My Frustrations and Problems with playing The Witcher III: Wild Hunt

+
My Frustrations and Problems with The Witcher III: Wild Hunt

I want to say I enjoyed The Witcher series and I don't mean to be too critical of CDPR's work but I think that the third game was very lack luster in story development and player choices. I wanted to be as thorough as possible so I could explain myself fully and explain where my frustrations with the third game came from. Unfortunately I went over the character limit so I am linking a google doc(top of thread) of everything(it is long...longer than I thought it would be when I started writing it). I would appreciate some feedback whether you agree or think I'm wrong(I would also appreciate people trying to prove why they think I'm wrong). thx :)
 
Last edited:
I read through the google doc, very well said.

TW3 is simply a mixed bag, very good sometimes, yet very bad at other ocations. All the hype and high accolates in my opinion did more harm than good, as CDPR rather than receiving constructive critisism just got bombarded with 10/10s and fanboyism: "PERFECT", "FLAWLESS" "BEST GAME OF THE GENERATION", etc. They wanted a game for the masses and they succsedded on that, at the cost of the game owns integrity.

TW3 for me failed misserably as a sequel to the previous 2 games, and even to the books(who i would say got a lot of bad fanservice during the 3rd game specially).

I am still asking and hoping for an EE, and/or a "remastered triology" that would atleast aleviate some of the major issues and bring the narrative and gameplay closer toguether.
 
Kudos for the great write-up! Very well thought-out, and certainly valid. Before I even respond, I'll simply say that not all literature will appeal to everyone, so if it doesn't work for you, that's just sort of how it goes. I had a girlfriend years ago that I tried to show the Battlestar Galactica reboot to, and she hated it. I was so crushed, but can't give it away, sometimes. For me, I have never liked Pulp Fiction. Or The Old Man and the Sea. I've always felt that both stories were so contrived and took so long to get to their points. It takes all kinds!

Let me see if I can answer with a sweeping consideration instead of hitting individual points. Structurally, TW3 is different from a more "pure" RPG.

1.) It is based on established literature, using established characters. (And, I think we've all seen what can happen when a film/book IP is licensed for a game.) Balancing characters / stories for gameplay while honoring the source material is...decidedly difficult.

2.) Interactions in a narrative experience need to be limited in order to ensure the narrative arc is effective. "Branching" this while also maintaining cohesion and dramatic action is very difficult, even if it only branches a few times.

3.) It's the third game in a series with notably complex and continuous storylines, so it needs to ensure it's remaining logical and faithful to its own prior events...and prior events may also have branched, so the present branches need to be based on past branches...

4.) Every time there's a challenge, the creators have to follow this chain all the way back up to #1.) and ensure everything they're deciding on lines up.

So, basing a game on an established, literary universe is hard enough. Writing a good narrative is hard enough. Building a branching RPG is hard enough. Doing all of this simultaneously is a gargantuan challenge. I'd say that CDPR has done a phenomenal job in all areas.

You bring up a great point about the earlier games offering more player agency and impact (even if it did use the old "amnesiac hero" approach). In the end, though, the character we're playing is Geralt of Rivia, so it sort of requires players to like playing as Geralt. If the game has any major flaws as an RPG, this is among them, but it also ensures the story will have a much stronger narrative. The more honed and focused I make my narrative, the less "choice" I can allow my players. Like most games, TW3 tries to strike a balance. As the third game is also the resolution of the trilogy, I think it was sort of necessary to limit player agency in places to ensure the narrative arrived at...an end.

That leads me directly to the dramatic action, which is pretty heavily based on the novels as well as the events of the prior two games. In a sense, a way of Geralt coming back to himself. Rather than interacting with the world to solve the immediate threat, Geralt is forced to look forward. Way forward. It all hinges on Ciri.

Emhyr wants her to solidify an heir that people will respect in the empire he's building. Geralt wants to ensure his daughter is safe, and will sacrifice anything to do so. Yen sort of wants the same, but obviously knows that Ciri's power is critical for something that she refuses to explain to anyone. The Red Riders are trying to stem off the White Frost, futile as it may be. Now, when we consider Geralt's "drive" in the story, it's not to uncover Places of Power and deliver monster bits for more fashionable armor -- it's to try to build the world he'll be leaving behind for Ciri.

  • Does he support Nilfgaard in unifying the lands to ensure she'll rule as empress over a solid empire? Or, will he keep her away from Emhyr's grasp and support the Northern Realms, letting her live the life of a Witcher and allowing the world to handle its own affairs?
  • Will she need to contend with the likes of Radovid, finding her own way through the power she possesses? Or, will he remove Radovid, ensuring there will be magic users to freely guide her?
  • Will Skellige be unified under a new type of ruler that can better fit into a new imperial world? Or will he support the continuation of free, fierce, but unpredictable allies?
  • Will he allow her to vent her rage when she needs to? Or will he try to impose reason and control on her whether she's ready for it or not?

All of these choices will directly effect the outcome for Ciri. Especially when the time comes for her to face the white frost, decide whether or not to undergo the mutations, or choose whether she will sacrifice her freedom to rule Nilfgaard...it's all based on what type of father Geralt is to her. So, yes, not as open-ended and cause-effect as key choices in Bioware or Obsidian games, perhaps, but far more subtle and impactful than most RPGs.

In conclusion, I think all of the "chapters" in the game felt very good, and that all the endings truly fit into the arc of the story being told. I liked how they underplayed the war rather than focusing on battles and killing. I also agree that HoS and B&W flowed a little more smoothly, but they were also far shorter and more focused. That's usually the way writing goes. But, it can't possibly win everyone over. Disliking it for the reasons you've expressed is wholly qualified, I'd say!
 
Last edited:
Hey Sigil, thanks for the reply.
I have to say I do agree with your point about not all literature appealing to everyone, I usually don't bother venting my frustrations about something I don't like on the internet. The only reason why I wrote this was because I had enjoyed the first 2 games so much and the 3rd game just didn't do it for me. If I had only played the 3rd game I probably wouldn't have wrote anything.

As for some of the points you made I'll say this
1) I enjoyed meeting the characters new to me that existed in the books. I liked meeting Dijkstra, Keira, Rita, Ermion, Crach, Avalac'h and so on. I had no problem with it at all.

2) I fully understand that for these kind of stories character choices need to remain somewhat limited because at the end of the game you still need to accomplish the goal from the beginning. I have no problem with that either, the first 2 games were similar in that regard as well.

3) I will say I'm not sure if citing it being the 3rd game is enough to justify a lack of in game branches because many of the choices you made in the previous game either don't matter in the 3rd game or just result in minimal changes. If I recall correctly, the 5 choices that carried over were if you killed Aryan La Valette, if you sided with Roche or Iorveth, if you rescued Triss, if you saved Sile, and if you killed Letho. For choices 1, 4, and 5 they result in how Aryan's mother treats you in one part of one quest, a cameo for Sile where her fate is the same regardless of what you choose to do, and a cameo for Letho where he can fight at Kaer Morhen. I honestly am not sure how the Roche/Iorveth decision plays out and I think if you rescue Triss that means Carduin is oustide Radovid's ship. Ultimately these things don't really matter to the game and are more of a nod to the players of AoK. However a fairly major choice you can make in AoK is having Triss help Geralt look for Yen but that choice doesn't matter.

4) I respect the challenge the creators had when writing this game. I just think that there were a few more avenues and opportunities they could have explored in certain situations.

When you said we are playing as Geralt. I guess my only question is what kind of character is Geralt in the books? In the games for the most part he is not necessarily a hero but he is also a decent person. He does seem to want to help and it also seems that he wants to avoid hurting people. Geralt in the games will often intervene in the name of someones defense. These character traits kind of disappear when Yen is around in the game. So my question about book Geralt is he like that as well? Does he change himself around Yen in that way? Or Is the way he acts around Yen in the game actually what he's like most of the time in the books?

