Ending Cliche/Way Too Predictable + Misleading Dialogue Options + Lack of Backstory (Major Spoilers)
Hello fellow Witchers,
I just want to start off by saying that I am new to the forum but have enjoyed playing the games for quite some time now.
I was introduced to The Witcher 2 - fell in love with the main story line and finished it in 17 hours. Went back and played The Witcher 1 and then the second game again - and then played both games again to make different choices.
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is here now and it was definitely a fantastic game. One of the few games in the past 10 years actually worth the hype.
The Endings are Cliche
However, I was left a bit dissatisfied with the "major" ending choices. For starters, they were far too predictable. Let's look at one of the endings: It was basically said that Ciri was going to end up on the Nilfgaardian throne multiple times explicitly and hinted at if a player reads looted books about the Empire.
Where is the satisfaction in that?
One ending ends up with Ciri's sacrifice and Geralt's suicidal behavior - once again, this was way too predictable. The superhuman hero of the game ends up sacrificing herself for the greater good of the planet? Hmm. Oh, and Ciri ends up being a witcher? Saw that coming from the first hour of the game. I'm sure many of us thought of herself as essentially a witcher under Geralt and Vesimir's tutelage.
The worst part in all 3 endings is that the White Frost was not developed properly. I know this specific criticism has been brought up on this website, but I simply have to reiterate this point and reinforce it. I understand that there were some references to the White Frost, but not enough.
Misleading Dialogue Options
Let's move on to some of the misleading dialogue options - this may have convinced some players to say something that they don't want to say.
In Act 3, one of the options was (and I'm paraphrasing): "What will you be doing, Avalac'h, when the battle begins?"
I intended for Geralt to ask this question in a curious way, but it ends up leading to an argument between the two. If I knew this were the case, then I would not have wanted to create a fight since the Wild Hunt was ready to attack us and take Ciri.
Another misleading dialogue option had to do when we searched Avalach's laboratory. Ciri wanted to use her powers to destroy the lab - just like she could have done with Kaer Mohren. I obviously disallowed her and this was one reason that led to a ridiculous ending (Ciri's sacrifice and Geralt's mental disorder). Why should I have allowed her to destroy the lab? It would have brought the Wild Hunt right to us BEFORE we prepared for the battle. Now that would be stupid, wouldn't it? I then replayed Act 3 (thanks to my 200+ save files, I had one before the start of Act 3). I let her "destroy" the laboratory, BUT it turned out she just wanted to break a few tables and chairs. How should I have known that? It's not like I was going to spoil the decision for myself before making it. So the dialogue options that suggested Ciri was going to do some crazy things with the laboratory and alert the Wild Hunt was FALSE.
A dialogue system like the one in Dragon Age II (images that explain the succinct dialogue option) would make more sense. Or maybe a parenthetical description explaining what will happen if the dialogue option is chosen would also make more sense. If we had this, then maybe I would have let Ciri "destroy the lab using her superpowers which basically means that she will throw a few chairs around."
Lack of Backstory
Now, this may not be justified, but I want to learn more about Geralt and Yen's dealings with the Wild Hunt. Their relationship with the Wild Hunt was alluded to a few times, but I want more detail. Possibly an expansion pack (although both expansion packs don't have Geralt and Yen dealing with the Wild Hunt). It would be awesome if CDProjektRED made another expansion pack or a prequel game dealing with the Hunt. This could be the most interesting game (in terms of story-line at least) in the series, since we will be seeing a different side of Geralt and Yen.
The Witcher 3 tried to make the Wild Hunt look like the total bad guys. But I genuinely do believe Geralt and Yen's relationship with the Wild Hunt suggests otherwise. It seems to be a more complicated relationship than "oh hey, the Wild Hunt from Aen Elle is an evil cavalry. We gotta fight their riders!" But The Witcher 3 did not expand on the relationship.
CdProjektRed seems to have run out of time with The Witcher 3 and were probably reluctant to delay and polish it (since it was already delayed twice before and I FULLY supported their decision). This may have led to the aforementioned issues occurring.
All in all, The Witcher 3 was a great adventure. It has set the bar for future RPGs. Despite the criticisms above, I could write entire essays about why this game was the best one in the series, and why this game is the RPG of the 21st century.
Hello fellow Witchers,
I just want to start off by saying that I am new to the forum but have enjoyed playing the games for quite some time now.
I was introduced to The Witcher 2 - fell in love with the main story line and finished it in 17 hours. Went back and played The Witcher 1 and then the second game again - and then played both games again to make different choices.
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is here now and it was definitely a fantastic game. One of the few games in the past 10 years actually worth the hype.
The Endings are Cliche
However, I was left a bit dissatisfied with the "major" ending choices. For starters, they were far too predictable. Let's look at one of the endings: It was basically said that Ciri was going to end up on the Nilfgaardian throne multiple times explicitly and hinted at if a player reads looted books about the Empire.
Where is the satisfaction in that?
One ending ends up with Ciri's sacrifice and Geralt's suicidal behavior - once again, this was way too predictable. The superhuman hero of the game ends up sacrificing herself for the greater good of the planet? Hmm. Oh, and Ciri ends up being a witcher? Saw that coming from the first hour of the game. I'm sure many of us thought of herself as essentially a witcher under Geralt and Vesimir's tutelage.
The worst part in all 3 endings is that the White Frost was not developed properly. I know this specific criticism has been brought up on this website, but I simply have to reiterate this point and reinforce it. I understand that there were some references to the White Frost, but not enough.
Misleading Dialogue Options
Let's move on to some of the misleading dialogue options - this may have convinced some players to say something that they don't want to say.
In Act 3, one of the options was (and I'm paraphrasing): "What will you be doing, Avalac'h, when the battle begins?"
I intended for Geralt to ask this question in a curious way, but it ends up leading to an argument between the two. If I knew this were the case, then I would not have wanted to create a fight since the Wild Hunt was ready to attack us and take Ciri.
Another misleading dialogue option had to do when we searched Avalach's laboratory. Ciri wanted to use her powers to destroy the lab - just like she could have done with Kaer Mohren. I obviously disallowed her and this was one reason that led to a ridiculous ending (Ciri's sacrifice and Geralt's mental disorder). Why should I have allowed her to destroy the lab? It would have brought the Wild Hunt right to us BEFORE we prepared for the battle. Now that would be stupid, wouldn't it? I then replayed Act 3 (thanks to my 200+ save files, I had one before the start of Act 3). I let her "destroy" the laboratory, BUT it turned out she just wanted to break a few tables and chairs. How should I have known that? It's not like I was going to spoil the decision for myself before making it. So the dialogue options that suggested Ciri was going to do some crazy things with the laboratory and alert the Wild Hunt was FALSE.
A dialogue system like the one in Dragon Age II (images that explain the succinct dialogue option) would make more sense. Or maybe a parenthetical description explaining what will happen if the dialogue option is chosen would also make more sense. If we had this, then maybe I would have let Ciri "destroy the lab using her superpowers which basically means that she will throw a few chairs around."
Lack of Backstory
Now, this may not be justified, but I want to learn more about Geralt and Yen's dealings with the Wild Hunt. Their relationship with the Wild Hunt was alluded to a few times, but I want more detail. Possibly an expansion pack (although both expansion packs don't have Geralt and Yen dealing with the Wild Hunt). It would be awesome if CDProjektRED made another expansion pack or a prequel game dealing with the Hunt. This could be the most interesting game (in terms of story-line at least) in the series, since we will be seeing a different side of Geralt and Yen.
The Witcher 3 tried to make the Wild Hunt look like the total bad guys. But I genuinely do believe Geralt and Yen's relationship with the Wild Hunt suggests otherwise. It seems to be a more complicated relationship than "oh hey, the Wild Hunt from Aen Elle is an evil cavalry. We gotta fight their riders!" But The Witcher 3 did not expand on the relationship.
CdProjektRed seems to have run out of time with The Witcher 3 and were probably reluctant to delay and polish it (since it was already delayed twice before and I FULLY supported their decision). This may have led to the aforementioned issues occurring.
All in all, The Witcher 3 was a great adventure. It has set the bar for future RPGs. Despite the criticisms above, I could write entire essays about why this game was the best one in the series, and why this game is the RPG of the 21st century.
Last edited:
