Analysis: With Witcher 3 CDPR no longer treat the players like adults [SPOILERS]

+
Analysis: With Witcher 3 CDPR no longer treat the players like adults [SPOILERS]

This opus exists because CDPR in all interviews repeated the mantra that they consider their gamers adults. Well, not anymore.

I wanted to cool off after finishing the game and make sure that my judgements are not obscured by the good and bad immediate short term impressions. That I have time to think through all arguments. So, finally, I decided to write what bothers me.

CDPR made a 180 degree in their attitude towards the demographics of gamers who play their games. The Witcher 3 is no longer a game for adults but a game for teens. Not that it makes the game bad by itself, the bad is a fact that games for mature audience are extremely rare and CDPR did not deliver on that front. That is very disappointing, to say the least, because they were the only game development company, which was defying general attitudes to games that they are for kids or teens.

Now CDPR is becoming like the rest of the crowd and loosing their main feature, which stood out from the rest of the game development companies. But let's move to analysis why the witcher 3 is not a mature game.

First, I would like to remind readers that mature content doesn't mean boobs and violence. Mature means that it's deep and addressed to people who can understand responsibility and consequences of their actions, who can see what's laying below the surface.

1. The most annoying immature moment of the Witcher 3 for me is the concept of EEEVIL.

In the previous games CDPR deliberately were showing that your antagonists have reasons to behave like they do but not in the witcher 3. Be it selfishness, taking political advantages, revenge, or even in order to save the world in their own twisted but justified way. What we see in the witcher 3 that instead of grey morality they made some characters EEEVIL. Meaning that they do evil for the sake of being evil and their justifications are justifications of a serial killer lunatics. In case you, kiddies, cannot decide that some person is EEEVIL CDPR made them look ugly. The more ugly the character look the more EEEVIL he/she is. You see, ugly == EEEVIL, like in the comic books for 10 year olds. Killing EEEVIL characters has no repercussions, it's always a feel good experience, you won't think twice why you murder them.

Let's look at Radovid. He was ruthless but adequate king in TW1 and TW2. Now he likes mass murdering mages, herbalists, and non-humans with most sadistic ways possible for no reason. In TW2 he was handsome and reasonable but in TW3 he's one dimentional, looks retarded and speaks some nonsense like a total nutter. I even was expecting him burst in "Muahahaha" evil laughter at some point. The game brands him with personality that leaves no single reason for you to let him live. CDPR gives a nudge to players: "You see, he's EEVIL, kill him, save the people or you're EEEVIL too."

His counterpart, Emhyr, is clearly a lesser evil from the first look. Why? Look at him. Emhyr isn't handsome (because he's also evil) but not as ugly as Radovid. And his daughter Ciri, who doesn't even resemble her father, is super pretty, because she's super good. You see, kiddies, good is always good-looking. You cannot kill Emhyr a la Letho killed Demavend in TW2 because he is lesser evil, therefore, there's no option to kill him on the ship, when you have a perfect opportunity to do so.

Eredin and the wild hunt is just an insult to intelligence. They don't talk, they kill for no reason, their faces look EEEVIL. The goul Vetala from TW1 had more intelligent conversations with Geralt than the elf Eredin who knows Geralt quite well. Geralt, according to the plot, spent several years with Eredin and his riders and they have nothing to talk about? Because the wild hunt is EEEVIL and you don't talk with EEEVIL, you kill it. By the way, what did Geralt do as a rider of the Wild Hunt, killed people for no reason too? No reasons, no motivations, no conversations are there... the wild is just EEEVIL, period, don't think too much about it, less you know the better.

The Whoreson Junior is another EEEVIL character. How do you know, who among the gangs of Novigrad is the most evil? That's right, he's the ugliest looking. He likes to kill girls for amusement and nail them to the walls in large quantities. By the look of his room, the girls didn't even resist. It looks really EEEVIL... and fake because it's made only for the sake of the EEEVIL concept. You cannot dispose of other gangs because they are not EEEVIL, instead they are whitewashed not to look too criminal, especially The King Of Beggars.

