You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
But in the end, it does create an opportunity for CDPR to fill in the gaps in future DLC. Seems like CDPR do have a reputation for doing so in previous Witcher game.
Smart marketing? Who knows.
Smart marketing? I don't see what's smart here, sorry.
And of course they could make the ending better in the future, at least to a certain (limited) extend. So what? People bought this game now and they played it now. Some are obviously a bit disappointed about certain aspects now.
You say that as if CDPR made bad desicions on purpose to be able to improve it later on. That sounds incredibly stupid to me and I have a hard time imagining a CDPR that would do so....
Smart marketing? I don't see what's smart here, sorry.
And of course they could make the ending better in the future, at least to a certain (limited) extend. So what? People bought this game now and they played it now. Some are obviously a bit disappointed about certain aspects now.
You say that as if CDPR made bad desicions on purpose to be able to improve it later on. That sounds incredibly stupid to me and I have a hard time imagining a CDPR that would do so....
I'm not trying to imply CDPR made a bad decision on purpose. I'm just raising a question whether CDPR was aware of their action.
They might have overlooked certain aspects in the narration (intentionally or unintentionally), and unexpectedly leave some breathing room to slot whatever needs to be slotted in.
I'm also unhappy with some aspect of the game right now, but that doesn't mean everything is over.
I'm not trying to imply CDPR made a bad decision on purpose. I'm just raising a question whether CDPR was aware of their action.
They might have overlooked certain aspects in the narration (intentionally or unintentionally), and unexpectedly leave some breathing room to slot whatever needs to be slotted in.
I'm also unhappy with some aspect of the game right now, but that doesn't mean everything is over.
Of course it's "over". I've finished the game after 112 hours and I felt hugely disappointed. There is nothing CDPR can do to erase my mind about that or to revoke my feelings. And whatever they do for a possible improved version in the future, the "magic" of the first playthrough is forever and irrevocably gone. Sadly, there is no second chance in story-driven video games. Sure, you can improve things to make another playthrough more enjoyable. But it's always worse than the first because there is only little sense of wonder, little sense of surprise, little sense of tension.
And we have no ideas why the ending is the way like it is. I'd guess that the just lacked the writing and storytelling means in the end to bring the game to a great and concluding end. Maybe they made bad decisions as a collective. Maybe other departments won over the storytelling one for the direction of the ending. Maybe they lacked time and money (although they had huge postponements of the release). Either way, the end is lacking.
So is there room for improvement? Definitely. But there is ALWAYS room for improvement. You can also improve a good or even great thing further. Almost nothing is really perfect so that you wouldn't find room for improvement. So that's hardly an excuse for lacking content in the first place if you ask me. So no, no smart marketing...
Everyone's a critic these days. A professional one at that, using big words and stuff.
I don't say that as an offence, but more of an observation of what I've seen on these forums these past few days. Everyone is spouting some objective analysis of the game's faults and shortcomings... and they're all just so subjective. They're personal gripes with the game, not objective faults(exceptions to the rule notwithstanding). This collection here is mostly the same.
And to be clear: I'm not saying here that the game and it's story doesn't have problems. It does. But that is a discussion for another time, here I'm offering a rebuttal of the OP.
First of all, the pacing issue: talking about the pacing of the Main Story in a non-linear open-world game is pointless, since the game as a whole won't have pacing(at all) due to the non-linear nature of it. But I'll indulge you in your attempt, and offer a rebuttal. The main quest's pacing is fine. It's actually great. For me it was a pleasant surprise not seeing the game end right at the battle of Kaer Morhen, the expected and standard climax. No, it doesn't fit into the standard storytelling schematics. And that's good. Sometimes, using an anti-trope in the story is a good decision. And comparing the pacing of a 50 hour long video-game to that of a 2-hour long movie is just downright criminal. While you're at it, why don't you compare the "pacing" of The Song of Ice and Fire books to the pacing of Frozen? I have absolutely no idea why you put that much emphasis on one single type of pacing. You do know that it's not the only one? And that it's not the only "ideal" one? Right? The pacing that characterizes A New Hope is not a be-all end-all perfect schematic which works for every single piece of fiction ever written. While, yes pacing does play a large part in making a work of art enjoyable, and mismanaged pacing can mess with a person's enjoyment of said work of art, that's not the case here. It's a simple matter of different work, different pacing.
