Were the expansions better than main game?

[Pug.]

Chapter II was a little mediocre in my estimation, though, and Chapter III was downright terrible.

"Downright Terrible" seems a bit hyperbolic to me. There was nothing inherently wrong with the quests or storyline in Act 3, most of them just needed some additional fleshing out. A great example of a wasted opportunity occurred during the "Through Time and Space" questline. The developers could have used Geralt's visit to Tir na Lia as an opportunity to better acquaint him with the culture of the Aen Elle and his adversary before the final confrontation. Similarly, the world of Tedd Deireadh was the logical place to delve into the lore of the White Frost. Avallac'h touches on it some, but the player is left wanting more. That is one of the reasons why I think an Enhanced Edition is so desperately needed. With just a few tweaks here and a few additions there, the last chapter could easily be brought up to the standard which they set in Velen.

 

[Gwydden]

It is probably not only the size, the main story starting from Ugly Baby is almost entirely linear, and is not that much more content than the main quest line of Blood and Wine. It is just not very well made and is somewhat rushed, especially the last few quests. The prologue and first act are like 60% of the main quests in the base game (more if we include side quests at their recommended levels), but the quality there is still good. Although the overall large size of the game is probably still a disadvantage as it made managing the development more difficult.

Well, yes, Chapter III has its own reasons why it failed, but I was trying to illustrate how keeping a game this big at the quality of the Velen arc all the way throughout would have been very difficult. To me it feels like comparing the vanilla game and the expansions is like measuring the quality of a ten book saga respective to that of a standalone novel. The former is bound to have more numerous and more pronounced highs and lows than the latter.

"Downright Terrible" seems a bit hyperbolic to me. There was nothing inherently wrong with the quests or storyline in Act 3, most of them just needed some additional fleshing out. A great example of a wasted opportunity occurred during the "Through Time and Space" questline. The developers could have used Geralt's visit to Tir na Lia as an opportunity to better acquaint him with the culture of the Aen Elle and his adversary before the final confrontation. Similarly, the world of Tedd Deireadh was the logical place to delve into the lore of the White Frost. Avallac'h touches on it some, but the player is left wanting more. That is one of the reasons why I think an Enhanced Edition is so desperately needed. With just a few tweaks here and a few additions there, the last chapter could easily be brought up to the standard which they set in Velen.

I don't believe it would be all that easy to fix the third act as you make it out to be. Take Bald Mountain, for example. The best antagonists of the entire game, the Crones, are taken out in the most underwhelming way possible, making nothing of all the setup they had received. Meanwhile, they get overshadowed by Imlerith, easily the game's worst antagonist with barely any setup. This is a common issue with the Wild Hunt. Facing friggin' Whoreson Junior was more cathartic than fighting and defeating Eredin.

Though I agree Through Time and Space was by far the best part of the late game and fleshing it out would definitely help making it more palatable. I just doubt it is enough to improve it as much as you seem to think, and I don't think there's any way to make it come remotely close to Velen without rewriting it entirely.

 

[Guest 3847602]

Some interesting videos I found related to this discussion:

His TW3 review/critique:

HoS:

BaW:

 

[Garrison72]

That dude waaay overthinks the games and nitpicks them to death.

 

[Scryar]

"Downright Terrible" seems a bit hyperbolic to me. There was nothing inherently wrong with the quests or storyline in Act 3, most of them just needed some additional fleshing out. A great example of a wasted opportunity occurred during the "Through Time and Space" questline. The developers could have used Geralt's visit to Tir na Lia as an opportunity to better acquaint him with the culture of the Aen Elle and his adversary before the final confrontation. Similarly, the world of Tedd Deireadh was the logical place to delve into the lore of the White Frost. Avallac'h touches on it some, but the player is left wanting more. That is one of the reasons why I think an Enhanced Edition is so desperately needed. With just a few tweaks here and a few additions there, the last chapter could easily be brought up to the standard which they set in Velen.