There are some other minor EEEVIL characters but I don't want to spend more time on this topic because there are a lot more to cover.

2. Second most annoying shift in the witcher 3 in the direction away from maturity is we no longer choosing the lesser evil, most choices are divided by clearly better vs clearly worse.

The only lesser evil hard choice was in the Ladies of the Woods quest (the one that either kill the children or to free the evil spirit). That's it, this was the only quest I had to delay the decision to collect more information to make a choice and even after the choice I had my doubts. One of the leshen contracts also had the minor lesser evil type of decision and, may be, Velen's werewolf's contract (I didn't see the alternative completion to be sure). After that, even though it was not a paragon vs renegade type of decisions, they were just strictly better vs strictly worse. A lot of decisions in TW2 were situation A vs situation B, where even after you know consequences there was no clearly "better" decision.

If the decision whether or not to kill Henselt was 10/10 as a true lesser evil dilemma (personal revenge, eliminating a nasty king vs. creating a civil war condition for the whole country, playing in the hands of cunning assassins, and weakening the North) then killing Radovid is 1/10, because it's not a brainer. Mostly, people would leave Radovid alive only out of curiosity to see the different ending. The game give you a clear nudge to kill Radovid. If you won't take that quest you miss on some XP, so kill him for all the betterness. Doing this CDPR tells us: "We already decided it for you, take a quest and follow the instructions... if not then you're a sadistic, racist, psychopathic son of a whore and, by the way, we won't give you extra XP for being such an ass." It clearly shows that CDPR expects teenagers, not adults, primarily to play the witcher 3 game.

3. Third most annoying downgrade is primitive politics.

I cannot believe that CDPR, who created brilliant political intrigue of TW2, dumbed down politics to the primary school level. People who complained about too much politics were not complaining, mostly, about its mechanics but about Geralt sticking his nose way too much in the processes that shouldn't bother him at all.

Here are just a few faults of politics in TW3:
- Explanation about Henselt's death and how Redania conquered Kaedwen is just stupid. This is "deus ex machina" type of explanation.
- Killing Radovid still leaves queen Adda on the throne and by now she should have a kid to inherit the throne. Adda is quite capable to continue resistance to Nilfgaard. Radovid is shown not as a military genius but as a complete murderous lunatic.
- How the hell Dijkstra is going to become a king being no royal blood himself in the medieval setting? This is just unbelievable.
- Who's going to be a ruler of Temeria if you help Roche? Anais and Natalis are non-existent in TW3... if Temeria have no heir Emhyr wouldn't have signed anything. At the same time there's no way Temeria can exist without Anais, and even then Adda, Radovid's wife, is actually the primary heir of Temeria. They explained in TW2 that she won't be able to get a throne just because the nobles are against Redania taking over Temeria but as TW3 situation is, it shouldn't be the problem now.
And so on, and on, and on...

There's already a good thread, which discusses politics in TW3 specifically and I'll just put a link here to it: http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threads/42393-Politics-in-TW3 so, I won't repeat all points from there and just continue on the other points.

If the game was designed for teens then there's no complaints. Kids don't understand politics anyway, so it can be as dumb as in TW3 or as in "Snow White and seven dwarves".

4. All of a sudden, CDPR became prudish and hesitant of naked body

I've never imagined that I would be complaining about that in the game by CDPR... seriously, I don't play the witcher games for the sake of sexual content or naked in-game women. But the witcher 3 made me cringe more than once. It made me cringe because CDPR suddenly desided, while showing nudity and sexual content, that I'm not mature enough to understand the reason for this nudity in the shown contexts. CDPR treats players as underage over whom they should have a parental control what they are allowed to see, applying censorship and crude coverups and cut offs in some places even though doesn't even look natural. This is similar to putting fig leaves on Greek and Roman statues in the museum in the past.