But then again, the Deus Ex Machina you describe is not exactly a God from the machine. Yes, the White Frost in the game is an unexplained macguffin. But the way it is solved is not an Ex Machina: a seemingly unsolvable problem is solved by the introduction of a new character/event/item/ability, etc. Ciri is not a new character who comes in to save the heroes from a certain death. And neither is Ciri's ability to stop the Frost introduced at the moment she does it. It is actually introduced much earlier, and explained in one of the in-game books. And neither is a the White Frost a present threat, merely a future one. (As an aside, I can't speak to the entire series, seeing as I've only played the games, I haven't read the books as well.). But from the standpoint of the game, stopping the White Frost, while the mechanics of the ability, and the nature of the White Frost is unexplained(hence, the macguffin), the event itself is not a Deus Ex Machina. Furthermore, the removal of that event would not have affected the outcome of the story, from the game's perspective, since the White Frost was not the central conflict in the game, and that conflict was resolved without any godly intervention.
The Choice and Consequence section has the same problem as the one before. You have an established view of how a work of art is supposed to function, and you consider it an objective problem that it doesn't function that way. This what the most bruhaha has been made about: the choices. Everyone wants them to work in a certain way: whether that's good vs evil choices, bad vs equally bad, bad or worse, everyone wants them to function in a nice little systematic way. Thing is, the way they work now is just fine. Great even... again. Wanna know why? Because they don't function in a nice little systematic way!. Tada. They don't fit into a predictable system, and I love that. They much closer resemble reality and the way choices and decisions work in real life, than any game before it, including the previous two Witchers. I did not see the contradictions in the choices which decided Ciri's fate, nor did I have a problem with those being, small, "psychological" choices. Big events in the world don't always happen because someone made a "big moral choice". Quite often the tiniest of moments have major consequences. And I like it that way. Way more than Mass Effect's clearly spelled out coloring book of ending choices. I like the way Geralt behaves with his surrogate daughter(on the right choices path).
And you keep harping on about how certain relationships are underdeveloped in the game. Well, some of them are, but a lot of the others you mention aren't. Yeneffer's relationship with Ciri is conveyed rather well through body language alone. The way she reacts to certain events involving Ciri and Geralt, those reactions, those visual cues told me more about her and the dynamic between the three of them, than a 10000 word text would. And let's not forget you're viewing the events from a first person view, through the eyes of Geralt. And he doesn't need to be present for every single character interaction ever.
The rest of the things I agree with you on. There are character interactions missing from the game(mostly due to a limited budget/limited time I imagine), and the Wild Hunt is a criminally underdeveloped villain.
I don't say that as an offence, but more of an observation of what I've seen on these forums these past few days. Everyone is spouting some objective analysis of the game's faults and shortcomings... and they're all just so subjective. They're personal gripes with the game, not objective faults(exceptions to the rule notwithstanding). This collection here is mostly the same.
And to be clear: I'm not saying here that the game and it's story doesn't have problems. It does. But that is a discussion for another time, here I'm offering a rebuttal of the OP.
First of all, the pacing issue: talking about the pacing of the Main Story in a non-linear open-world game is pointless, since the game as a whole won't have pacing(at all) due to the non-linear nature of it. But I'll indulge you in your attempt, and offer a rebuttal. The main quest's pacing is fine. It's actually great. For me it was a pleasant surprise not seeing the game end right at the battle of Kaer Morhen, the expected and standard climax. No, it doesn't fit into the standard storytelling schematics. And that's good. Sometimes, using an anti-trope in the story is a good decision. And comparing the pacing of a 50 hour long video-game to that of a 2-hour long movie is just downright criminal. While you're at it, why don't you compare the "pacing" of The Song of Ice and Fire books to the pacing of Frozen? I have absolutely no idea why you put that much emphasis on one single type of pacing. You do know that it's not the only one? And that it's not the only "ideal" one? Right? The pacing that characterizes A New Hope is not a be-all end-all perfect schematic which works for every single piece of fiction ever written. While, yes pacing does play a large part in making a work of art enjoyable, and mismanaged pacing can mess with a person's enjoyment of said work of art, that's not the case here. It's a simple matter of different work, different pacing.
But then again, the Deus Ex Machina you describe is not exactly a God from the machine. Yes, the White Frost in the game is an unexplained macguffin. But the way it is solved is not an Ex Machina: a seemingly unsolvable problem is solved by the introduction of a new character/event/item/ability, etc. Ciri is not a new character who comes in to save the heroes from a certain death. And neither is Ciri's ability to stop the Frost introduced at the moment she does it. It is actually introduced much earlier, and explained in one of the in-game books. And neither is a the White Frost a present threat, merely a future one. (As an aside, I can't speak to the entire series, seeing as I've only played the games, I haven't read the books as well.). But from the standpoint of the game, stopping the White Frost, while the mechanics of the ability, and the nature of the White Frost is unexplained(hence, the macguffin), the event itself is not a Deus Ex Machina. Furthermore, the removal of that event would not have affected the outcome of the story, from the game's perspective, since the White Frost was not the central conflict in the game, and that conflict was resolved without any godly intervention.
The Choice and Consequence section has the same problem as the one before. You have an established view of how a work of art is supposed to function, and you consider it an objective problem that it doesn't function that way. This what the most bruhaha has been made about: the choices. Everyone wants them to work in a certain way: whether that's good vs evil choices, bad vs equally bad, bad or worse, everyone wants them to function in a nice little systematic way. Thing is, the way they work now is just fine. Great even... again. Wanna know why? Because they don't function in a nice little systematic way!. Tada. They don't fit into a predictable system, and I love that. They much closer resemble reality and the way choices and decisions work in real life, than any game before it, including the previous two Witchers. I did not see the contradictions in the choices which decided Ciri's fate, nor did I have a problem with those being, small, "psychological" choices. Big events in the world don't always happen because someone made a "big moral choice". Quite often the tiniest of moments have major consequences. And I like it that way. Way more than Mass Effect's clearly spelled out coloring book of ending choices. I like the way Geralt behaves with his surrogate daughter(on the right choices path).
And you keep harping on about how certain relationships are underdeveloped in the game. Well, some of them are, but a lot of the others you mention aren't. Yeneffer's relationship with Ciri is conveyed rather well through body language alone. The way she reacts to certain events involving Ciri and Geralt, those reactions, those visual cues told me more about her and the dynamic between the three of them, than a 10000 word text would. And let's not forget you're viewing the events from a first person view, through the eyes of Geralt. And he doesn't need to be present for every single character interaction ever.
The rest of the things I agree with you on. There are character interactions missing from the game(mostly due to a limited budget/limited time I imagine), and the Wild Hunt is a criminally underdeveloped villain.
Last edited:
Of course it's "over". I've finished the game after 112 hours and I felt hugely disappointed. There is nothing CDPR can do to erase my mind about that or to revoke my feelings. And whatever they do for a possible improved version in the future, the "magic" of the first playthrough is forever and irrevocably gone. Sadly, there is no second chance in story-driven video games. Sure, you can improve things to make another playthrough more enjoyable. But it's always worse than the first because there is only little sense of wonder, little sense of surprise, little sense of tension.
And we have no ideas why the ending is the way like it is. I'd guess that the just lacked the writing and storytelling means in the end to bring the game to a great and concluding end. Maybe they made bad decisions as a collective. Maybe other departments won over the storytelling one for the direction of the ending. Maybe they lacked time and money (although they had huge postponements of the release). Either way, the end is lacking.
So is there room for improvement? Definitely. But there is ALWAYS room for improvement. You can also improve a good or even great thing further. Almost nothing is really perfect so that you wouldn't find room for improvement. So that's hardly an excuse for lacking content in the first place if you ask me. So no, no smart marketing...
Hmm - I have to somewhat disagree with you here.
You claim that the "magic" would be gone. But assuming CDPR does improve Act 3, I am assuming that they will make HUGE improvements. These improvements will make Act 3 exciting, more unpredictable than Act 3 was, different dialogue options, different endings and epilogues, etc.
I think once CDPR makes these huge improvements, the "magic" will be present.
An obvious counterobjection is that CDPR will not make huge improvements. Have they even announced an EE version of TW3?
Hmm - I have to somewhat disagree with you here.
You claim that the "magic" would be gone. But assuming CDPR does improve Act 3, I am assuming that they will make HUGE improvements. These improvements will make Act 3 exciting, more unpredictable than Act 3 was, different dialogue options, different endings and epilogues, etc.
I think once CDPR makes these huge improvements, the "magic" will be present.
An obvious counterobjection is that CDPR will not make huge improvements. Have they even announced an EE version of TW3?
Even if they hugely improve/change the ending of the game doesn't change the fact that I have to play through a lot of stuff that I've already experienced again to even reach that point. For me, that's incredibly boring. Of course you can change some decisions here and there but most of the time you do exactly the same things again which doesn't sound attractive or interesting to me. Of course that's subjective, but I hardly ever play any game twice. Only games with a VERY good gameplay that make so much fun by just using the mechanics that I can at least accept that the story is just boring. But to me, TW3 is no such game. The gameplay is nice but I had my fair share of it after more than 100 hours. It's not that good to invest even more time into it.
And the "magic" is more than just the content itself. The "magic" is a result of a lot of influences, including expectations, suspense, social aspects and so on. For me, there is nothing like playing a game for the very first time. It's a uniue, one of a kind experience. Others might feel different but that's how it works for me.
No and currently they have no plans to. It's mostly a small group of people on the forums that feel upset. Casuals and the mainstream media are loving the game. I myself think it is an excellent game in spite of its flaws like Witcher 1 and 2 before it, and while I would welcome more exposition for the Frost and the Hunt it is not absolutely needed for me to enjoy the game.Hmm - I have to somewhat disagree with you here.
You claim that the "magic" would be gone. But assuming CDPR does improve Act 3, I am assuming that they will make HUGE improvements. These improvements will make Act 3 exciting, more unpredictable than Act 3 was, different dialogue options, different endings and epilogues, etc.
I think once CDPR makes these huge improvements, the "magic" will be present.
An obvious counterobjection is that CDPR will not make huge improvements. Have they even announced an EE version of TW3?
No and currently they have no plans to. It's mostly a small group of people on the forums that feel upset. Casuals and the mainstream media are loving the game. I myself think it is an excellent game in spite of its flaws like Witcher 1 and 2 before it, and while I would welcome more exposition for the Frost and the Hunt it is not absolutely needed for me to enjoy the game.
In other words, those who put the time and energy to play the game and and the ones before it and those who critically analyzed the game using thorough analysis are the ones demanding improvements.
In other words, the mainstream and casual gamer love the game because they didn't critically analyze Act 3.
In other words, CDPR catered to the mainstream gamer and were rewarded - but not by their loyal fans. Not by the fans who stood by them all these years in anticipation of TW3.
How is the mature audience (e.g. people like Scholdarr.452 and myself and many others here) supposed to be happy with a seriously rushed Act 3?
How is the mature audience supposed to ignore serious flaws with the fact that the endings are connected to ridiculous notions of parenthood that don't make any sense?
How should the mature audience react to a game that was supposed to target them, but instead targeted the 16 year olds whose main interest in the game lies in the sex scenes and nudity (I do believe the nudity in this game is lacking relative to the previous ones, but the fact that it is present to a decent degree makes the younger audience automatically give this game a 10/10. Also, the lack of nudity doesn't make it a bad game by the way)?
In sum, how should the mature audience react to a poorly developed relationship between Geralt and Ciri?
Don't get me wrong, I loved this game. I enjoyed all 80 hours of it. I am a huge CDPR fan, but Act 3's poor storytelling (let's not mention the very easy boss fights and overly simplistic missions, etc) makes me question my loyalty.
In sum, how should the mature audience react to a poorly developed relationship between Geralt and Ciri?
Did I miss something?
Did I miss something?
It seems like it.
I think that Geralt and Ciri's relationship was poorly developed because of the underlying fundamental issues regarding the ending, poor dialogue options that misguide players, and parental decisions that make no sense.
How was I supposed to know I was going down a "positive" or "negative" path? The game never confirms it, and nor do the main characters (Geralt, Ciri, Yen, Avalac'h). Essentially players were gambling with different choices that lead to different conclusions.
Would you consider this great character development? Absolutely not.
So you wanted CDPR to mark the dialogue choices blue for good and red for bad? That sounds so much better. People not reacting to what you say in the way you expected? Wow that's totally unrealistic. They should've just had you choose one of the endings before Ciri went into the Tower, it worked so well for ME3!It seems like it.