I tend to agree with the third act being "downright terrible" rather than just a bunch missed opportunities.
Bald Mountain was ok, but the whole sabbath was lame. It reminded me more of a garden party than a witches sabbath celebrated by the crones. The cut content sounded much more interesting.
Rescuing Margarita and Fringilla was pointless and felt like filler, while there shouldn't have been the necessity for filler at this point.
Through Time and Space was- as you wrote- a concatentation of missed opportunities.
The desert world was just interesting because of Avallach's remarks.
The world with that giant bones and the water world were pointless, which was especially disappointing considering they could have shown anything. So much freedom and so little creativity. If they didn't know how to connect some worlds to the main story they should have left them out or at least shown something interesting. A sneak preview of Cyberpunk 2077 would have been a cool idea.
The ice world was great and provided some much needed context regarding the White Frost.
Tir Na Lia was the biggest wasted opportunity. We learn nothing about the White Frost, the Aen Elle, about the Wild Hunt, about Eredin, about Ciri's relation to him. about Geralt's time as a Rider of the Hunt, about human chidren serving as slaves.
The Skellige questline felt more like they were trying to add more lenght to the main story. . What was the point of killing Lugos? Since when does Geralt cassualy kill kings or a jarl in this case?
The sunstone quest was illogical . Phillipa's plan to become Ciri's advisor could have been interesting if it lead to something. But the content was cut, so the conversation with Phillipa was pointless, again.
The deus ex machina ending was just terrible. First of all they changed the nature of the White Frost and then even refused to explain how Ciri defeated it. There weren't any indications during the game, that Ciri has the power to defeat it or that it can be defeated. Her role was always a different one.

The third act should have been completely dedicated to the White Frost, the Wild Hunt/Aen Elle and Geralt's and Ciri's relation but most of it didn't add anything to these topics and the rest wasn't particulary well written.

@topic
Yeah, imo both expansion stories were far better than the main story of the base game.
If I had to rank all main stories of the trilogy it would look like this
Witcher 2>>> Hearts of Stone>>>>>>>>Blood&wine>Witcher1>Witcher 3

 

[Pug.]

I tend to agree with the third act being "downright terrible" rather than just a bunch missed opportunities.
Bald Mountain was ok, but the whole sabbath was lame. It reminded me more of a garden party than a witches sabbath celebrated by the crones. The cut content sounded much more interesting.
Rescuing Margarita and Fringilla was pointless and felt like filler, while there shouldn't have been the necessity for filler at this point.
Through Time and Space was- as you wrote- a concatentation of missed opportunities.
The desert world was just interesting because of Avallach's remarks.
The world with that giant bones and the water world were pointless, which was especially disappointing considering they could have shown anything. So much freedom and so little creativity. If they didn't know how to connect some worlds to the main story they should have left them out or at least shown something interesting. A sneak preview of Cyberpunk 2077 would have been a cool idea.
The ice world was great and provided some much needed context regarding the White Frost.
Tir Na Lia was the biggest wasted opportunity. We learn nothing about the White Frost, the Aen Elle, about the Wild Hunt, about Eredin, about Ciri's relation to him. about Geralt's time as a Rider of the Hunt, about human chidren serving as slaves.
The Skellige questline felt more like they were trying to add more lenght to the main story. . What was the point of killing Lugos? Since when does Geralt cassualy kill kings or a jarl in this case?
The sunstone quest was illogical . Phillipa's plan to become Ciri's advisor could have been interesting if it lead to something. But the content was cut, so the conversation with Phillipa was pointless, again.
The deus ex machina ending was just terrible. First of all they changed the nature of the White Frost and then even refused to explain how Ciri defeated it. There weren't any indications during the game, that Ciri has the power to defeat it or that it can be defeated. Her role was always a different one.

The third act should have been completely dedicated to the White Frost, the Wild Hunt/Aen Elle and Geralt's and Ciri's relation but most of it didn't add anything to these topics and the rest wasn't particulary well written.

These points have been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere and I am too lazy to respond to each, so I will just say fair enough and "I disagree."

 

[Gwydden]

Yeah, imo both expansion stories were far better than the main story of the base game.
If I had to rank all main stories of the trilogy it would look like this
Witcher 2>>> Hearts of Stone>>>>>>>>Blood&wine>Witcher1>Witcher 3

Expanding upon my previous point, I think this suggests what might be the big reason why the expansions stroke people as better. Lately I've been reading an anthology of short stories featuring Conan the Cimmerian along with the Witcher books, and I cannot help but notice the similarities. To me, it seems like The Witcher franchise (be it in books, comics, games...) works better the closer it is to pure Sword & Sorcery, as small-scale stories rather than big, epic ones.

Ultimately, I think it is more fun to watch Geralt go around having swashbuckling adventures than getting him involved in world changing events. Epic fantasy tales about saving the world or (and I believe many will differ from me here) Game of Thrones-like political drama are very uninteresting and an ill fit for the character, the setting or the genre. After all, the Velen arc wasn't interesting because of Ciri, but because of the Baron and the Crones (as well as an excellent atmosphere and many great sidequests). I suspect the same is likely the case with HoS and B&W.

Which, by the way, I can't wait to get my hands on.

 

[UnknownQuanity]

It's all a matter of personal opinion, but the way that I rank games is by how much fun or enjoyment I derive from them, and according to that scale, TW3 main game was just as good as the expansions.

What I liked about Wild Hunt is that it truly made me feel like I was living the life of a Witcher, and the personal story of a man trying to come to terms with his past and reclaim his family was more appealing to me than a traditional war narrative, which I feel would have been the easier and more cliche route to take.

The open-world form - as ubiquitous as it may seem - is still in its infancy and undergoing growing pains. Wild Hunt had a number of flaws, but as an experimental game in a nascent genre, I think it's successes outweighed its failures.

---------- Updated at 12:53 AM ----------



While CDPR has admitted that the central antagonist of Wild Hunt could use additional background, I think the impetus for killing Eredin was made pretty clear throughout the course of the game. He's trying to abduct Ciri, use her for his personal ends - i.e.creating a portal between Tir na Lia to invade Geralt's homeworld, escape the White Frost, and enslave humanity - and then discard her. When I thought about his character and the predicament of the Aen Elle, I actually found him to be a somewhat empathetic villain, since he is really just trying to save his people, albeit using morally dubious means. In any case, I construed the main campaign to be more about simulating the day-to-day life of a Witcher, and shedding some light on the familial bond between Geralt and Ciri, something which was heretofore unexplored. In that regard I believe that it succeeded remarkably.



There are lots of "half baked ideas" in the expansions, particularly Blood and Wine. Syanna barely features in the DLC, and when she does, it's as part of a ham-fisted romance with Geralt. There's also the reoccurring issue of lack of reactivity to player choice, e.g. if you make the decision to save Syanna, Anna Henrietta grants you an award for your valor, but there is no follow-up dialogue which comments on the status of her relationship with her sister. Not to mention the fact that the decisions which go into determining who visits you at Corvo Bianco make zero sense.

I'm not attacking Blood and Wine because I disliked it - on the contrary, I loved it just as much as the base game - I'm merely trying to show that the expansions themselves are not free from flaws, and that it's easy to forget that they were built on the foundation - both technical and artistic - which Wild Hunt laid. There could have been no Hearts of Stone or Blood and Wine without the previous efforts that went into making the main game.



Blood and Wine is arguably even more permeated with "fan service" than Wild Hunt. Anna Henrietta, Regis, they are all characters from Sapkowski's novels. Regis in particular was another person that CDPR literally brought back from the dead in order to placate fans. I loved seeing him, and his inclusion was a stroke of genius, but your statement is factually incorrect.