The notion of Geralt making those political choices throughout the game for Ciri never occurred to me. There was never any reference to that being his reasoning for getting involved and I never got the sense that was what his motivation was. Also from my personal perspective it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It doesn't make sense because he is taking time out of his search for Ciri to do this. Now I don't have a child(adopted or not) but if I was trying to rescue them from a force as evil/dangerous as the Wild Hunt I probably would put matters regarding the world they would live in after I rescue them on the back burner so to speak. I would put all my effort into making sure she is safe from the immediate threat before worrying about the future.

Now onto the not fun part of this (at least in my opinion). I've brought up how I think the lack of player agency seemingly comes with Yen and I really don't want this to become a Yen vs Triss thing because in my research of other fans thoughts its clear that debate has been played out enough. However when it comes to the narrative of that aspect of the game it seems clear to me that the narrative is that Geralt is trying to find Yen in the effort to re-enter a romantic relationship with her. Personally this is where I think CDPR made a mistake. With this narrative you have to maintain how Geralt behaves around Yen in the books in order to honor the source material. I would have suggested a narrative of Geralt recovering his memories, getting angry at Triss, leaving her to find Yen(somewhat impulsively), then after the 6 months he would have calmed down, and now after thinking about the year+ he spent with Triss(which seems like it was a good year from how the games had their romance) and the 15-20 years with Yen, Geralt isn't actually sure what he wants. The reason for this is because this would have been somewhat of uncharted territory for Geralt which would have allowed for some more player agency. One such example would be Geralt refusing to steal from Ermion's lab and having Geralt walk back to the wake while Yen goes to the lab on her own. Then Ermion would appear, Geralt would talk to him and tell him that Yen was planning on breaking into his lab. From there Ermion and Geralt go into the lab to find Yen fighting the Golem or elemental or whatever it was. So Geralt has to kill the monster and as the dust settles Yen teleports herself and the mask out of the laboratory. Then Geralt and Ermion can talk, Geralt can tell Ermion the Wild Hunt is after Ciri and Ermion can say they were just on Lofoten which Geralt will respond by saying that's where he’s going. Then Ermion will protest saying something to the effect of Yen being Geralt’s responsibility and then dragging Geralt to the site in the woods. From there Yen will have activated the mask and Geralt will say he’s going to Lofoten but Ermion will say that since the mask has been activated then Geralt might as well use it because it can only be used once. Then having the rest of the quest play out the way it already does. Thus not changing anything that really happens but allowing the players to choose whether or not they want to follow Geralt's lover(from the books and maybe game) Yen and her plan or stand by Geralt’s friend Ermion. However if you have the narrative of Geralt still in love with Yen then you have to abide by how Geralt would have behaved in the books with Yen and then the alternative that I suggested might not make any sense when considering the source material of Geralt's character. Like I said I don't want to start a trash Yen post or Yen vs Triss post so I'm going to stop it there for that reason.

Once again thanks for the feedback
 
Last edited:
2) I fully understand that for these kind of stories character choices need to remain somewhat limited because at the end of the game you still need to accomplish the goal from the beginning. I have no problem with that either, the first 2 games were similar in that regard as well...

3) I will say I'm not sure if citing it being the 3rd game is enough to justify a lack of in game branches because many of the choices you made in the previous game either don't matter in the 3rd game or just result in minimal changes.

4) I respect the challenge the creators had when writing this game. I just think that there were a few more avenues and opportunities they could have explored in certain situations.

I'll lump these ideas together, as they're the crux of the issue. TW1 + 2 will naturally feel more open-ended because they do not arrive at an ultimate resolution. They arrive at endings that leave a lot of player choice hanging. TW3 is resolving the story completely. By necessity, a final resolution must be focused. That's a very different type of story arc than the type of arc that ends in a cliff-hanger, or a television series that is trying to push the cup for as long as possible.

Working toward any sort of "ending" puts a vice-grip on the writing itself. A perfect example is -- can you imagine what it was like trying to write the ending to Inception? To look at the body of that story, the themes that had been explored, characters that had been developed, and answer, "Okay, what's the very last scene we'll see? What's the last event that will occur? What's the final message we'll leave the audience with?" It's really easy for a story to miss its own strengths, or fall flat, or try to preach a particular idea (which usually feels like shoving something unwelcome down the audience's throat). Conversely, the best endings leave the audience feeling like the journey is over, but they still need to work through impact and meaning on their own. They resolve the plot but not the theme: film endings like Arrival, The Usual Suspects, or Saving Private Ryan...games such as Halo 3, Final Fantasy VII, or Zelda: Ocarina of Time. And, I can easily find 10 examples of endings that didn't work for every one ending that really does. Narratives must continuously drive the dramatic action toward its eventual conclusion in order to be effective. The audience may not know what that resolution is, but the story does. This means that the action is funneled to that point. Effective story-telling relies on this.

For open-ended, RPG games, arriving at a strong, narrative resolution is exponentially more difficult the more open-ended the gameplay becomes. Strong narrative arcs work much better with linear gameplay. Every time I add a choice that can affect my planned ending, I invalidate either the impact of the player's choice or the the significance of the ending. To counteract this, I either limit player choice or avoid the ending (read: cliffhanger.) So, on one extreme, we have the classic point-and-click adventure game that only allows one path from beginning to end and tells a totally cohesive story. On the other end, a game like Mount and Blade offers complete player agency at all times and will not ever end. Most games fall somewhere in between.

It now boils down to opinion. TW3 attempted to tell a branching story that still delivered a strong narrative resolution, and it funneled certain arcs to certain predetermined resolutions to do so, as was necessary. Do players prefer the resolution, or do they prefer a series that goes on to the next season or chapter until it runs out of steam? Did they appreciate the ending if there is one? Are they bothered by the game getting long-in-the-tooth if it goes on to sequel after sequel? Whatever! There's no final answer to this part.

_______________


The next step, I think, is a role-playing game that offers completely different pathways with completely different outcomes -- similar to Detroit: Become Human. Based upon player choices, you can arrive at literally opposite outcomes without sacrificing the impact of that, particular narrative resolution. The trade-off is that each, individual playthrough will be much shorter. Detroit's story (stories) will resolve in ~10 hours from beginning to end, but the actual narratives and resolutions are vastly different.

Being able to play an RPG in this manner -- a totally unique experience and story arc as a warrior, a totally unique arc as a thief, a totally unique arc as a mage, etc. would allow for complete player agency (story and playstyle) and would generate strong, narrative resolutions as well. If I'm not writing to resolve a 80+ hour story...I can write 8 totally unique explorations of a 10 hour story. I can write numerous pathways to numerous endings that all make sense. But I can likely kiss direct sequels goodbye. Even more of a reason for producers to say "no". ("I can't simply use a cookie-cutter to capitalize off of the first game's success!? No way!")

I'm super-satisfied that such games are catching on and becoming more popular. I have proposed such systems for literally decades, ever since Daggerfall was released.


When you said we are playing as Geralt. I guess my only question is what kind of character is Geralt in the books? In the games for the most part he is not necessarily a hero but he is also a decent person. He does seem to want to help and it also seems that he wants to avoid hurting people. Geralt in the games will often intervene in the name of someones defense. These character traits kind of disappear when Yen is around in the game. So my question about book Geralt is he like that as well? Does he change himself around Yen in that way? Or Is the way he acts around Yen in the game actually what he's like most of the time in the books?

I've only read 2 of the novels, but his portrayal was actually significantly different. I felt that he doubts himself. He doesn't like who he has become. He's bitter at the world and at fate. He denies himself emotion rather than being unable feeling it. I think it's pretty clear that the mutations did not strip him of emotions; he has a psychological issue. He does, however, have an almost reactionary impulse to protect the people he cares for. Even when he fights himself about it with cold logic, he simply cannot stop himself from interfering when someone he cares for is being wronged. So, he's a classic anti-hero. The books portray him as far more vulnerable and sullen, the games portray him as much more stoic and confident. (If anything, I think the chemistry works a little better between Geralt and Dandelion in the books, because of this. It's easier to see why they would be friends.)