Women are almost never shown completely naked even when it makes sense for them to be. It wouldn't be that big of an issue if CDPR at least used contemporary medieval underwear but they instead dressed all women in 20th century style underwear, which just screams in your face: "we decided that you can't handle the truth, we want to decide what you allowed to see".
I understand the explanation why Geralt is not shown nude because then it requires making believable penis physics, which is a lot of hassle and not quite what the developers want to put an effort on since there are a lot of other more important issues with models like the lack of diversity.

There's a good principle: if you cannot make it well don't do it at all. All sexual content was severely censored for no reason... the most ridiculous way. Examples follow:

a. That famous annoying sauna scene where women are not fully naked even though in sauna it doesn't make sense at all. Ciri is "wounded", conveniently in both breasts. The thing is, CDPR is insulting our intelligence. Ciri with fresh external wounds wouldn't go to sauna, because it will feel like a torture to her. Heating fresh cuts will open them up. When the hot salty sweat get into her fresh wounds it will be something quite painful, resembling a torture. Have you tried to salt your wounds? Try it, you'll get an idea. If the goal was to cover up Ciri due to her "daughter" status then CDPR did it the most cringe-worthy way, she could have conversation over the food, or in the stables, or outdoors. Nobody would have even suspected you in censoring and it would have been a good decision. If you cannot make it well don't do it at all.

b. Prudish succubi. It's an oxymoron but you did it, congratulations! Yeah, succubi, demons of seduction, no longer interested in seduction of Geralt because by whatever reason he smells funny with blood and peasants smelling with shit are way more attractive. A succubus even bother to lecture Geralt about killing their mindless "brethren", which somehow makes him unattractive. I haven't seen more idiotic reasoning: i.e. if I hunt a boar in the woods it makes me less attractive to human women because the boar is also mammal... yeah, right. Are succubi SPCA activists nowadays? Another point of the succubus is that I did help because I wanted to fuck her. Well, you see, I would have helped even to a talking goul Vetala in this situation. OK, let's make an assumption that this succubus is as dumb as a rock. The most insulting part is not that Geralt haven't been given the opportunity to plough a succubus but that Geralt is not given an option to respond to this nonsense anything intelligent besides "it's not that simple". You know, the Novigradian succubus was fine, she was running for her life, but this Skelligan one is an insult to intelligence. I don't know if the developers thought that succubi are too much for my tender perception of the witcher's world to make them honest then CDPR shouldn't have included them. You know, TW1 had no visible succubi, no problem, no complaints. If TW3 was positioned as a game for teens then, of course, I would have no complaints for silly reasoning. If you cannot make it well don't do it at all.

c. Here's another one. It's not only sexual but also suppose to be brutal content that was made teen friendly. There is a quest, loudly named Witches' Sabbath. The Sabbath is an established concept, everybody more or less knows what it should look like and what to expect.
Quote: "The Sabbath commenced at midnight and ended at dawn, beginning with a procession, continuing with a banquet, then a black mass, and culminating with an orgy in which uninhibited sexual intercourse with demons in male or female form was practiced. Consumption of hallucinogens and sometimes alcohol was often reported. Human flesh was eaten during Sabbaths, preferably children, and also human bones stewed in a special way."
What do we have in the game? It's whatever you can call it but it's not the Sabbath. Few boss fights, almost no dialogue and no lore. The only part that was left of the Sabbath was consumption of human flesh by crones... CDPR were afraid to make the Sabbath look like Sabbath? If you cannot make it well don't do it at all.

d. Now the copypasted sex scenes... Was it hard to make them all different? No. Why did CDPR copypasted the same clips for all of them? This is really a mystery to me. It's not even about sexual content itself. It's about CDPR assumes that since we're teens we don't care about quality of sexual content because the goal is not to have a well written story with all types of interaction between man and women but a masturbating material.
On more of a technical design complaint. Even unicorn scene is nonsense from the practical perspective. It's just physically impossible to have enjoyable sex as it's depicted. If the designer of this scene could have been sentenced to have sex on the staffed horse the way he/she depicted it, I can imagine such experience would have been the most inconvenient one, combined with bumps and bruises gained from falling from the horse. And yes, it's possible to have a believable unicorn scene, at least it has to feature stirrups for support of free movement...

e. Geralt restrained his promiscuity in the witcher 3 game (per hour of gameplay). Why would he do that? He cannot impregnate and cannot catch any diseases, on the other hand he severely risks his life and can die every day, therefore for him it makes way less sense to build permanent relationships than having random encounters. Sex for him has the same consequences as hugging with the same woman. But yeah, since teenagers won't understand the difference between a sterile mutant and themselves, CDPR made sure Geralt's advantures won't give teenage players bad ideas.