I feel the opposite of this. I feel the family story is very cliché. It has been tried so many times in recent movies, books, and TV shows, but it isn't as interesting as the solo protagonist who ventures out on his own IMO. That is actually against the norm of society which is to try and force people into the family mold throughout most of human history. To do the later is to be more unique even if the story has been done before. I also don't feel adding gay people or women protagonists have made the stories more interesting. I actually find the opposite as they characters are often to good to be interesting. I prefer a protagonist with some flaws. Geralt is like that as long as people like Ciri aren't around to keep him on the straight and narrow. He is like Clint Eastwood who was far from cliché and he only came around in the 1960s. There are a lot older stories than that. One of the things that bothers me most about the main story is that Geralt is constantly faced with having to cheer up Ciri and show support for her. To me that is silly. You don't have to show support for someone to succeed and be strong. This has been shown throughout history. In fact he may be encouraging her to believe support is the only important thing in life. I find classical stories like the first two games and the hearts of stone more interesting. To each their own though.

 

[Elkatarus]

I'd have to go with Blood and Wine being better than the main game. Considering the whole wow factor of the environment.

 

[Riven-Twain]

Considering the whole wow factor of the environment.

The Witcher III: Blood and Wow.

 

[Draconifors]

This is going to be a rather long post, because the title of the topic is really broad. Also because I feel like writing a lengthy message, but that's, at best, a tertiary reason.


Short version

All things considered?
No. Despite being the two best expansions for any game I've ever played, neither Hearts of Stone nor Blood and Wine is, in my opinion, better than Wild Hunt itself.

Story-wise?
I wouldn't necessarily say so, although a strong argument could be made that both the Hearts of Stone and Blood and Wine plots are more unique than the main game "find Ciri" one. In fact, I agree with said argument, but just because a story is based on a much-used plot doesn't make it inferior to its more unique expansion counterparts.


Long version

First off, the story aspect, since it's one of the main parts of all of the Witcher games.

Wild Hunt has a long main story, there's no question about that. A long, winding main story that can seem like it's drawing to a close when in fact you're only halfway through it.
Hearts of Stone has a much shorter and more straightforward story, but it has more depth and surprises.
Blood and Wine likewise has a shorter story than the main game, but again with more surprising -- even potentially shocking -- revelations and twists.

All three main stories have at least two different endings, with the main game unsurprisingly -- it is the main game, after all -- taking the #1 spot in this regard.
I would also say that the "Ciri's fate" endings, especially the tragic and empress ones have been brilliantly executed (potential pun not intended, for once). The former in particular is a real masterpiece despite being extremely sad -- I've been successful in avoiding getting it, but have seen it played out.

One of the things that all three stories have in common is that there is no absolutely "best" ending for any of them. Of course, everyone probably has their subjective opinions of what the best endings are, but even with Hearts of Stone I really don't think any ending is objectivelythe best.


Next, a look at the characters.

Starting with the main antagonists.
Hearts of Stone takes the cake in this regard, because it has one of the best -- quite possibly the best -- main antagonist in any game I've ever played or heard of.
Blood and Wine is a special case, because its (presumably) intended main antagonist is not whom I'd consider the real "bad guy". I know I've already posted about that in a more dedicated thread, so I'll say no more here.
As much I dislike saying this, Wild Hunt's main antagonist left much to be desired, especially taking into account how formidable and strong he is said to be throughout the game -- not to mention

Spoiler: Not Witcher 3 related

his appearances in Witcher 1.

There are so many other characters involved in the stories that I will hit the character limit (another unintended pun) on this post if I start delving into that aspect. So, I'll just say that neither the main game nor an expansion stands out in this regard. They're all equally great.


Finally, things other than story and characters.

Blood and Wine gets #1 spot when it comes to the game world and its visuals. As gorgeous and full of details the main game and Hearts of Stone areas are, Toussaint is in its own league.

"Best side quests" award goes to... hmm, I'd say it's a tie between the main game and Blood and Wine. Not when it comes to the number of side quests, obviously, but rather qualities like diversity, interest value and "wow" factor in them.

Both expansions introduced new gameplay mechanics, but counting those would be unfair. I also think it wouldn't be fair to compare the expansions based on their new mechanics, because there's a significant "size" difference between them. So, no medals awarded in that category.

Lastly, the side stuff that's not part of any actual quests.
This one is a tie between all three, but again not in regards to the amount of side stuff.


Conclusion:

None of the three stands out when taking into account absolutely everything. Every one of them is the best in some regard, but also the least good in another regard.


PS. Please excuse any typos that most likely snuck into this mammoth post.

 

[Rawls]

Hmmm ... I think Hearts of Stone is the best questline in the game ... and as stated several times before has the best antagonists. I think the main quest has my favorite character moments in it for Geralt as well as several of the best individual quests (Battle of Kaer Morhen, Family Matters, No Place Like Home, Isle of the Mists, Wandering in the Dark, etc). I also think the base game has by far the best side quests. Blood and Wine has my favorite map in the game, and the gameplay additions make it probably the most fun section to play. It also has this some really cathartic moments and serves as an excellent ending to the series. I prefer to think of them all as one game really at this point. B&W and The Wild Hunt especially are fairly reliant on each other to get the full depth of either story ... as B&W serves the ending. HoS is a bit more independent ... but I don't really think of it as something separate from the main game ... just a distraction Geralt gets mixed up in.

 

[Guest 3847602]

That one aspect of HoS that doesn't get enough praise are the boss battles, which were by far the best in the series as far as I'm concerned.
Other than that - yes, I feel like all three portions complement each other nicely, much as each game in the trilogy have different strengths.

 

[cyberpunkforever]

no,
the base game is awesome, epic, the expansions are great too, they expanda on the already great base awesomeness, they add enw adventures, new mechanics, the main story is abut Geralt and Ciri and the war, then the expansions bring something new,
all the package is good

 

[Deemonef]

The DLC HoS was in my eyes much better than the Main Story.
CDPR is amazing in telling their own stories, making their own characters. It is amazing how great this team is, when bringing their own fantasy on screen.
The Main Story is great, too, but I see some bad things in expand the stories of the characters you knwo from the books. It feels weird in some way and some npcs seem really ooc.

Characters like the Phillip Strenger are amazing, but there are so many books characters which feel not really "okay".
So I say the own ideas and charcters of CDPR are much better and in the DLCs you have much more of it

 

[sv3672]

The DLC HoS was in my eyes much better than the Main Story.
CDPR is amazing in telling their own stories, making their own characters. It is amazing how great this team is, when bringing their own fantasy on screen.
The Main Story is great, too, but I see some bad things in expand the stories of the characters you knwo from the books. It feels weird in some way and some npcs seem really ooc.

The main game is great until about the point when Ciri is found, whether the rest is not as good (but still not "bad") because of the difficulty of trying to finish the books' main story, or there was just not enough time to fully refine and polish the last two acts of the game (which went through some major cuts and reworking before the story became final), I cannot decide. The latter may also be the result of the former, however. Or the game is simply too large and complex, HoS is a small linear story in comparison.

Regarding "OOC" characters, this is somewhat subjective, CDPR did not just want to keep everyone exactly the same as they were in the books, some development is normal after 4 years and all the events that happen, including off screen, between Lady of the Lake and Wild Hunt. Especially in the case of Ciri, who seems to be the most criticized, the developers admitted themselves that she is intentionally different in the game and that she was very challenging to write:

Spoiler

Ciri, in particular, was a child at the start of the books and a teenager when they ended. CD Projekt Red had the task of showing her as a maturing woman. "With Ciri we had the most freedom and it was also the biggest challenge, because she is a very different character," says senior writer Jakub Szamałek. "Now, she's grown up; she's been through a lot of things so we wanted to create a character who is aware of her special place in the world, but who doesn't want to accept it."

Obviously, their ideas of how the characters developed differ from some of the players', and even within the story team there was probably a lot of debate and discussion.

However, the main game trying to tackle a greater challenge is not without its own value, the expansions are only smaller side stories that the player likely cares less about. They might have been easier to write without flaws, but the reward is lower, too.

Characters like the Phillip Strenger are amazing, but there are so many books characters which feel not really "okay".
So I say the own ideas and charcters of CDPR are much better and in the DLCs you have much more of it

Actually, the main characters of Blood and Wine (Regis and Anna Henrietta) are also from the books, and even Syanna was inspired by a book character. Although in this case CDPR's job was easier because the story is not about finishing an epic saga started by someone else, nor did the characters have to be developed compared to the books. The same applies to Shani who has the most screen time in Hearts of Stone.

 

[Deemonef]

The main game is great until about the point when Ciri is found, whether the rest is not as good (but still not "bad") because of the difficulty of trying to finish the books' main story, or there was just not enough time to fully refine and polish the last two acts of the game (which went through some major cuts and reworking before the story became final), I cannot decide. The latter may also be the result of the former, however. Or the game is simply too large and complex, HoS is a small linear story in comparison.

Regarding "OOC" characters, this is somewhat subjective, CDPR did not just want to keep everyone exactly the same as they were in the books, some development is normal after 4 years and all the events that happen, including off screen, between Lady of the Lake and Wild Hunt. Especially in the case of Ciri, who seems to be the most criticized, the developers admitted themselves that she is intentionally different in the game and that she was very challenging to write:

Obviously, their ideas of how the characters developed differ from some of the players', and even within the story team there was probably a lot of debate and discussion.

However, the main game trying to tackle a greater challenge is not without its own value, the expansions are only smaller side stories that the player likely cares less about. They might have been easier to write without flaws, but the reward is lower, too.



Actually, the main characters of Blood and Wine (Regis and Anna Henrietta) are also from the books, and even Syanna was inspired by a book character. Although in this case CDPR's job was easier because the story is not about finishing an epic saga started by someone else, nor did the characters have to be developed compared to the books. The same applies to Shani who has the most screen time in Hearts of Stone.

CDPR doesn't want to finish the books, they tell their own story. The books are allready finished. That's why I have problems with using (too many) characters of the books for this game.
I still like it and think those three games are amazing and it's one of the best trilogies ever, but as I said, when it comes to characters CDPR created by their own, it feels/looks/works better.

I don't like a Ciri who seems to worry more about an elve who "prisoned" her before try to take her freedom than for Geralt and Yennefer. A Triss who acts so mean and "bitchy" ( a thing she seems to overcome at the end of the books) etc.

I know, many of those things are a personal point of view, but the question "were the expansions better than the main game?" is personal, too
I just like to see a new awesome character like Gaunter O'Dim than a Regis who is alive again.

So, yeah, you have book characters in the dlcs too, but I like the way, that the DLC don't try to expand this Ciri, Geralt etc. story in a non-canon way.... exept for Geralt, he is always there

 

[sv3672]

CDPR doesn't want to finish the books, they tell their own story. The books are allready finished.

I meant they wanted to finish a story originally started in the books, in their own way. Of course it was already finished there, but with main characters being "resurrected"/brought back, and TW3 envisioned as the last part of a trilogy, some kind of conclusion or finale to the saga was needed again, which is a greater challenge to the writers than a mostly self contained DLC story.

I still like it and think those three games are amazing and it's one of the best trilogies ever, but as I said, when it comes to characters CDPR created by their own, it feels/looks/works better.

I don't like a Ciri who seems to worry more about an elve who "prisoned" her before try to take her freedom than for Geralt and Yennefer.

It may also be a matter of expectations, many people like Ciri in Wild Hunt, for those who did not read the books before, most of her alleged flaws are not apparent, but even book readers are divided on how much (if at all) the changes are objectionable. I do not think it is unrealistic that she relates to Avallac'h differently now, she was traveling between worlds with the elf for a long time, and even if she hated him at first, there was no one else she could rely on as an ally, and he eventually became a kind of mentor to Ciri in learning how to use her powers. Perhaps it would be more believable if you saw all of this happening on screen (which could take up entire games), rather than just mentioned in a few lines. Also, Ciri's role as an adoptive daughter to both Geralt and Yennefer is made clear already in the prologue, maybe the game does not spend a lot of time emphasizing it later because it is implied and obvious, and the focus is on different aspects of her character.