For the Yen thing, I think it's a relationship between two people that are so screwed up and so staunchly opposites, that they can't help but obsess over each other. I always got the impression that Yen is like the A*, senior student who is extremely focused on her career, and Geralt is the goth kid who dropped out but made his own way in the world working with his hands. Yen is patronizing, sarcastic, cutting, and an outright bully sometimes, and Geralt simply takes it. I'd call their relationship extremely toxic, but they're also an unavoidable pair. The key is: they don't want to change anything about the other person, not even the flaws. I don't think they fully realize that there is no one else in the world that can possibly just understand and accept them like each other. Or, perhaps more to the point, they do realize it, and it's so strong that it scares them off. I like it, because it's very true to life. Often times, people can't get what they really want because they have no idea what it is. They think they do. When the real thing is put in right front of them, they don't even realize it. Too lost in their own imaginings and speculations. Too busy second-guessing details and complications instead of simply being honest with themselves.

For the Triss / Yen thing in the games, I can appreciate the love triangle for the sake of developing the characters and ensuring they remained intimate and dynamic. Here's how I break it down in my head:

Geralt and Yen vanished out of known existence, and the suddenly Geralt appears years later out of thin air, apparently. No one knows exactly what happened, and Geralt has lost his memory. Triss is still wildly in love with him, and now he seems to be responding. She has no idea if Yen is alive or dead, and seriously, it's far more sensible to think that she's gone. So what does she do? Tell Geralt about it and try to get him to remember so he can suffer? Deny herself a chance at happiness by honoring a relationship Geralt himself has no memory of? Or, make the best of what they do have and simply be with him? Is she lying to get what she wants? Sure, she is. Romantic love is selfish by its very nature. I think it's easy to see her side, and it's easy to see why Geralt would be angry with her.

If we're arguing canon, no, I don't think it makes narrative sense for Geralt to wind up with Triss...but there's that player agency you were looking for! :D (See what I mean about strong, narrative arcs and player choice being almost mutually exclusive?)
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your reply I appreciated it. So re-reading my previous comment I think I may have been a little unclear about my issue with Yen and why I brought up the Yen vs Triss thing. I'll try to be more precise because I don't think I fully explained myself.

In the game Yen makes morally questionable decisions (i.e. stealing from Ermion, destroying the garden, subjecting Uma to the trials) and the player is forced to ultimately support her decisions regardless of what the player actually wants. Now I understand why this may not seem bad in the name of keeping the game linear so it can reach its end. However to Yen's credit(or discredit depending on your opinion) she does not listen to what others have to say, she is strong headed and stubborn. These character traits should have allowed the writers to create choices where the end of the game and end of the quest doesn't get changed. Unless I have not fully understood what you are saying this is what you have been talking about with the ending and strong story arc. I put the example of an alternative way to do the King is Dead-Long Live the King quest with Ermion and the mask as a way to demonstrate that.

Another way to put this would be to think about an individual quest being a miniature and significantly less detailed version of Assassins of Kings. In AoK, the prologue starts the same, then your choices in chapter 1 in Flotsam will change what happens in Chapter 2 on the Pontar, but you still have to lift the curse on the battlefield in chapter 2 regardless of what side you chose and in the end, regardless of the choices you make, you still wind up in Loc Muinne for chapter 3. So a shortened version of this I think should have been employed in some interactions with Yen. My example with Ermion's lab more or less follows this. You start the quest the same, Geralt can choose whether to follow Yen to the lab or not but either way he ends up going with Yen or Ermion. Geralt still has to kill the elemental or Golem and ultimately Geralt goes to the forest and uses the mask with Yen. The player choices I would have preferred aren't the kind of choices that would change how the entire game is played rather little changes to the character of Geralt. Will Geralt listen to Yen even though she is keeping secrets and is asking him to steal from a friend or will he put his foot down and not mistreat his friend in that way.

This was my reasoning for thinking a narrative change regarding Geralt's love life would be better than the existing one. If you use the narrative of Geralt still desperately in love with Yen then you have to use the same character from the books when it comes to dealing with Yen. If you use a Geralt who is unsure about what he wants then that would be a different mentality from what the books offer to my understanding and it would allow the story to open up but not completely. It wouldn't open up completely because Geralt will still be hell bent on rescuing Ciri. Ultimately I think the change in that particular subplot narrative would have been better because it provides a more neutral base for how Geralt will interact with Yen to start the game. This would have allowed the player to kind of decide the interactions such as dialogue on their own as opposed to having the game give you strong involuntary dialogue from the beginning when speaking to Yen. An example of the kind of dialogue I am talking about is where Geralt is incessantly complimenting Yen at the beginning of The King is Dead-Long Live the King quest. The kind of dialogue that doesn't impact the game at all but for some reason the writers felt necessary to make involuntary.

For the Triss / Yen thing in the games, I can appreciate the love triangle for the sake of developing the characters and ensuring they remained intimate and dynamic. Here's how I break it down in my head:

Geralt and Yen vanished out of known existence, and the suddenly Geralt appears years later out of thin air, apparently. No one knows exactly what happened, and Geralt has lost his memory. Triss is still wildly in love with him, and now he seems to be responding. She has no idea if Yen is alive or dead, and seriously, it's far more sensible to think that she's gone. So what does she do? Tell Geralt about it and try to get him to remember so he can suffer? Deny herself a chance at happiness by honoring a relationship Geralt himself has no memory of? Or, make the best of what they do have and simply be with him? Is she lying to get what she wants? Sure, she is. Romantic love is selfish by its very nature. I think it's easy to see her side, and it's easy to see why Geralt would be angry with her.

If we're arguing canon, no, I don't think it makes narrative sense for Geralt to wind up with Triss...but there's that player agency you were looking for! :D (See what I mean about strong, narrative arcs and player choice being almost mutually exclusive?)
a few things, first how you break down the past 2 games in regards to Geralt and Triss is, I think, spot on that's how I look at it as well. However with certain context clues in the game it seems like Geralt and Triss ended their relationship calmly and amicably rather than Geralt being angry and leaving impulsively to find Yen.

Second, you are right if arguing canon then Geralt and Triss doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. However to quote Ciri from Wild Hunt, "This is my story, not yours. You must let me finish telling it". In other words, this is an RPG not written by Sapkowski but based off of his works. These games take place after his books end and arguing book canon in regard to the games doesn't accomplish anything in my opinion. On the topic of book canon and Triss though, to my knowledge Triss is a fairly different character in the books compared to the games. However I can understand why this may be the case. I've seen people call the Triss in the books immature and in the games she is more mature. Time and tragedy/trauma can mature someone though. Triss gets the trauma/tragedy from being too late to save Yen(her friend) and Geralt who she is wildly in love with and believing they are both dead until Geralt comes back out of no where. I would say it is believable for Triss to undergo some internal changes in the time from when the books end to when the games begin.

