix, depth and believability of the villain can be achieved in so many more natural ways, and DESERVED to be so.

I'm not sure whether at this point you actually believe the stuff you are posting, or if you are ignorantly trying to defend Witcher 3 to the death. In either case, I suggest reading a few books before trying to defend the legitimacy of a villain so contrite and one-dimensional it makes Halo seem like Citizen Kane.

first, im 37 years old... second, i read Witcher book for the first time, probably 15 years ago, and i own all books Sapkowski wrote, not just Witcher series, so im quite familiar with the author writing style... third, im losing interest repeating my points over and over again... either you read them, or i just stop replying on your posts.

You want depth where it is none. Wild Hunt was handled correctly by CDPR in W3 game. Eredin had exactly same motives in W3, as it had in Sapkowski's books. if you think he lacked depts, go ahead and tell that to the author... CDPR made this game from Geralt perspective. Eredin wanted to kill Ciri, therefore there was nothing to be talked about with them.. they had to be killed, and for Geralt it was totally pointless to hear anythng from their side trying to "appologize" their hunt on Ciri.

So, actually, it seems to me it is you who should read the books (not just wiki summaries, but real paper books..)
At this point, i have no intention continuing this conversation, as you keep using personal insults, therefore im adding you to my ignore list.

 

[TudorAdrian]

This isn't the Matrix, depth and believability of the villain can be achieved in so many more natural ways, and DESERVED to be so.

Very well said & well versed. They could have elaborated on Eredin's character in a lot more ways than getting a sit down with the guy...Geralt's nightmares for one, cutscenes with dialogue between Eredin and his band, Ciri flashbacks/playthroughs etc...you name it. I've read somewhere around here that they even had a quest lined up where Geralt would have potentially infiltrated the Wild Hunt but was taken out of the game for some reason (it was on Eurogamer I think)...this would have had massive potential.

 

[moonknightgog]

you didn't understood the plot of Witcher 3?

Not entirely.

What Eredin wants?
Why Avallac'h open the portal exactly in that moment?
How did the white frost appear in Geralt's world?
How and why Ciri defeat the White frost?
What was "the trap" which Avallac'h speaks when the Wild Hunt appears in Skellige?
Why exactly Eredin killed his king? Just for the sake of power?


But actually we are talking about Eredin.
We don't know his motivations, his plan, his personality, his relationship with Ciri and Avallac'h. at the very and...he seems just a boring trash mob to defeat instead of the big threat which want to kill your daughter.

---------- Updated at 01:53 PM ----------

Yes, I noticed that.

"I come for her, of the prophecy."

Or this.

[video=youtube;kbXvl7-XlaY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbXvl7-XlaY[/video]

"We've been here before...etc..."

Or the dialogues between Geralt and this randome peasant in this trailer, which I know for sure it was in a playable demo back in 2013, probably set in Skellige.

I have to add this:

"Geralt, have some dignity, you know how this will end".

Completely missing.

 

[aop]

*lot's of irrelevant BS*

You can't really excuse Witcher 3's poor characterisation of main villain even if the source material was shit. CDPR made the game, not Sapkowski.

 

[inanimate_object]

first, im 37 years old... second, i read Witcher book for the first time, probably 15 years ago, and i own all books Sapkowski wrote, not just Witcher series, so im quite familiar with the author writing style... third, im losing interest repeating my points over and over again... either you read them, or i just stop replying on your posts.

You want depth where it is none. Wild Hunt was handled correctly by CDPR in W3 game. Eredin had exactly same motives in W3, as it had in Sapkowski's books. if you think he lacked depts, go ahead and tell that to the author... CDPR made this game from Geralt perspective. Eredin wanted to kill Ciri, therefore there was nothing to be talked about with them.. they had to be killed, and for Geralt it was totally pointless to hear anythng from their side trying to "appologize" their hunt on Ciri.

So, actually, it seems to me it is you who should read the books (not just wiki summaries, but real paper books..)
At this point, i have no intention continuing this conversation, as you keep using personal insults, therefore im adding you to my ignore list.

Your age and knowledge of the books do not impress me. Many posters including myself have read the original novels in Polish, and yet don't see fit to bring it in defense or critique of the GAME. Because as numerous posters have repeatedly told you: Telling people to read the books in order to understand the game is NOT a defense of the game, it is an indictment.

You are saying the same thing over and over again. You haven't addressed anyone's points beyond suggesting that people are stupid and don't understand the plot and should read 5 novels if they want to appreciate the masterpiece that is Witcher 3 storytelling. You also continue to belabour this nonsense point about Geralt not wanting to know the Wild Hunt therefore the Wild Hunt's pathetic character development is justifiable. This has also been refuted by several posters. Simply put, you are spewing a lot of nothing, and should read other posters before commenting. Round and round we go.

 

[Tehellet]

I'd been wondering about this. I remember there being an interview with the lead writers during the initial Game Informer reveal which mentioned a very personal foe for Geralt. I was looking forward to some actual interaction between the two. Disappointing.

 

[jj284b]

knowledge of Sapkowski's books is important for understanding the story. Yennefer is clear example - if you didnt read books, you have no idea why would Geralt pick Yennefer over Triss, while her behavior would turn you off, and you would consider her to be really bad person. Yet, books give her character important background, which you cannot cut out. Once you read the books, you know Geralt would be looking for Yennefer, and he would behave around her exactly as he is behaving in the game. so no, you cannot cut the books away from witcher 3 game. Wild Hunt got same treatment. Their motives were taken from the book. They didnt changed. Its up to player if he wants, to read the books and learn what the fuss is all about.

 

[TudorAdrian]

knowledge of Sapkowski's books is important for understanding the story. Yennefer is clear example - if you didnt read books, you have no idea why would Geralt pick Yennefer over Triss, while her behavior would turn you off, and you would consider her to be really bad person. Yet, books give her character important background, which you cannot cut out. Once you read the books, you know Geralt would be looking for Yennefer, and he would behave around her exactly as he is behaving in the game. so no, you cannot cut the books away from witcher 3 game. Wild Hunt got same treatment. Their motives were taken from the book. They didnt changed. Its up to player if he wants, to read the books and learn what the fuss is all about.

Look I think that the books have their own charm and they're pretty good. However, the games taken as a whole or trilogy need to stand on their own feet. They can make enough allusions to book lore and that's fine as long as it gets people in the "mood". The main problem here was that CDPR announced that W3 would be the last part of Geralt's saga so naturally people expected that CDPR would tie up all the threads they so masterfully crafted along the course of the previous 2 games..Sadly, due to whatever reasons they simply decided to omit crucial bits of character development that would have helped in this regard. This and the fact that the closure Geralt got was so underwhelming is what got people upset..in a way you kind of feel betrayed because you're so invested into the game's story arcs (not the books but the events that kickstarted with W1 and continued with W2) only to get a rushed third act, no proper villain development whatsoever (again, I'm talking about the games on their own, leave the books out of it) and 3 slides for ending a trilogy that sums up 3 marvelous games...now, as someone who actually enjoyed all the games and got sucked into Geralt's trials as they went ahead, I can only say that we deserved better story-wise. I am not challenging what CDPR have pulled of from a technical point of view but story-wise it's a long way from a full baked cookie.

 

[inanimate_object]

knowledge of Sapkowski's books is important for understanding the story. Yennefer is clear example - if you didnt read books, you have no idea why would Geralt pick Yennefer over Triss, while her behavior would turn you off, and you would consider her to be really bad person. Yet, books give her character important background, which you cannot cut out. Once you read the books, you know Geralt would be looking for Yennefer, and he would behave around her exactly as he is behaving in the game. so no, you cannot cut the books away from witcher 3 game. Wild Hunt got same treatment. Their motives were taken from the book. They didnt changed. Its up to player if he wants, to read the books and learn what the fuss is all about.

That's EXACTLY the problem you don't seem to understand (or don't want to understand).

It is NOT up to the player to read the books and understand the game's story. It's up to the GAME to have a fully contained story that can stand on its own two feet without having to rely on the player spending more money reading 5 novels in poorly translated English.

Seriously, at this point I suspect you're probably trolling and don't actually believe anything you are saying. If I released a 60 second film about a short hair-footed 50 year old man running across a sable field in grassy glades over a grey curtain of rain, and nothing more, what do you think the perception of my story will be? How is it in any way acceptable for me to defend this 60 second film by saying: "Well if you read the 3 gigantic lord of the rings books, you'd understand! So it's your fault for not reading the external material, not my fault for having written something that doesn't work without prior knowledge"

 

[jj284b]

again, as story is told from Geralt perspective, i dont think ending was handled insufficient.. all threads were closed in my playthrough, Radovid was killed by Philippa, Temeria was protectorate of Nilfgard and Emhyr won the war, but Ciri was free doing whatever she wanted without Emhyr's influence (he didnt deserved having her back, he wanted to sleep with his own daughter in the past, thats disqualifies him forewer). Geralt ended up with Yennefer, living together away from everybody, which is exactly what they always wanted. it was a perfect ending of Geralt's story for me.