A Triss who acts so mean and "bitchy" ( a thing she seems to overcome at the end of the books) etc.

This is more of an issue in the first game, in any case, she overcomes the flaws again throughout the trilogy. Or did you really mean Yennefer? It would make more sense then (the bitchiness in TW3). But, as it can be read in the interview from which I quoted in the previous post, CDPR wanted to show a "complete" picture of the character, so they did not make her likable from the first minute. A similar explanation can possibly also be applied to Triss if we include the previous games.

I just like to see a new awesome character like Gaunter O'Dim than a Regis who is alive again.

So, yeah, you have book characters in the dlcs too, but I like the way, that the DLC don't try to expand this Ciri, Geralt etc. story in a non-canon way.... exept for Geralt, he is always there

Cyberpunk 2077 will also rely on existing lore, but the characters will be new. We'll see how well CDPR handles writing a story and main cast from scratch in the game, hopefully the result turns out to be as good as the best parts of TW3+expansions.

 

[Deemonef]

I meant they wanted to finish a story originally started in the books, in their own way. Of course it was already finished there, but with main characters being "resurrected"/brought back, and TW3 envisioned as the last part of a trilogy, some kind of conclusion or finale to the saga was needed again, which is a greater challenge to the writers than a mostly self contained DLC story.



It may also be a matter of expectations, many people like Ciri in Wild Hunt, for those who did not read the books before, most of her alleged flaws are not apparent, but even book readers are divided on how much (if at all) the changes are objectionable. I do not think it is unrealistic that she relates to Avallac'h differently now, she was traveling between worlds with the elf for a long time, and even if she hated him at first, there was no one else she could rely on as an ally, and he eventually became a kind of mentor to Ciri in learning how to use her powers. Perhaps it would be more believable if you saw all of this happening on screen (which could take up entire games), rather than just mentioned in a few lines. Also, Ciri's role as an adoptive daughter to both Geralt and Yennefer is made clear already in the prologue, maybe the game does not spend a lot of time emphasizing it later because it is implied and obvious, and the focus is on different aspects of her character.



This is more of an issue in the first game, in any case, she overcomes the flaws again throughout the trilogy. Or did you really mean Yennefer? It would make more sense then (the bitchiness in TW3). But, as it can be read in the interview from which I quoted in the previous post, CDPR wanted to show a "complete" picture of the character, so they did not make her likable from the first minute. A similar explanation can possibly also be applied to Triss if we include the previous games.



Cyberpunk 2077 will also rely on existing lore, but the characters will be new. We'll see how well CDPR handles writing a story and main cast from scratch in the game, hopefully the result turns out to be as good as the best parts of TW3+expansions.

The problem I have with Avallac'h is the same I have with many parts of the main story. And that is, that the book lore was changed so much. You had an elve who imprisoned Ciri and force her to birth a child, that will save the Aen Seidhe from the white frost. And in the game he is some kind of mentor who trained Ciri to "defeat" the white frost. That's why I don't like those story parts of the game. I don't like such changes, but this counts for me for everything which take changes in a story that was already written.

So if you have a new character you can make what you want with it, in my eyes. But if you took a character which who was allready there, you should stick with his story... in my eyes

And yes, I mean Triss. I'm not a big fan of what she did in the books, but in the very end she overcome some of her bad habbits and became a respectful person... but in the game she is shown worse/mean again. In her past you learned her friendship with Yennefer is something she sees more important than an affair with Geralt. In the game the first thing she does after finding Geralt with amnesia is trying to have sex with him and never ever mentioned Ciri and Yennfer, till Geralt have a flashback. And later she tries so often to get back to Geralt without thinking of her "best friend" Yennefer. This is something I also don't like.