Now onto the last thing. The game really doesn't address the whole character development part of the love triangle they created at least in my opinion. They omit Triss from a lot of the game later on. Later in the game would be the time that an interaction between Yen and Triss about what happened in the previous 2 games with Triss and Geralt would have been most likely. Now I am not going to say that Triss should have as big a role as Yen because she shouldn't, Yen in the books is Ciri's adoptive mother. However if the player chose to romance Triss I believe the words Geralt uses on the docks are "stay with me" but Triss doesn't stay with him. They instead go to the lighthouse and after they have their fun they agree to meet up at Kaer Morhen. Then if you follow level suggestions and story progression as intended you would complete the entire Skellige arc, get Uma from Crow's Perch, meet Emhyr var Emreis with Yen then set out for Kaer Morhen on horseback. Aaaaaand Triss is no where to be found. She actually disappears off the face of the earth and the game gives no explanation for this. I personally think that there was a great deal of opportunity to take some time for character development at Kaer Morhen if both Triss and Yen were there. However the game decided to avoid that part of the plot and omitted Triss from Kaer Morhen until the battle. Moving on. Then in act III, during the quest battle preparations while Geralt is getting Fringilla, going to Avalac'h's lab with Yen and Ciri, and digging Skjall's grave with Ciri, Triss is standing on the boat like any other NPC regardless of choice. The whole problem with this from my perspective is that CDPR gave players a choice but they framed one of the options as the "correct option" and when you select the "correct option" the player gets rewarded with more content and dialogue relating to that choice and selecting the other option results in less content and dialogue relating to that choice. I have thought of someways to change that without changing the overall game but they aren't fully developed ideas so I won't share them.

Anyway, thanks for your feedback I appreciate it
 
Last edited:
In the game Yen makes morally questionable decisions (i.e. stealing from Ermion, destroying the garden, subjecting Uma to the trials) and the player is forced to ultimately support her decisions regardless of what the player actually wants. Now I understand why this may not seem bad in the name of keeping the game linear so it can reach its end. However to Yen's credit(or discredit depending on your opinion) she does not listen to what others have to say, she is strong headed and stubborn. These character traits should have allowed the writers to create choices where the end of the game and end of the quest doesn't get changed. Unless I have not fully understood what you are saying this is what you have been talking about with the ending and strong story arc. I put the example of an alternative way to do the King is Dead-Long Live the King quest with Ermion and the mask as a way to demonstrate that.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean in the highlighted part above. About NPC traits allowing writers to create an outcome that is the same regardless of player choice. I think, in a sense that's exactly why, "Yen will automatically get her way with the mask." It's necessary for that to end that way in order to move the more important arc with Ciri / Avallac'h forward. (Again, not sure I'm understanding correctly.)


Another way to put this would be to think about an individual quest being a miniature and significantly less detailed version of Assassins of Kings. In AoK, the prologue starts the same, then your choices in chapter 1 in Flotsam will change what happens in Chapter 2 on the Pontar, but you still have to lift the curse on the battlefield in chapter 2 regardless of what side you chose and in the end, regardless of the choices you make, you still wind up in Loc Muinne for chapter 3. So a shortened version of this I think should have been employed in some interactions with Yen. My example with Ermion's lab more or less follows this. You start the quest the same, Geralt can choose whether to follow Yen to the lab or not but either way he ends up going with Yen or Ermion. Geralt still has to kill the elemental or Golem and ultimately Geralt goes to the forest and uses the mask with Yen. The player choices I would have preferred aren't the kind of choices that would change how the entire game is played rather little changes to the character of Geralt. Will Geralt listen to Yen even though she is keeping secrets and is asking him to steal from a friend or will he put his foot down and not mistreat his friend in that way.

This part I get, and yes, I'd say you've got it. Either a story branches, and each branch leads to its own ending (again, I'll bring up Detroit, Daggerfall, and Ocarina of Time), or much more commonly, it will branch out only to grow back into the linear "trunk" of the main arc. For numerous reasons, it's far better for the sake of a solid and continuing narrative to do it the latter way.

I've always loved games that branch and never come back, but I don't dislike games that tell a good, linear story. I guess, benign as it may sound, I like whichever style manages to pull off the better story and experience. What I dislike are the games that profess to be one thing but are actually the other. It's what I refer to as a piece that does not have "a sense of itself". A piece that doesn't realize what it is and deflects itself from its own goals.

Easy, recent example here is Fallout 4. There's no reason that Fallout 4 should not have been a major contender against TW3 and DA: Inquisition. It didn't, because FO4 couldn't decide if it was a linear action / adventure with off-center, open-world, RPG elements...an open-world RPG tied down by a linear story and progression...a survival game with RPG elements and no survival mechanics...or a freeform exploration and crafting game with a "story" tacked on to teach you its mechanics. I don't think it knows. Its individual parts fight against each other, even though it's trying to do exactly what TW3 or Inquisition does.

So, I think all 3 games are the same structure. They tell a linear story that branches and returns to the trunk, and ultimately branch out to a few individual fronds at the very end. Games like this are more about the journey, not the destination. Fallout is mired in half-realized elements and mechanics that leave players feeling gypped and jaded while the game shouts, "Go anywhere -- do anything!" as it pushes and shoves the them into their assigned seat on the train. In the end, everything feels pretty plastic and empty. Inquisition delivers a powerful story, setting, and very versatile gameplay, but much of it can look and feel pretty campy and game-y. To me, its execution feels like a made-for-TV series instead of a feature film. Wild Hunt nails its world, its visuals, its pacing, its mechanics, its dialogue, its tone, its visuals. All parts of it, story included, know exactly what they're driving for and the execution feels natural and effortless. There are few times that I felt something was off-beat or trying too hard. That's what puts it over the top for me.

So, having a story that returns to its trunk is fine as it (like any good narrative) qualifies those things within its own context. It may not be the overall type of game some prefer, but it doesn't mar what the game is. This is primarily what I look at when judging a piece. On stage or film, we use a Tone Yes or Tone No. Tone Yes doesn't mean that everything is perfect, and Tone No doesn't mean that it's absolute trash. Yes simply means that, despite any problems, a scene or moment works, will evoke the desired response from the majority of the audience, and carries an effective energy. Tone No on the other hand means that it may be really good stuff, but something is breaking the suspension of disbelief so readily that it doesn't belong in this piece. Hence, I personally don't like Pulp Fiction, but that movie has some of the best scenes I've ever seen in my life. I can't stand Super Mario Bros., but I've used it as an example time and again to teach the foundations of creating an air-tight, visual design. (I'd rather have a tooth pulled than actually watch Pulp Fiction or play Mario, but it doesn't make them any less masterful.)


Now onto the last thing. The game really doesn't address the whole character development part of the love triangle they created...

This I can agree with. I don't necessarily agree that it damages the story, but I can admit that it could have been handled more meaningfully. It does sort of "dodge" the issue, at least to an extent.

Now, I think we've arrived at one of the harsh realities of creative work. It's never done, but it does eventually have to end. There's always something I wish I could have handled differently, better, etc. There's always some flaw; for me, usually a technical thing about the set or a scene that just didn't come together the way it really needed to. I'll publish something for a client, and a couple of weeks later, the perfect way of wording something will hit me out of thin air. And...too late. It already ended.

If the game was more focused on the love triangle, I think we would have seen much more substance in the action. As it stands, there were far more important elements of the plot to focus on. It is not a story about Geralt's love life -- it's a story about Ciri finding her place in "space and time". It's simply told through an anchor character that most people can easily relate to. Very easy to over-stress a side plot and wind up with the dramatic action going wildly off track.

Lastly, time is money. I'm sure that there are a few things that could have been done to polish this part of the game up, but when? How many more times were they going to push it back? Eventually, it has to end.

I'm very willing to ignore such nuanced flaws (as well as a few bugs and what not) to exist in games if they deliver the rest with such quality. The alternative is to handle things the way that Star Citizen is being handled now. (Don't get me wrong, I love Roberts' games. I grew up playing the Wing Commander and Privateer games as they were released.) When creative teams don't set a goal and deliver it (relatively :p) on-time, it never ends. Part of producing art is knowing how much a team can actually chew. There comes a time with every large production I've ever directed where I need to tell the cast that we have no more time to spend on that scene. I've told the set crew they're out of time and we'll need to just refocus the lights to hide the unfinished areas. (I've needed to do the same for certain actors at times, too. :censored:) And those flaws will be there in the final production -- gnawing at my brain while I try to just let it go. But Opening Night has to happen. Eventually, the production needs to produce a product. Nothing is ever perfect.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the feedback, just wanted to clear up one thing I guess I didn't explain well.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean in the highlighted part above. About NPC traits allowing writers to create an outcome that is the same regardless of player choice. I think, in a sense that's exactly why, "Yen will automatically get her way with the mask." It's necessary for that to end that way in order to move the more important arc with Ciri / Avallac'h forward.