Why do I care if the game is still the best CRPG ever made despite being teenage targeted? Well, because there are very few games exist that expect a player to be an adult. Besides the previous witcher games (TW2 being more mature than TW1) there are no RPG's that I'm aware of are serious and adult oriented and I want more of them. And with the witcher 3 CDPR did not deliver on their promises to keep the series adult oriented.

Can Enhanced Edition improve all or some of those points? It is possible. Of course, when CDPR decides to make EE update they should also consider all other issues with the game such as lack of proper TW2 continuity, abrupt ending of Triss' content, crappy inventory interface (yes, CDPR, you did it again: made crappy inventory management upon release third time in a row), inconsistencies and bad design of the game last part, and other problems discussed in other threads. I agree to pay for such EE expansion as for the full game if it'll bring all what's missing in. CDPR, you have a lot of fans due to your style of business where you care about players too in the form of EE versions of your games, it's not too late to do that again and we're counting on you. Personally, I would like to have EE edition with all issues resolved more than any of the planned expansions.

------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks you if you managed to read it all. I hope it was worth your time. Your comments with clear argumentation are welcome.
 
Good post. TW series will never resemble TW2 in terms of content quality. There is a good reason for that - the game can't be controversial anymore. Devs simply can't afford to offend some people with their creativeness if they want their product to sell well. We are living in a world where the quality of content is judged by the number of sold copies and views on youtube. Masses got no taste nor judgement. In utilitarian world your opinion is equal to any ignorant retard - be it 12 year old boy, SJW, lgbt crowd - that can afford to buy the game. Deal with it, art is dead when you step in Skyrim/ Avatar territory.
 
Last edited:
Great post@Op. I don't think there is much to add, though I would have wished you wouldn't have used the "EEEVIL" phrase so often to make fun of how CDP portrays their villains. It distracts a bit from your valid points.

Good post. TW series will never resemble TW2 in terms of content quality. There is a good reason for that - the game can't be controversial anymore. Devs simply can't afford to offend some people with their creativeness if they want their product to sell well. We are living in a world where the quality of content is judged by the number of sold copies and views on youtube. Masses got no taste nor judgement. In utilitarian world your opinion is equal to any ignorant retard - be it 12 year old boy, SJW, lgbt crowd - that can afford to buy the game. Deal with it, art is dead when you step in Skyrim/ Avatar territory.
I don't think that's true. GTA 5, probably the most controversial game since many years is also one of the best selling games of all time. In general, it's the first time I hear controversial= less sales. It's usually the other way around. People use controversy to get publicity, which increases sales (even negative publicity is better for sales than no publicity)
I'm not saying CDP should do anything just for the sake of creating a controversy. They should just stick to their vision. I have read the leaked documents and some parts seem to be toned down (especially when it comes to sex and nudity) in comparison to their original vision. I don't really understand why they did this. I don't remember any controversy regarding the Witcher 2 sex scenes. Quite the opposite. The Triss bath house scene is considered to be one of the best or the best romance scene ever made in a video game. I have no real proof but from my viewpoint there seems to be some kind of self-censorship going on with Witcher 3 and I have not much hope that Cyberpunk will be anything else than a highly sanitized game to appeal to the skyrim audience. (assuming that the skyrim audience can't handle adult content, which is not true imo)
 
Last edited:
also evil) but not as ugly as Radovid. And his daughter Ciri, who doesn't even resemble her father, is super pretty, because she's super good. You see, kiddies, good is always good-looking. You cannot kill Emhyr a la Letho killed Demavend in TW2 because he is
2. Second most annoying shift in the witcher 3 in the direction away from maturity is we no longer choosing the lesser evil, most choices are divided by clearly better vs clearly worse.

If you think that "mature" choices mean always having to choose between the "lesser of evils" or two equally bad evils, then you're... well... not mature, to say the least. Choices don't actually work like that, sometimes yes, it's two evils, sometimes there's a right answer. The one place where the Witcher 3 did deliver perfectly was in the choice section, so I don't know what you're talking about.

The political side of things on the other is correct. Politics in the Witcher 3, I wouldn't say they're simplistic, but they are contradictory and at times don't make sense.

Aside from that, there's too much complaining here about SJWs and sanitation. The Witcher 3 is anything but sanitized. While I don't enjoy those busybodies, the idiocy of people complaining about them can get just as bad.
 
Very good assessment but I think there is even something missing: the juvenile application of violence is almost exclusively a mere matter of primitive satisfaction in combat.

And about the "prudish" topic: I thing it's going much deeper than just the "no full naked bodies anymore". In the end, all disruptive and abusive elements of sexuality are wiped from the game, even though they a a common feature of medieval warfare and life and even though sexual abuse is one of the defining features of Ciri's character (yeah, it sounds weird but that's how it is). I mean, they not only don't show such things in visual terms but they don't even mention it. They just behave like such topics didn't exist at all. Problem is that it you exclude certain topics from the beginning you reduce the possibilites to create emotional engagement with the characters and the story. In the books you feel for Ciri because she is lost in an hostile and dark world and everyone wants to abuse here, physically and mentally, with the climax in Leo Bonhart. Violence and ferocity and all kinds of abuse on a personal level are a central part of the storytelling in the witcher world although in Witcher 3 they are hardly even present. Like you said, the basic concept is just fighting against EVIL. (That could work if it's just a mere tool for the characters to go through some kind of transformation. But nobody does that. Ciri has way too little screen time for that and Geralt doesn't change much at all. There is no catharsis. Let's take Star Wars again. The dark emperor is also the depiction of true evil. But he is a tool for Darth Vader to go through a transformation, to reach catharsis. Pure evil and the attraction of ultimate power is the opposite pole of genuine love for his son. So the struggle against evil brings sense to characters in a way.)

TW3 is a great game but clearly a mainstream product aimed at the US and international markets and less for the "adult audience in central Europe", like the previous games were. In my opinion TW3 isn't a game made specifically for adults. It's just the usual kind of video game, like CoD or Assassin's Creed, in the general narrative tone.
 
That's what happens when you start as a PC exclusive and then convert into multiplatform. Just kiddin.

This polygon and anita sarkisyan recent bullshit, which has started before W3 release. It seems Cd project was affected by it.
If they wanted to sell their game better they had to make it more err.. mainstream. So we got what we got.
 
Last edited:
If you think that "mature" choices mean always having to choose between the "lesser of evils" or two equally bad evils, then you're... well... not mature, to say the least. Choices don't actually work like that, sometimes yes, it's two evils, sometimes there's a right answer. The one place where the Witcher 3 did deliver perfectly was in the choice section, so I don't know what you're talking about.

The political side of things on the other is correct. Politics in the Witcher 3, I wouldn't say they're simplistic, but they are contradictory and at times don't make sense.

Aside from that, there's too much complaining here about SJWs and sanitation. The Witcher 3 is anything but sanitized. While I don't enjoy those busybodies, the idiocy of people complaining about them can get just as bad.

The problem is, it is sanitized when compared to the two previous games and is a step back in this regard and creates an inconsistency in tone.
 
Well first of all, I believe Dijkstra becomes the regent of Redania, not the king. He is presumably ruling on behalf of some underage noble child, but this is not adequately explained.

Second, on the subject of morality and the game 'dumbing it down,' there are good points there. But from my point of view, the narrative arc of the Witcher games is about Geralt finally reaching the conclusion that he kept creeping toward in the books, which is that the Witcher's code of neutrality is a bunch of BS. I like that you brought up Radovid, because I think the single most telling conversation in the whole series occurs when Dijkstra is trying to convince Geralt to assassinate Radovid. He tells Geralt that the code is a convenient excuse, a shield that they hide behind when they can't bring themselves to make difficult choices. It's a cop out.

And it is up to the player to agree or disagree with that. You can absolutely play the game and not assassinate Radovid. You can say "I don't give a shit, I don't get involved, I'm a witcher, and I don't want a regicide hanging over my head," and you are not punished. You lose some XP? So what? I couldn't even slot all my skills by the end of the game, I had so much XP. To call that a punishment is silly.
 
Very well written post OP!
I agree 100%, TW3 is still a great game but they obviously dumbed it down and simplified it for the masses

Instead of maturity they went for cheap feels, instead of gray they went for lame black and white etc.
 
Last edited:
and you are not punished. You lose some XP? So what? I couldn't even slot all my skills by the end of the game, I had so much XP. To call that a punishment is silly.

You are as the game makes clear in the epilogue that he slaughtered THOUSANDS.

The game clearly tries to push you into the direction killing, making it the "good choice" while the bad choice is letting him live.
 
1- I don't agree with this point of yours at all. First there are evil people in real life too, no need to type juvenile stuff like "EEEVIL", just plain evil sick fucks bastards. Yes, there are many of those and you can always "explain" such evil behaviors, no matter how sick and evil, from a pure rational, amoral pov ...so what's your point? Witcher 3 actually nailed those kind of characters almost perfectly.

Radovid is "ugly" in YOUR opinion, not mine for sure. Phillipa is pretty shity in the moral spectrum yet she is hot as fuck in ...MY opinion.

2- I see no "lesser" evil in the Ladies of the Woods quest at all, both consequences sucked just the same to me.

But the most important part is that in real life, sometimes yes... decisions are a no-brainer between two choices! History is full of it.
The very fact that as a player you CAN chose not to kill Radovid means a LOT, so I don't see your point at all again.
 
I agree on all. There is a several lack of depth on most of the major character, as for Radovid, Eredin etc...
Look at Imlerith.
Aen Elle were supposed to be handsome, but Imlerith is bald, ugly, looks like a Naziskin to reflect that he is just evil...and he has no motivations except to serve his king.

It's really more for kids than the other 2 games. And I really dislike this shift in the development process.

The only thing I disagree is promiscuity. Geralt is never been promiscuous.
 
Last edited:
I agree on all. There is a several lack of depth on most of the major character, as for Radovid, Eredin etc...
Look at Imlerith.
Aen Elle were supposed to be handsome, but Imlerith is bald, ugly, looks like a Naziskin to reflect that he is just evil...and he has no motivations except to serve his king.
This. And Calanthir doesn't even has a face. I never takes down the mask so he has even less purpose that even Imlerith. Calanthir ONLY exists as a gameplay tool, to offer a second boss fight before the end. One would think that a game that is so heavily based on believable storytelling would offer better major characters than ones who have no personal agenda, no face, no own motivations, no backstory.
 
This. And Calanthir doesn't even has a face. I never takes down the mask so he has even less purpose that even Imlerith. Calanthir ONLY exists as a gameplay tool, to offer a second boss fight before the end. One would think that a game that is so heavily based on believable storytelling would offer better major characters than ones who have no personal agenda, no face, no own motivations, no backstory.

The problem is...there is a kind of backstory for Caranthir. He is the Avallac'h's favourite, his student. But...this backstory is not...deepen.
 
Agree, like for example, they already crossed the line by showing tits in the game, why limit themselves there when they have crossed the border and be in the adult area. The game is already rated mature, might as well go all out. The same with Sabbath, like OP said, do it or don't.
 
1- I don't agree with this point of yours at all. First there are evil people in real life too, no need to type juvenile stuff like "EEEVIL", just plain evil sick fucks bastards. Yes, there are many of those and you can always "explain" such evil behaviors, no matter how sick and evil, from a pure rational, amoral pov ...so what's your point? Witcher 3 actually nailed those kind of characters almost perfectly.
The problem is not being evil. The problem is that it's not described why they are assumed evil. A well written and believable villain character can of course be assumed evil - but only if you give the player/reader/watcher proper context and backstory to form an own opinion. You can't connect with a lacking character whose own reason to exist is being "the evil guy who has to serve as counterpart to the heroes". After all, "evil" is a word of the moral sphere, it's something that inherently includes a moral rating. Without context and backstory we have no choice to evaluate this rating. The character stays bland and underdeveloped. And besides that the concept of "pure evil" isn't even truly suited if you want to establish a "force of nature" kind of character as your villain. I argued with the dark emperor in Star Wars before, but actually there is more to him than pure evilness. He is not only evil, he - as the avatar of the dark side of the power - stands for temptation, very much like Satan in Christian mythology. Temptation - other than evilness - can serve as a storytelling tool which the main hero is challenged with. He has to withstand temptation and grow as a character in the process. There are other possibilities for these "force of nature" elements like e.g. chaos (which is for example the basic principle in Moorcock's universe, in its a chaos-order dualism, or just think of Assassin's Creed). It's basically possible to give a force of nature villain all kinds of Christian captial sin motives. Even games like Diablo have understood that with demons and enemies that represent various aspects of human weaknesses (although in a very basic form). Evil on the other hand, is a moral concept that can only be applied in context and that is usually applied because of other reasons that just "being evil".

So I wouldn't necessarily say that the depiction of Eredin and the Hunt as pure evil guys makes the game less adult oriented. It just reduced the quality of the storytelling in general, no matter for which audience. ;)

2- I see no "lesser" evil in the Ladies of the Woods quest at all, both consequences sucked just the same to me.
Of course they both suck. That IS the concept of choosing the lesser evil... :coffee:
 
The problem is not being evil. The problem is that it's not described why they are assumed evil. A well written and believable villain character can of course be assumed evil - but only if you give the player/reader/watcher proper context and backstory to form an own opinion.

This. Jacques the Aldersberg vs Radovid. Both are mad men, but Jacques madness is well explained. It's not evil or mad for the sake of it. He become mad for the lack of magical training and because the visions of the White Frost, and his plan is to save humanity. At the very end, you're not killing an evil man.
But for Radovid...there's really nothing like that. At the end of TW2, a player could imagine that Radovid is simply taking to his advantage the rage of the common folk against tha mages, in order to focus all the power on him. But in TW3...he is just...mad. For...reasons.

But Scholdarr...please, don't take Star Wars as an example of depth. It is just a fantasy story for kids, nothing more.
The only Star Wars chapter with a real undefined line between evil and good, where all is grey....is in KOTOR 2.
 
The problem is...there is a kind of backstory for Caranthir. He is the Avallac'h's favourite, his student. But...this backstory is not...deepen.
You really call that backstory? I call it a pathetic attempt of giving him some basic reason to exist in the first place. I would expect such character introduction for a usual video game that offers a basic story without any aspiration in the field of storytelling. But for CDPR? The ones who are said to be a level above almost everything in the genre and industry in terms of storytelling? The ones who built this whole series on a work of fiction of the quality of Sapkowski's novels.

Sorry, but that's just poor. Not even saying that seems kind of ripped out of every Karate movie ever made in which the villain is always the former favorite student... :thumbdown: -_-
 
Last edited:
You really call that backstory? I call it a pathetic attempt of giving him some basic reason to exist in the first place. I would expect such character introduction for a usual video game that offers a basic story without any aspiration in the field of storytelling. But for CDPR? The ones who are said to be a level above almost everything in the genre and industry in terms of storytelling? The ones who built this whole series on a work of fiction of the quality of Sapkowski's novels.

Sorry, but that's just poor. Not even saying that seems kind of ripped out of every Karate movie ever made in which the villain is always the former favorite student... :ugly:

In fact...I said "a kind of".
 
Top Bottom