So, more new stuff, more stuff that are not stick to the books. And this is something I see more in the expansions

 

[sv3672]

Again, CDPR cannot please everyone, they obviously had their own vision of the characters, not everyone agrees with it, but there is not much that can be done about that. However, should they give up on writing stories with book characters in ways that try to develop them or show them in situations or roles not seen yet in the novels, if it means a minority of the fans will be disappointed? I do not think so, in the end the benefits may outweigh the negatives for those who approach the games with an open mind.

So if you have a new character you can make what you want with it, in my eyes. But if you took a character which who was allready there, you should stick with his story... in my eyes

Witcher games are not a retelling of the books' story, they are an unofficial continuation. They would be less interesting if there was nothing new about the main characters, it would be the "low risk, low reward" approach.

but in the game she is shown worse/mean again. In her past you learned her friendship with Yennefer is something she sees more important than an affair with Geralt. In the game the first thing she does after finding Geralt with amnesia is trying to have sex with him and never ever mentioned Ciri and Yennfer, till Geralt have a flashback.

This is again a Witcher 1 issue, and not even specific to Triss. No one in that game talks about Geralt's past or Ciri or Yennefer, not Dandelion, not Shani, nor anyone else who already knew him from the books, other than one innkeeper, more as an easter egg where only Ciri is named. No story explanation is given to this oddity. I do admit that TW1 was not very well written when it comes to how the game fits into the trilogy (it would be fine if neither the books nor the sequels existed), but it was the first game made by a small studio after all, and more importantly the topic is "Were the expansions better than main game?", where main game obviously refers to Wild Hunt. The flaws of its prequels are not relevant to that, Witcher 3 is even trying to fix them, for example this:

And later she tries so often to get back to Geralt without thinking of her "best friend" Yennefer.

is not exactly true in Wild Hunt either, but more on that would be a matter of another discussion. What is more on topic is that in my opinion the expansions do not really have better/more interesting female characters than the main game's "based on books with some artistic freedom" cast, although some like Iris are well written, but they are in smallish roles.

Update: in response to the post below to avoid turning the thread into an off-topic discussion that is repeating itself:

As I said, I really love it and never wish to missed those three games, but those are my facts why the expansions are better than the main games in my eyes. And TW1, TW2 and TW3 are all part of the main game.

To me, it seems quite clear from the OP that the thread is about TW3 (the base game) vs. the expansions, and not about TW1 or TW2 and whatever is badly written in them. Anyway, as good as the expansions are, if I had the choice between having either them or Wild Hunt only (let alone the entire trilogy), I would choose the latter any day. In some sense, that might answer the question from the title, too.

And this is another point. There are many changes from one game to another, and the expansions don't have this problem.

They do not have the benefit of characters with a history from the previous games either, so at least as far as I am concerned, I generally care less about the expansions and their cast.

This is true. No one talks about the two women, but Eskel and Co. don't want to have sex with Geralt

If that is the only differentiating factor, Shani does that too without hesitation, and she did already meet (and sleep with) the witcher in the books.

I try to make up in my mind, that Geralt's friends don't talk much about his past, that his memory will come back by it's own and he will not have a shock...

The same explanation can also be applied to Triss, she even says so in dialogue that she wants Geralt to discover his identity on his own, and he accepts that without objections:

Spoiler

- No. I don't want you turning into my vision of Geralt. I want you to decide for yourself who you are - without looking back.
- You need to take a stand on the world's problems. It doesn't matter what position, just that you choose one. A strong identity may help restore your memory.

So Jaskier and Triss are some kind of a**holes and... and I don't see why people don't understand why I don't like it for those reasons

While I do not agree that they are "a**holes", even if they were, it has nothing to do with how good the characters are from the story point of view. Someone who is an "a**hole" at first but later realizes the mistake (like the Bloody Baron) is actually a more interesting character than a boring Mary Sue who never does wrong.