What I mean is based on Yen's character personality it would seem plausible that if the player/Geralt told her no to stealing the mask and walked away then Yen would go off on her own to steal the mask. This wouldn't necessarily work or make sense if an NPC was a weak willed character but Yen is a very strong willed character. Which means as far as writing goes it would make sense for her to do this without the player's/Geralt's consent and the player/Geralt being present. At least that's what I think. So when I talk about player choices with Yen, I don't mean that you just choose to not steal the mask and the mask is never obtained and the quest never happens because then the story wouldn't move forward. But if there is a way for Geralt to not to go with Yen for what would be a reason of morals and there is still a way to get the mask into the hands of Geralt without using some Deus Ex mechanic(which there was with Ermion) then I think it should have been put in as an option by the writers. I think you more or less got that with the second part I wrote. Those were the kinds of choices I would have liked to see in Wild Hunt that weren't present. To me those kinds of choices are more about forming little pieces of your characters personality and mentality rather than the kinds of choices that change the entire game. I enjoy both kinds of choices and felt there were few time where the player could make the personality/mentality choices. Now I know that Geralt is based on established literature but I also think that putting in some choices like that doesn't dishonor the source material. This is a RPG with Geralt after the books end and people change over time so as long as it isn't too drastic I don't see why it couldn't have been put in the game.

If the game was more focused on the love triangle, I think we would have seen much more substance in the action. As it stands, there were far more important elements of the plot to focus on. It is not a story about Geralt's love life

I agree 100% if the game focused too much on Geralt's love life then I probably would have wrote about it in the write up I did. To me, Wild Hunt is the story of Geralt and Ciri. The only reason why this subplot was a disappointment for me was because the writers avoided a subplot that they created with the first 2 games of the series. I think they could have taken the time to briefly explore it for character development and I think if they had just taken a little extra time with it then it could have made the overall story more compelling, by how much? I don't know. But maybe that's just me. If I'm being fair and honest, for the subplot of Geralt's love life it was a better decision to have it underdone instead of overdoing it for the sake of the overall story. Because while under-doing doesn't hurt the story that badly, overdoing could end up crippling the story.

I'm very willing to ignore such nuanced flaws (as well as a few bugs and what not) to exist in games if they deliver the rest with such quality

I somewhat agree with you except for the fact that throughout the games I kind of got to know and appreciate CDPR for their great story telling, diverse choices while maintaining the story, and attention to small details. What I mean to say is while the main plot of Wild Hunt is straight forward I don't have that big of a problem because the first 2 games are the same as well. The only difference between the first 2 and Wild Hunt was after fighting Jacques de Aldersberg and meeting Letho there are some questions about them being bad people or being confused about how to save people(de Aldersberg) or just a person doing a job which will help him rebuild something dear to him(Letho and the School of the Viper). After fighting Imlerith, Caranthir, and Eredin you don't have any real moral questions about them. But the main plot lacking these moral questions isn't the biggest problem for me. Also the subplots really don't have these moral dilemmas as well which I found a little more frustrating but honestly I could have looked past that as well.

In regard to the diverse choices while maintaining the story, I just felt that when Yen got involved there was room and opportunity to have a couple of these choices along with some more interesting and diverse dialogue options while maintaining the story because of how strong willed Yen is. The dialogue choices would have the player supporting Yen in her questionable decisions regardless of what the player wanted and players weren't allowed to speak out against her all that much. I think that is what frustrated me the most because I felt like I was forced into acting a certain way with her around and I just simply didn't enjoy it at all. Some might call these interactions, dialogue, and choices around Yen a small thing or little detail, but dammit, CDPR put Leo's grave in Wild Hunt. Leo, a character made up by CDPR with the intention of having him die in the prologue of the first game. They put that in Wild Hunt and I'm pretty sure if they omitted it no one would have said a thing. Also in the First game you talk to Zoltan about his engagement to a she-dwarf and it has no bearing on the plot whatsoever but in the second game when you meet Zoltan you can talk about his engagement to learn its been called off and it still has no bearing on the plot. So I don't think complaining about the lack of dialogue, interaction, and choice diversity with Yen is out of line when they have shown themselves very capable of focusing on the little details without sacrificing the story in the past.

Thanks again for your feedback I really do appreciate it.
 
Last edited:

Guest 3847602

Guest
So when I talk about player choices with Yen, I don't mean that you just choose to not steal the mask and the mask is never obtained and the quest never happens because then the story wouldn't move forward. But if there is a way for Geralt to not to go with Yen for what would be a reason of morals and there is still a way to get the mask into the hands of Geralt without using some Deus Ex mechanic(which there was with Ermion) then I think it should have been put in as an option by the writers.
That would change the entire context from "she's doing it because it's the only way to save her and Geralt's daughter" to "she's doing it because it's quicker and she's a bitch". So, it's not just a matter of PC agreeing or disagreeing with her on moral grounds...
 
That would change the entire context from "she's doing it because it's the only way to save her and Geralt's daughter" to "she's doing it because it's quicker and she's a bitch". So, it's not just a matter of PC agreeing or disagreeing with her on moral grounds...
Ok but the thing is, its not the only way to save her. At the site of the forest if you choose one of the dialogue options between "she did it for Ciri", "Try to undertsnd Yen", and "Crach gave us permission" then Ermion will literally say that there are other ways to accomplish what the mask can and that Yen is doing this because it is quicker. I forget which option yields that result but I can guarantee one does, I think it might be the "She did it for Ciri" option. Further more using the mask doesn't reveal anything that the player doesn't already know from what they learned in Velen or that the player wouldn't have found out on Lofoten.

Ultimately the masks only purpose is to inform Emrion that the Wild Hunt is involved when he catches up with Geralt and Yen at the end of the Echoes of the Past quest and sees the Wild Hunt warriors armor. This leads Ermion to tell Geralt that the Wild Hunt had just attacked Lofoten and send Geralt and Yen to look there. By the way considering Ciri was Ermion's ward, that Ciri called Ermion "Uncle Ermion", that Ermion had a hand made gift from Ciri from when she was a child in his lab that she gave him, and that Ermion willingly risked his life to defend Ciri at Kaer Morhen, I think it is reasonable to believe that he would have told Geralt and Yen about Lofoten if he had just known that the Wild Hunt was after Ciri. Clearly telling your allies about the problem is too complicated for Yen.

The notion that the mask was the only way to save Ciri is completely false because not only does Ermion say there are other ways to do the job the mask will do but also the mask isn't necessary to find Ciri and could realistically be skipped. So yes the mask is a question of moral grounds and nothing else. The fact that CDPR doesn't give the players a choice is a problem as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks for your reply though :D
 
Last edited:

Guest 3847602

Guest
Ok but the thing is, its not the only way to save her. At the site of the forest if you choose one of the dialogue options between "she did it for Ciri", "Try to undertsnd Yen", and "Crach gave us permission" then Ermion will literally say that there are other ways to accomplish what the mask can and that Yen is doing this because it is quicker. I forget which option yields that result but I can guarantee one does, I think it might be the "She did it for Ciri" option. Further more using the mask doesn't reveal anything that the player doesn't already know from what they learned in Velen or that the player wouldn't have found out on Lofoten.

Ultimately the masks only purpose is to inform Emrion that the Wild Hunt is involved when he catches up with Geralt and Yen at the end of the Echoes of the Past quest and sees the Wild Hunt warriors armor. This leads Ermion to tell Geralt that the Wild Hunt had just attacked Lofoten and send Geralt and Yen to look there. By the way considering Ciri was Ermion's ward, that Ciri called Ermion "Uncle Ermion", that Ermion had a hand made gift from Ciri from when she was a child in his lab that she gave him, and that Ermion willingly risked his life to defend Ciri at Kaer Morhen, I think it is reasonable to believe that he would have told Geralt and Yen about Lofoten if he had just known that the Wild Hunt was after Ciri. Clearly telling your allies about the problem is too complicated for Yen.