I think that Geralt and Ciri's relationship was poorly developed because of the underlying fundamental issues regarding the ending, poor dialogue options that misguide players, and parental decisions that make no sense.
How was I supposed to know I was going down a "positive" or "negative" path? The game never confirms it, and nor do the main characters (Geralt, Ciri, Yen, Avalac'h). Essentially players were gambling with different choices that lead to different conclusions.
Would you consider this great character development? Absolutely not.
So you wanted CDPR to mark the dialogue choices blue for good and red for bad? That sounds so much better. People not reacting to what you say in the way you expected? Wow that's totally unrealistic. They should've just had you choose one of the endings before Ciri went into the Tower, it worked so well for ME3!
No. A more reasonable approach should have been Yen or Avalac'h or Ciri herself telling Geralt about their expectations on how Geralt should approach "parenthood."
I'm sorry, but the very fact that many people had to google other endings after completing their own game shows that the ending (and what led to it aka the parental actions) was lacking.
Oh - and the decision regarding which ending will occur were concluded much before she entered the tower. They were concluded before the last mission actually! This is just as bad, if not worse, than ME3.
So much for TW3 being better than ME3, huh?!
Last edited:
How was I supposed to know I was going down a "positive" or "negative" path? The game never confirms it, and nor do the main characters (Geralt, Ciri, Yen, Avalac'h). Essentially players were gambling with different choices that lead to different conclusions.
You don't. And you shouldn't. You shouldn't know what is a negative or a positive path.
Sounds like you're waiting for some CDPR mod to come down from the clouds, pay you on the head, and say how special you are to them. You're not going to get that. You're not going to get a completely rewritten Act 3 either. You might not even get an EE. If after 80 hours you lack back at your experience as a whole and feel cheated then it might be time for you and CDPR to part ways. I eagerly anticipate the expansions and Cyberpunk 2077. I still feel excited for the franchise's future and hope we see more games set in the Witcherverse. If you don't then yes, it is indeed time to question your loyalty. I agree that Act 3 and how the White Frost was handled was not good. Neither was Radovid IMO. Yet I still enjoyed the game as a whole. So if you can't enjoy the game after everything you experienced then I guess you can't enjoy CDPR games anymore. I hope they'll learn from this experience and maybe try to not do so much in one game next time.In other words, those who put the time and energy to play the game and and the ones before it and those who critically analyzed the game using thorough analysis are the ones demanding improvements.
In other words, the mainstream and casual gamer love the game because they didn't critically analyze Act 3.
In other words, CDPR catered to the mainstream gamer and were rewarded - but not by their loyal fans. Not by the fans who stood by them all these years in anticipation of TW3.
How is the mature audience (e.g. people like Scholdarr.452 and myself and many others here) supposed to be happy with a seriously rushed Act 3?
How is the mature audience supposed to ignore serious flaws with the fact that the endings are connected to ridiculous notions of parenthood that don't make any sense?
How should the mature audience react to a game that was supposed to target them, but instead targeted the 16 year olds whose main interest in the game lies in the sex scenes and nudity (I do believe the nudity in this game is lacking relative to the previous ones, but the fact that it is present to a decent degree makes the younger audience automatically give this game a 10/10. Also, the lack of nudity doesn't make it a bad game by the way)?
In sum, how should the mature audience react to a poorly developed relationship between Geralt and Ciri?
Don't get me wrong, I loved this game. I enjoyed all 80 hours of it. I am a huge CDPR fan, but Act 3's poor storytelling (let's not mention the very easy boss fights and overly simplistic missions, etc) makes me question my loyalty.
I'm sorry, but the very fact that many people had to google other endings after completing their own game shows that the ending (and what led to it aka the parental actions) was lacking.
No, the exactly contrary.
It's simply poor design when a game take you by hand and tell you exactly what is the path of your choice. In that case, it's not even a choice anymore.
You don't. And you shouldn't. You shouldn't know what is a negative or a positive path.
I'm not saying Yennefer should tell Geralt this: "Hey Geralt, you're going down a negative path! Stop!"
Instead, a more mature way for parents (after all, Yen and Geralt are supposed to be Ciri's parents) would have resulted in the following dialogue, or at least something similar: "I realize you had a drink with Ciri after the Battle of Kaer Mohren. I really thought it would have been better if you did something fun or relaxing with her. Ciri has been through a lot."
THAT would have been how parents interact in real life. Now granted, most parents don't have a daughter with Elder Blood (this is a fantasy game), but parents in real life discuss issues regarding parental decisions and how they should best nurture their children.
What. Why the hell should we take parenting advice from Avellach and Yen? GERALT is the one who knows Ciri best. Yes it is better that the choices you made before the game ended affected the ending instead of one last-minute bullshit decision. How is that worse? Was getting the ending where Temeria was made a protectorate of Redania bad because it was a decision you made prior in the game?No. A more reasonable approach should have been Yen or Avalac'h or Ciri herself telling Geralt about their expectations on how Geralt should approach "parenthood."
I'm sorry, but the very fact that many people had to google other endings after completing their own game shows that the ending (and what led to it aka the parental actions) was lacking.
Oh - and the decision regarding which ending will occur were concluded much before she entered the tower. They were concluded before the last mission actually! This is just as bad, if not worse, than ME3.
So much for TW3 being better than ME3, huh?!
TW3 is leagues better than ME3's choose your favorite color bs.
---------- Updated at 03:09 PM ----------
So you want them to hold the player's hand and tell them "oh no you done goofed"? No that's stupid you should find out the results of your choice when you face the consequences for them. Geralt and Yen DO talk about the trip to Imerith, and Yen tells him she's glad they went.I'm not saying Yennefer should tell Geralt this: "Hey Geralt, you're going down a negative path! Stop!"
Instead, a more mature way for parents (after all, Yen and Geralt are supposed to be Ciri's parents) would have resulted in the following dialogue, or at least something similar: "I realize you had a drink with Ciri after the Battle of Kaer Mohren. I really thought it would have been better if you did something fun or relaxing with her. Ciri has been through a lot."
THAT would have been how parents interact in real life. Now granted, most parents don't have a daughter with Elder Blood (this is a fantasy game), but parents in real life discuss issues regarding parental decisions and how they should best nurture their children.
Sounds like you're waiting for some CDPR mod to come down from the clouds, pay you on the head, and say how special you are to them. You're not going to get that. You're not going to get a completely rewritten Act 3 either. You might not even get an EE. If after 80 hours you lack back at your experience as a whole and feel cheated then it might be time for you and CDPR to part ways. I eagerly anticipate the expansions and Cyberpunk 2077. I still feel excited for the franchise's future and hope we see more games set in the Witcherverse. If you don't then yes, it is indeed time to question your loyalty. I agree that Act 3 and how the White Frost was handled was not good. Neither was Radovid IMO. Yet I still enjoyed the game as a whole. So if you can't enjoy the game after everything you experienced then I guess you can't enjoy CDPR games anymore. I hope they'll learn from this experience and maybe try to not do so much in one game next time.
It may not seem like it, but I agree with you. I am hoping for another game in the Witcherverse, and am exciting for Cyberpunk 2077.
And I agree that Radovid was not handled properly too.
CDPR could have done much better with this game and catered it to a more mature audience, as was promised. And they did not deliver on that promise.
I know CDPR will not get an EE or rewrite Act 3. The masses/casual gamer love this game too much, because they did not critically analyze it.
---------- Updated at 03:12 PM ----------
What. Why the hell should we take parenting advice from Avellach and Yen? GERALT is the one who knows Ciri best. Yes it is better that the choices you made before the game ended affected the ending instead of one last-minute bullshit decision. How is that worse? Was getting the ending where Temeria was made a protectorate of Redania bad because it was a decision you made prior in the game?
TW3 is leagues better than ME3's choose your favorite color bs.
---------- Updated at 03:09 PM ----------
So you want them to hold the player's hand and tell them "oh no you done goofed"? No that's stupid you should find out the results of your choice when you face the consequences for them. Geralt and Yen DO talk about the trip to Imerith, and Yen tells him she's glad they went.
I know TW3 is much better than ME3, but I was applying your logic about how it is "bs" to have pre-defined decisions.
Geralt and Yen DO talk indeed - in one moment that held no significance. I'm talking about discussions regarding parental decisions that are supposed to affect the ending (that in its own right doesn't make sense, but let's ignore that).