The notion that the mask was the only way to save Ciri is completely false because not only does Ermion say there are other ways to do the job the mask will do but also the mask isn't necessary to find Ciri and could realistically be skipped. So yes the mask is a question of moral grounds and nothing else. The fact that CDPR doesn't give the players a choice is a problem as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks for your reply though :D

OK, Mousesack may believe that those other methods are valid, but so did Vesemir about Uma situation. In the end, it was not him, but Yennefer who got the result. Mousesack was also convinced that using the mask would bring the apocalypse, yet, the only casualties were few Foglets. His words =/= gospel.
Yennefer was prohibited from even inspecting the forest by Mousesack & co. That was before the incident with the mask. Mousesack was still opposing her when he knew Ciri was in danger.
Knowing all that, I'm not convinced that her bringing up the Wild Hunt with no evidence to support it would resolve any issue. The only reason they even found that WH armour is because the mask told them where to look.
 
OK, Mousesack may believe that those other methods are valid, but so did Vesemir about Uma situation. In the end, it was not him, but Yennefer who got the result. Mousesack was also convinced that using the mask would bring the apocalypse, yet, the only casualties were few Foglets. His words =/= gospel.
Yennefer was prohibited from even inspecting the forest by Mousesack & co. That was before the incident with the mask. Mousesack was still opposing her when he knew Ciri was in danger.
Knowing all that, I'm not convinced that her bringing up the Wild Hunt with no evidence to support it would resolve any issue. The only reason they even found that WH armour is because the mask told them where to look.

Even if Ermion's methods wouldn't have worked that still doesn't justify Yen not telling Ermion anything. Ermion is only under the assumption that Ciri is in danger because all Yen has told him was that what she was doing is about Ciri. I will still hold firm that if Yen had just told Ermion that the Wild Hunt was after Ciri then he would have directed her to Lofoten considering all that needs to happen for Ermion to tell Geralt about Lofoten is for Ermion to see the armor. The player/Geralt can choose to tell Ermion at the end of the quest that the Wild Hunt is after Ciri or say that he will tell Ermion another time. So without even knowing how the Hunt is involved but just knowing that they are involved is enough information for Ermion to tell Geralt about Lofoten. Finding the armor only is useful because it prompts Ermion to tell them about Lofoten and if Yen just was upfront and honest for once in her 99 year life then the mask truly wouldn't have been useful at all.

Mousesack was also convinced that using the mask would bring the apocalypse, yet, the only casualties were few Foglets

Ummm, activating the mask caused a natural disaster in the form of a massive storm that Ermion and the other druids had to quell. Wasn't just a few foglets.

Think about it from Ermion's perspective. From a letter he wrote to his fellow druids that Geralt can find in Ermion's lab we know Ermion is dubious of Yen. So Yen who is only telling Ermion that she is acting out of need for Ciri and nothing else wants to take a legendary mask from Ermion and use it. This will cause a natural disaster. The mask will be destroyed once it is used and Ermion knows nothing more than that it is for Ciri. Of course he isn't going to just hand it over to Yen he already doesn't trust her and Yen does nothing to earn or deserve his trust. It makes perfect sense why he doesn't work with her and give her what she wants when he doesn't know what is going on. Ermion unlike Geralt is not wrapped around Yen's finger and will not do what she tells him just because she says so. That doesn't mean he won't help if he knows what's going on and based on how he becomes more and more helpful the more he knows (i.e. telling Geralt about Lofoten when he learns the Hunt is involved, defending Kaer Morhen when he knows Ciri will be there and the Hunt will attack) then it makes perfect sense that he would tell Yen about Lofoten if she was honest with him.

Addendum: I could literally link a 6+ page write up thoroughly detailing why Yen's was a terrible person during the third game but I doubt you would read it
 
Last edited:

Guest 3847602

Guest
I think you missed the fact that Yennefer herself wasn't sure if Ciri was related to the explosion at all before she inspected the site. She needed that confirmation before she could proceed with anything else. Why waste time on Skellige if it's nothing to do with Ciri? Wild Hunt attacking the random villages isn't such a rare occurrence, especially during the war.
Mousesack's didn't let her go anywhere near that forest. His correspondence with druids indicates he doesn't believe a single word she says.
So no, I don't see how Yennefer telling him about her theory with Ciri and the explosion being connected (with no evidence) and about WH being involved (with no evidence) makes any difference. I would be polite sure, but also a wasted effort in this situation.
Ummm, activating the mask caused a natural disaster in the form of a massive storm that Ermion and the other druids had to quell. Might want to brush up on your facts with that.
Yes, a big storm which caused a few monsters to appear, not the apocalypse as he claimed. A storm that resembled the one Geralt and his buddy summoned during Practicum in Advanced Alchemy quest. But, it's not a big deal if Yennefer isn't involved... Just like the necromancy. ;)
 
I think you missed the fact that Yennefer herself wasn't sure if Ciri was related to the explosion at all before she inspected the site

I didn't forget that and that makes it even worse. She made Geralt steal the mask from his childhood friend, Ermion(Mousesack), destroyed the mask when she used it, and created a storm that Ermion and the other druids had to quell. She did all of this under the suspicion that Ciri might have been related to the explosion.

She needed that confirmation before she could proceed with anything else.

Yen wanted and would have liked that confirmation. She didn't need confirmation. If Yen had, once again, been honest with Ermion she could have learned about Lofoten, then investigated Lofoten, and then if she didn't learn anything she could have returned to the explosion site. I seriously don't understand why you think what Yen did was the only way to find Ciri(or even necessary at all) when the mask provides no unique information regarding Ciri whatsoever.

Wild Hunt attacking the random villages isn't such a rare occurrence, especially during the war.
Mousesack's didn't let her go anywhere near that forest. His correspondence with druids indicates he doesn't believe a single word she says.
So no, I don't see how Yennefer telling him about her theory with Ciri and the explosion being connected (with no evidence) and about WH being involved (with no evidence) makes any difference. I would be polite sure, but also a wasted effort in this situation.

Name one place where the Wild Hunt went to in the third game where they weren't looking for Ciri. The only one is White Orchard and they went there looking for Yen because Yen was looking for Ciri. The king of the Wild Hunt is chasing Ciri. They are elves not some mindless monsters attacking random targets. Yen and Geralt would have to be pretty dumb to not check out Lofoten upon hearing the Hunt attacked and fortunately they weren't. Just because they know Ciri was on Ard Skellig doesn't mean anything in regard to Hindarsfjall which is a completely separate island. Furthermore Ciri going to Velen and Novigrad took place between the explosion on Ard Skellig and the attack in Lofoten. So since the explosion and attack took place a decent amount of time apart from each other and the two events occurred on separate islands there is little to no evidence supporting that Ciri was in Lofoten using the information received on Ard Skellig. Yen and Geralt went there because they knew the Hunt was after Ciri and the Hunt had just attacked Lofoten. The explosion site doesn't tell them anything in regard to Lofoten and it tells them nothing they don't already know.

Ermion doesn't trust a word Yen says because he knows she is withholding information as he writes in his letter. As I said before Yen does nothing to deserve or earn Ermion's trust, especially when he knows she is withholding information.

You are completely missing the point as to why Yen being honest with Ermion makes a difference. You are purely looking at it in the context of the explosion site. All Yen needed to say was something along the lines of "I'm looking for Ciri, she is in danger, the Wild Hunt is pursuing her and I think the explosion on Ard Skellig might be connected". From that point the explosion site ceases to be relevant because now Ermion knows the Wild Hunt is after Ciri and can direct Yen to Lofoten without Yen and Geralt using the mask. With the information gained in Lofoten as well as what Geralt does in Velen and Novigrad, Yen and Geralt now have everything they need to find Ciri and the explosion site is a moot point.

Yes, a big storm which caused a few monsters to appear, not the apocalypse as he claimed. A storm that resembled the one Geralt and his buddy summoned during Practicum in Advanced Alchemy quest.

While I am no expert in magic in the witcher world, I am going to guess that there are some inherent differences between a storm created by a druid and a storm created by a legendary mask. Just because they look similar doesn't prove anything. Factors such as duration of the storm, as well as the ability to control the storm are probably different. Which according to the legend of the mask I believe the mask would create a storm that would drown the isles and since the part of the legend talking about the abilities of the mask are true then we would have to assume that the rest of the legend is true because there is no evidence saying otherwise. As for control of the storm, one druid was able to control the storm during the Practicum in Advanced Alchemy quest. However If I recall correctly it took Ermion and a team of druids to control the storm that the mask created.

Also can you please stop trying to make Ermion/Mousesack out to be some bad person or someone who doesn't care about Ciri or doesn't want to help her out. Ermion risked his life at Kaer Morhen for Ciri. Just about everyone Geralt invited to Kaer Morhen during the Brothers in Arms quests came to Kaer Morhen because they owed Geralt a favor. Roche owed Geralt because Geralt helped him with Ves and Geralt helped find Thaler. Hjalmar, Folan, and Vigi all owed Geralt for helping them with the giant on Undvik. Letho owed Geralt for saving his life. Keira Metz owed Geralt for helping her with the curse, inviting her to Kaer Morhen, and whether she cares to admit it or not saving her from being killed by Radovid. The only people who were there and didn't owe Geralt anything were the witchers Vesemir, Lambert, and Eskel, Yen, Triss, and Ermion.

Addendum: You should read this and think about it objectively....I kind of doubt you will change your opinion but just maybe you will understand the issues with Yen.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Tz_zaj9KaOoCD9iLjPoLHy5X6sgT6kVajT88-Z9Pc14/edit?usp=sharing
 
Last edited:

Guest 3847602

Guest
She did all of this under the suspicion that Ciri might have been related to the explosion.
This is a fair point, it can be argued whether what she was doing is justified by her desire to help Ciri or isn't. It's obvious that our interpretations differs, but it's a grey area. Depends on how much one finds her motive relateable and justifiable relative to her actions.
As for the rest, I still think you're making quite the big leaps and assumptions to "what would have happened", and I still don't think her being 100% honest would've made any progress towards her goal (based on what I know about both characters). But, since we're going in full circles here, we'll have to agree to disagree. ;)
Finally, I'm not trying to make Mousesack look bad. What I am saying is that finding Ciri as quickly as possible is not his #1 priority, nor it should be. What I am saying that the game makes it quite apparent that his distrust in her is shown from the moment she arrived on Skellige. I'm saying that the game makes it clear that nobody, with exception of Geralt, is willing to take the same risks and go the same lengths to protect Ciri as Yennefer (which, again, doesn't imply that Mousesack and the others don't care about Ciri at all). However, it does make her decision to circumvent him look understandable in my book.
 
As for the rest, I still think you're making quite the big leaps and assumptions to "what would have happened", and I still don't think her being 100% honest would've made any progress towards her goal

Just explain to me one last thing. How is it a "big leap" to assume Ermion would tell Yen about Lofoten if she just told him from the start that about the Wild Hunt being after Ciri, considering that Ermion throughout the game helps to find and protect Ciri, but it is not a "big leap" to assume that since Vesemir was wrong about how to lift the curse on Uma then Ermion must also be wrong about his alternative methods to see into the past without using the mask? Which you more or less said in an earlier post.

My whole point is not that the mask quest should be skipped or removed but that since the mask provides no unique information, and in all probability wouldn't be necessary if Ermion knew the Wild Hunt was after Ciri beforehand, then the game should allow the player to choose whether to side with Ermion or Yen rather than forcing the player to just go along with what Yen says.
 
Last edited:

Guest 3847602

Guest
How is it a "big leap" to assume Ermion would tell Yen about Lofoten if she just told him from the start that about the Wild Hunt being after Ciri, considering that Ermion throughout the game helps to find and protect Ciri
A) Because I don't think it's logical for Yennefer to assume: "I should just tell him about the Wild Hunt, then he's gotta help me" after "I told him that I want to help Ciri and he still doesn't want to help me".
B) We don't know if Lofoten has been raided at the time Yennefer arrived on Skellige and asked him to inspect the forest
C) Even if Lofoten was already razed by the time she arrived, WH destroying some backwater village and kidnapping peasants during the war is not that uncommon, who knows how many incidents like that could have happened outside of Skellige/Velen/White Orchard; Yennefer and Geralt are tracking Ciri, not the Wild Hunt

I also think it's obvious that Yennefer wants to involve as fewer people as possible in order minimize the risks for Ciri, herself and the people she does want to involve.
but it is not a "big leap" to assume that since Vesemir was wrong about how to lift the curse on Uma then Ermion must also be wrong about his alternative methods to see into the past without using the mask? Which you more or less said in an earlier post.
Because there is a certain pattern in the game (the mask, necromancy, trial of grasses) where everyone whines about what she plans to do and in the end her method is proven to be either the most efficient or the only one that's viable. Her success ratio is 100%, while he same cannot be said about the alternative paths (which in case of Mousesack is too vague in the first place).
It's also because I think a powerful sorceresses like her is more knowledgeable on the matter of pros an cons of those methods than witchers and druids. And because I believe she would choose the best solution available in order to protect her daughter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A) Because I don't think it's logical for Yennefer to assume: "I should just tell him about the Wild Hunt, then he's gotta help me" after "I told him that I want to help Ciri and he still doesn't want to help me".
B) We don't know if Lofoten has been raided at the time Yennefer arrived on Skellige and asked him to inspect the forest
C) Even if Lofoten was already razed by the time she arrived, WH destroying some backwater village and kidnapping peasants during the war is not that uncommon, who knows how many incidents like that could have happened outside of Skellige/Velen/White Orchard; Yennefer and Geralt are tracking Ciri, not the Wild Hunt

A) The question isn't about Yen assuming that if she tells Ermion about the Wild Hunt then he will have to help her. This about Yen acting like an adult and understanding that people aren't going to do something they don't want to do(handing over the mask) unless they have good reason. All Yen told Ermion was that she needed the mask for Ciri. No one in their right mind is going to relinquish something like the mask for only that reason even if they do care about Ciri because they don't know why Yen needs it for Ciri. Yen should know that.

B) If Lofoten hadn't been raided by the time Yen arrived to Kaer Trolde that means that Yen and Ciri were in Skellige at the same time on different Isles, but they didn't know because Yen didn't ask around. So Yen could have literally found Ciri or at least Skjall alive and well if she went around asking the jarls if they had seen an ashen haired woman after Ermion told her she couldn't have the mask. Yen is absolutely unwilling to find alternative solutions even when her own hit brick walls and she has to wait for Geralt to help her.

C) They literally go to Lofoten because the Wild Hunt was there. The mask tells them Ciri took a portal to Velen(which Geralt already knew she was in Velen). The have absolutely no evidence to support that Ciri was in Lofoten considering the explosion site and Lofoten are on completely different isles, and took place a reasonable time apart from each other since Ciri was in Velen and Novigrad between the two events. So yes they were tracking the Wild Hunt because they had no clue where to look for Ciri because the mask doesn't tell them anything useful.

Because there is a certain pattern in the game (the mask, necromancy, trial of grasses) where everyone whines about what she plans to do and in the end her method is proven to be either the most efficient or the only one that's viable. Her success ratio is 100% and he same cannot be said about the alternative paths (which in case of Mousesack is not even clear what would even be in the first place).
It's also because I think a powerful sorceresses like her is more knowledgeable on the matter of pros an cons of those methods than witchers and druids. And because I believe she would choose the best solution available in order to protect her daughter.

I have never said the necromancy wasn't necessary because ultimately it was. The mask wasn't necessary at all so giving her credit for being successful with the mask when they don't really gain anything from it is sort of a moot point. The trial of the grasses would have been a complete failure and they never would have found Ciri if it wasn't for Vesemir. When Uma looks to be dying, Yen starts beating on his chest trying to perform CPR and it takes Vesemir shoving Yen off of Uma so Avalac'h can speak from inside to give Yen the proper thing to say to lift the curse. Vesemir knows to do this because he has been taking the time to study Uma and learn. While Yen doesn't bother. Yen almost dooms Ciri by not being thorough and acting impulsively. I'll give you a 67% success rate because I'm only counting the mask and the trial as half credit.

As for alternative methods, only one alternative was used to in opposition of one of Yen's plans which was Vesemir's plan. Since Yen gets half credit for the trial, Vesemir gets the other half so realistically you are looking at a 67% success rate over 3 attempts and a 50% success rate over 1 attempt. Not that big of a discrepancy.

Then the rest of what you said is what you believe and you just cite the fact that Yen is a sorceress so she just knows more. I don't know if that is enough considering that both Ermion and Vesemir seem to be fairly knowledgeable about a lot of different things.
 
Last edited:

Guest 3847602

Guest
Yup, Yennefer doing the CPR could result in Uma being hammered into the Earth's core, good thing there was someone else to tell her to calm down and finish what she started. That gesture is equal to everything else she did. (y)
What was preventing Mousesack from trying out his plan and proving Yennefer wrong?
 
What was preventing Mousesack from trying out his plan and proving Yennefer wrong?

Well considering Ermion doesn't know why Yen wants the mask other than its for Ciri I highly doubt he is just going use an alternative to the mask just because "it's for Ciri" and by the time he learns what was going on the mask has already been used so what's the point

Yup, Yennefer doing the CPR could result in Uma being hammered into the Earth's core, good thing there was someone else to tell her to calm down and finish what she started. That gesture is equal to everything else she did

Can't even tell if you are being sarcastic or not. just in case, Yen makes the plan, orders people around, and uses a stabilizing spell. Lambert fortifies the phylactery, Eskel gets the Forktail spinal fluid, Geralt brews and administers the potions, and Vesemir shoving her off Uma is the only reason she knows the proper words to use to lift the curse. While Yen is due some credit for making the plan and casting the spells, I'm not going to give her all the credit when at least half of the trial(preparations and actual trial) were done by others on her orders.
Post automatically merged:

Some final thoughts. Unless you have anything else to say. :D

Because there is a certain pattern in the game (the mask, necromancy, trial of grasses) where everyone whines about what she plans to do and in the end her method is proven to be either the most efficient or the only one that's viable. Her success ratio is 100%,

You say that a certain pattern of Yen providing viable solutions is enough to justify using her methods over other characters methods and to justify saying that it is not a big leap or assumption to think that because Vesemir was wrong about lifting the curse then Ermion will also be wrong about providing an alternative to using the mask. Even though the only alternative method used is Vesemir taking Uma to the mountains which is 100% critical to finding Ciri.

How is this for a pattern? When Ermion learns that the Wild Hunt is involved, he immediately tells Geralt about Lofoten. When Geralt tells Ermion he is bringing Ciri to Kaer Morhen and the Hunt will show up and attack, Ermion says he will defend Ciri at Kaer Morhen and leave Skellige by the morning at the latest. When Yen tells Ermion next to nothing about why she needs the mask and only tells him that its for Ciri, he does nothing. There is a pretty clear pattern of Ermion helping the minute he knows what is going on.

In short Ermion didn't feel that Yen saying she wants the mask for Ciri's sake was enough information because he knew she wasn't telling him everything. Yen doesn't tell him Ciri is in danger and I believe it is when the player chooses the "she did it for Ciri" dialogue option at the explosion site, Ermion says he guessed that much. Yen doesn't even bother to tell Ciri's "Uncle Ermion" that Ciri is in danger when she wants to him to do something for her regarding Ciri, who was Ermion's ward too, and her safety.

I also think it's obvious that Yennefer wants to involve as fewer people as possible in order minimize the risks for Ciri, herself and the people she does want to involve.

You say that Yen wants to minimize risks for herself, Ciri, and the other people she wants to involve(which is basically Geralt), but what risk does telling Ermion about the Wild Hunt and Ciri pose to Yen, Ciri, or anyone else for that matter.

good thing there was someone else to tell her to calm down and finish what she started. That gesture is equal to everything else she did

I don't understand how you are able to minimize every other characters contributions to finding Ciri other than Yen. Vesemir didn't calm her down and his actions were not a gesture. Vesemir shoved Yen off Uma. Uma was not responding to Yen's CPR at all. Don't even bring up the yellow flask from her satchel that she asks Geralt to get in this moment without admitting that you're just biased towards Yen and believe whatever she does or is going to do is right while anything anyone else does or is going to do is wrong.

Vesemir takes the time to be thorough and study Uma at the keep and in the mountains. When Vesemir gets back to the keep he tells Yen what he has learned(amazing that he doesn't feel the need to withhold information) about how Uma would moan in a different voice when in a relaxed or hypnotized state. Even though Yen thanks Vesemir for this information, she does nothing with it.

When Uma is moments away from dying and Yen is pounding the chest of an unresponsive Uma, it is Vesemir who listens for the other voice and when he hears it he immediately shoves Yen away from Uma so he can listen to it. This voice(Avalac'h's) then said the proper words to lift the curse and Yen only heard these words because of what Vesemir did of his own volition. This wasn't some gesture from Vesemir to calm down Yen so then she would grit her teeth and try the same process over again. This was Vesemir saving Ciri and the entire story. Uma was going to die on that table if not for Vesemir studying him, taking him into the woods the night before, and shoving Yen off of him.

You haven't even refuted my point about the mask providing no unique information regarding Ciri along with several other points I have made[such as my counter arguments about why it is not a big leap or assumption that Ermion would tell Yen about Lofoten if she was honest(below)]
A) The question isn't about Yen assuming that if she tells Ermion about the Wild Hunt then he will have to help her. This about Yen acting like an adult and understanding that people aren't going to do something they don't want to do(handing over the mask) unless they have good reason. All Yen told Ermion was that she needed the mask for Ciri. No one in their right mind is going to relinquish something like the mask for only that reason even if they do care about Ciri because they don't know why Yen needs it for Ciri. Yen should know that.

B) If Lofoten hadn't been raided by the time Yen arrived to Kaer Trolde that means that Yen and Ciri were in Skellige at the same time on different Isles, but they didn't know because Yen didn't ask around. So Yen could have literally found Ciri or at least Skjall alive and well if she went around asking the jarls if they had seen an ashen haired woman after Ermion told her she couldn't have the mask. Yen is absolutely unwilling to find alternative solutions even when her own hit brick walls and she has to wait for Geralt to help her.

C) They literally go to Lofoten because the Wild Hunt was there. The mask tells them Ciri took a portal to Velen(which Geralt already knew she was in Velen). The have absolutely no evidence to support that Ciri was in Lofoten considering the explosion site and Lofoten are on completely different isles, and took place a reasonable time apart from each other since Ciri was in Velen and Novigrad between the two events. So yes they were tracking the Wild Hunt because they had no clue where to look for Ciri because the mask doesn't tell them anything useful.

So I must assume you have nothing to counter those points I made, as well as the notion that the mask provides no unique information. So if you want to talk about necessary to save Ciri, Vesemir taking Uma into the mountains was infinitely more necessary than Yen stealing the mask. Yen stealing the mask was more of a "gesture" and Vesemir shoving Yen off of Uma was actually useful.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom