Witcher 3 is not a good game and CDPR shouldn't change a thing

[inanimate_object]

Witcher 3 is not a good game and CDPR shouldn't change a thing

I'm writing this mostly in response to alot of criticism towards the game that is not technically wrong in any way but framed with very misguided and odd motivation. That is to say, many posters here say the equivalent of:


"I don't like this aspect of the game. CDPR, change this part for me!" or


"CDPR why aren't you responding to/acknowledging criticism? Don't you care about your fans?" or


"Don't worry, CDPR will fix all our grievances in the inevitable Enhanced Edition!"


This is a very wrong way of looking at criticism towards the game. First off, it's a disservice to the game to make suggestions under the assumption that a "better" and more finished version will inevitably come out sooner or later. The Witcher 3 is not a beta. It is a complete product that demands people pay the full price for. So it is not at all defensible to ignore the downfalls of parts of the game in the hopes that they will be fixed in an EE version. By the fact that Witcher 3 was released, it was to be experienced by itself, without expectation of a more polished version coming later. The whole idea of an EE version is terrible in my opinion. It sets the precedent that CDPR has not released the best game they could have made. It fosters unrealistic expectations from fans who are disappointed with the game and manufactures a cheap opportunity for an artist to go back and deliver the product they should have delivered in the first place.

Second, while it seems CDPR has been surprisingly more active on this forum than I would expect of a content creator, it is not the responsibility of an artist to explain himself/herself and his or her creative choices. CDPR has exactly zero debts and responsibilities to the fans of the series. I don't see why some people are taking it as a slight that their criticism is not personally (or in abstraction) addressed by an official from CDPR. It's not like they care about you less because your criticism is left unanswered. They never cared about you to begin with. It's not an artist's job to placate to you. They are to make the best possible thing they can, in their minds. If you so happen to disagree, well it's not their problem, it's yours (mine too).


And most importantly, under no circumstances whatsoever should CDPR ever be compelled or obliged to change ANY part of the game based on what consumer's are saying. This is a very strange onset of the entitled consumer behaviour which we've seen signs of in the Star Wars franchise and recently in video games with the creative capitulation of Mass Effect 3. Criticism is actually not supposed to be constructive. Finding faults with the game should not be motivated by trying to IMPROVE the game. We must operate under the assumption that what CDPR created was what they intended to create. That is, Witcher 3 is THEIR creative property and is not shared one bit by any fan, no matter how rabid. The consumer has ZERO say in how the content
should be changed (if at all) and should not even begin to believe this in the first place. Its a recipe for disappointment for people to act as if their criticism is in fact suggestions on improvements to the game. CDPR shouldn't change things that you want changed if they themselves disagree and if this were to happen, the game should not have been released in the first place.


So lets get this straight. The Witcher 3 failed on almost every level for me. I don't find any part of it anything more than a mediocre game and have no desire to play it a second time. There's a hundred things I WOULD have changed but by my criticism alone, nothing SHOULD be changed. Not one pixel, intonation of dialogue or scene transition. It's not mine to change or to have entitled delusions that I am making valuable suggestions that CDPR must read in order to be a "good" developer. CDPR created a product they believe in and by that virtue should not change a single thing - even if I believe a lot of it to be a smelly turd.

 

[OutgoingHermit]

Well, you got one thing right.

The Witcher 3 isn't a good game, it's a great one.

 

[Garrison72]

If they agreed with you, they wouldn't recently be announcing patch #7. Some things slipped through the cracks, and yes they should be fixed.

 

[almostfaceman]

There's not many products out there that aren't improved because of customer feedback. There are a few exceptions, like the fork, spoon, paper clip... but cars, magazines, websites, cameras, phones... heck I worked in a job where companies constantly craved and dug for customer feedback to improve (and thus sell more) of their product. Game developers can actually take an existing product and add to its value and sell more. There's nothing wrong with a customer saying, "hey, I like you're product, but here's how it could be better." If the capability exists, there's nothing wrong with a company responding to the customer.

 

[Zeroscape]

Before we wade into the games are a business vs games are an art discussion again, I just want to point out that based on what I've seen with other games, these forums are positively civil. I would even hazard to say that most people are giving feedback without that obsessive demand to see changes. Focusing on that minority only empowers their standpoint.

For me, I'd rather see more thought out discussions about specific aspects of the game or narrative like we did two-ish weeks ago because that genuinely did have some very valuable feedback for developers interested in new perspectives. Nevertheless, it's not our responsibility to police what people say on these forums. Some people will be caught up by emotions and advocate a certain view more strongly than others. If you're trying to maintain some sort of standard, an open forum is simply not the way to do that. Mods keep things from becoming anarchy but that's about the best you can hope for.

It's up to the developers to make a choice as to whether or not they wish to engage with the forum community or actively read threads. It's also their choice if they feel they want to take advice and use it to iterate on their product. No doubt the devs have a list of things that had to be cut or changed due to constraints of some kind, so seeing the feedback we provide, in whatever form that may be, may just give them the impetus to go ahead and give it another go. If not, then that's fine too, it's their game, their resources and their time they would have to invest.

CDPR already established their good reputation with the previous two games and since Witcher 3 is such a success, they have a lot of leeway in determining what they do going forward. It just comes down to what they want to do internally. If there's a great drive to leave swords and monsters behind for science fiction to keep things fresh and the staff motivated, then that's what they should do so we can get another great game.

Since there's no media attention on some crazy charity drive with the aim to have CDPR rework the endings, I'm pretty sure we have nothing to worry about. This is more a case of making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[CostinRaz]

The principal argument that art shouldn't be criticized with the intent of changing it/improving it is a load of blabbering nonsense. Art Critique exists and is very important.|

Besides as per dev posts on these forums: They knew their game has issues, major issues at the in the story. They admitted as much.

Since there's no media attention on some crazy charity drive with the aim to have CDPR rework the endings, I'm pretty sure we have nothing to worry about. This is more a case of making a mountain out of a molehill

And yet there's thousands upon thousands of forum pages on the subject of the story, and it's only growing as more and more people finish the game and reflect on how bad things are on a story level.

It is not on a Bioware level of scandal because Bioware handled things VERY badly. Insulting fans, dismissing criticism, talking about "artistic integrity" and all that moronic crap we got from them. Bioware acted as if their product was perfectly as it was and dismissed the criticism.

Guess what happened then? Yeah people got really fucking angry at them for that, and rightly so and that controversy only died out after they admitted they fucked up with the Extended Cut. Similar in a way to the downgrade controversy: A great of dismissal of valid criticism by CDPR and refusal to admit there's a problem, then a massive controversy and then it dies out as the company admits they fucked up. Same with Dark Souls.

In contrast to those situations CDPR has not acted like an arrogant son of a bitch who believes there's no fault in their product: The developers certainly don't believe that tripe as per their own statements on this forum. How much they fix, improve and yes change ( because contrary to what some may believe there's no golden rule to prevent CDPR from changing things in the story to make it better ) really depends on how money the higher ups give them and how much resources they are willing to allocate.

Contrary to what some people like the OP might feel a game developer admitting faults in their product and fixing them is NOT a bad thing. In fact it's a very good thing for everyone involved: We get a better product at the end of the day, the company gains good PR and good will of fans and so on.

No artist or content creator of any kind that's worth his salt would argue his work is above criticism, that's just bollocks, but unlike other mediums in gaming we don't have true critique of products, proper analysis and what not. Instead we get a bunch of witless hacks pretending they're journalists when they have no journalistic degree.

 

[frozenkex]

Many decent/good games have been improved and made better in different ways based on player feedback and it often benefited both parties, so I don't see OPs point, it's disconnected from reality.

 

[inanimate_object]

The principal argument that art shouldn't be criticized with the intent of changing it/improving it is a load of blabbering nonsense. Art Critique exists and is very important.|

Besides as per dev posts on these forums: They knew their game has issues, major issues at the in the story. They admitted as much.



And yet there's thousands upon thousands of forum pages on the subject of the story, and it's only growing as more and more people finish the game and reflect on how bad things are on a story level.

It is not on a Bioware level of scandal because Bioware handled things VERY badly. Insulting fans, dismissing criticism, talking about "artistic integrity" and all that moronic crap we got from them. Bioware acted as if their product was perfectly as it was and dismissed the criticism.

Guess what happened then? Yeah people got really fucking angry at them for that, and rightly so and that controversy only died out after they admitted they fucked up with the Extended Cut. Similar in a way to the downgrade controversy: A great of dismissal of valid criticism by CDPR and refusal to admit there's a problem, then a massive controversy and then it dies out as the company admits they fucked up. Same with Dark Souls.

In contrast to those situations CDPR has not acted like an arrogant son of a bitch who believes there's no fault in their product: The developers certainly don't believe that tripe as per their own statements on this forum. How much they fix, improve and yes change ( because contrary to what some may believe there's no golden rule to prevent CDPR from changing things in the story to make it better ) really depends on how money the higher ups give them and how much resources they are willing to allocate.

You've missed the point entirely. It's not about believing the game is perfect. It's about believing that the game is the creative expression of the developers, and that on that virtue alone it should not be comprimised.

Art critique is NEVER an opinion on how the artist should change their work. EVER. It is a remark on general quality, not a coercive tool for the critic to shape the work himself/herself. Bioware handled things badly because they showed themselves to be creatively at the mercy of belligerent entitled fans who believed they had some claim to ownership over the Mass Effect series. Bioware destroyed any credibility they had by refusing to stand by their own creative vision and giving in to the pathetic demands of a vocal minority of consumers. And because of this silly precedent, some fans now have it in their mind that developers should be EXPECTED.

Who says Bioware thought the game was perfect? They wanted to preserve their creative vision and in the end, didn't have the guts to go through with it. CDPR is making patches for technical issues. On a more creative front, they may or may not choose to change anything about the game. And if they do not, it does not mean they think the game is perfect, but that they have the courage to stand by the product as their own artistic expression, not a fucking senate hearing where any idiot can come and demand changes.

 

[warbaby2]

You've missed the point entirely. It's not about believing the game is perfect. It's about believing that the game is the creative expression of the developers, and that on that virtue alone it should not be comprimised.

Art critique is NEVER an opinion on how the artist should change their work. EVER. It is a remark on general quality, not a coercive tool for the critic to shape the work himself/herself. Bioware handled things badly because they showed themselves to be creatively at the mercy of belligerent entitled fans who believed they had some claim to ownership over the Mass Effect series. Bioware destroyed any credibility they had by refusing to stand by their own creative vision and giving in to the pathetic demands of a vocal minority of consumers. And because of this silly precedent, some fans now have it in their mind that developers should be EXPECTED.

Who says Bioware thought the game was perfect? They wanted to preserve their creative vision and in the end, didn't have the guts to go through with it. CDPR is making patches for technical issues. On a more creative front, they may or may not choose to change anything about the game. And if they do not, it does not mean they think the game is perfect, but that they have the courage to stand by the product as their own artistic expression, not a fucking senate hearing where any idiot can come and demand changes.

I agree in part... games are a form of art, but they also are a product. A real artist doesn't care whether his work "sells to pay the bills" or not, game developers generally don't have that luxury, not if they also are running a business, employ a team, etc.

 

[inanimate_object]

I agree in part... games are a form of art, but they also are a product. A real artist doesn't care whether his work "sells to pay the bills" or not, game developers generally don't have that luxury, not if they also are running a business, employ a team, etc.

Yes true, but there is a distinction between compromises made to assure commercial success, and compromises made AFTER commercial success. Given industry trends, Witcher 3 has sold most the copies it will ever expect to sell. It is already is a financial success. Why should CDPR now have to alter their creative vision? There's no two-way street with the consumer developper relationship. The consumer takes what the developer gives him or he does not. There is no situation in which the consumer has or should have an active role in deciding on aspects of the game.

 

[CostinRaz]

It's about believing that the game is the creative expression of the developers, and that on that virtue alone it should not be comprimised.

Well that's certainly not how CDPR has ever viewed it. The EE of TW2 is a perfect example: The story of the game was certainly viewed as being quite good by default, and it didn't need improvement. CDPR obviously felt otherwise and guess what they did: They improved it.

TW2 was also a success, bringing in good sales and stellar reviews for it's story.

Who says Bioware thought the game was perfect? They wanted to preserve their creative vision and in the end

Wrong. They wanted to dismiss criticism in order to avoid their game getting a bad reputation for being flawed and by doing so they only failed in that goal.

They changed it when they realized that failure.

The consumer takes what the developer gives him or he does not. There is no situation in which the consumer has or should have an active role in deciding on aspects of the game.

Bollocks again. CDPR sure as hell doesn't agree with you since they care about consumer feedback and have changed things long before TW3 came out in their products.

The entire strategy of the company is to respect the fans and listen to their feedback, you argue they shouldn't because the game sold at high numbers...well if CDPR does then they've stopped being CDPR.

I doubt Marcin Iwnski is as callous as you'd suggest he should be.

Bioware used to not care because their bosses were fine in shoving game after game out, but that was a management decision, not a creator's decision. In fact many former Bioware developers and even active ones were NOT happy with the state of their games: DA2, ME3, DA:A

Management was changed though after ME3 and thankfully the doctors were sacked.

Blizzard would throw you out of the building if you told them they shouldn't care about what their consumers want and the criticism they have over their games.

We live in the digital era where any digital product: Be it a movie, a song, a book, a game, can and should be improved if there are issues, especially glaring ones.

TW3 has glaring issues on every level: Graphics, Audio Volume, Gameplay and Story.

 

[inanimate_object]

Well that's certainly not how CDPR has ever viewed it. The EE of TW2 is a perfect example: The story of the game was certainly viewed as being quite good by default, and it didn't need improvement. CDPR obviously felt otherwise and guess what they did: They improved it.

TW2 was also a success, bringing in good sales and stellar reviews for it's story.

You don't seem to understand, there is a difference between believing your game is beyond criticism and believing your game is your own creative expression. I cannot speak to the motivations involved with bringing out the Enhanced Edition of Witcher 2. If most of the changes were motivated by flaws the CDPR themselves believed to be weak-points, than of course its justified. An artist has control of his/her own work. If, like Mass Effect 3, CDPR rolled over to the mass demands of entitled immature fans who demanded something beyond what they got, it is creative capitulation, and demonstrates a lack of belief in the game's vision. Any changes to be made should be made on the faults that the creator himself deems weak, not to acquiesce to an entitled vocal minority of fans.

Wrong. They wanted to dismiss criticism in order to avoid their game getting a bad reputation for being flawed and by doing so they only failed in that goal.

They changed it when they realized that failure.
Bioware used to not care because their bosses were fine in shoving game after game out, but that was a management decision, not a creator's decision. In fact many former Bioware developers and even active ones were NOT happy with the state of their games: DA2, ME3, DA:A

Management was changed though after ME3 and thankfully the doctors were sacked.

Blizzard would throw you out of the building if you told them they shouldn't care about what their consumers want and the criticism they have over their games.

You are in no position to make that statement, and the extent to which you believe you have insight in the creative process of this game speaks volumes as to the atmosphere of entitlement that has swept over the industry.

Bollocks again. CDPR sure as hell doesn't agree with you since they care about consumer feedback and have changed things long before TW3 came out in their products.

The entire strategy of the company is to respect the fans and listen to their feedback, you argue they shouldn't because the game sold at high numbers...well if CDPR does then they've stopped being CDPR.

I doubt Marcin Iwnski is as callous as you'd suggest he should be.

It has nothing to do with being nice or callous and everything to do with respecting the vision of the Witcher 3's creators. Latent critical reception almost always has some sort of impact on any future works in the video game industry, that much is clear and beyond argument. However adjusting the game that THEY made in order to placate entitled consumers is abandoning their own vision for the game and a raised white flag that CDPR had no confidence in the merits of their choices. Respecting fans has nothing to do with compromising the game to satisfy a few.

We live in the digital era where any digital product: Be it a movie, a song, a book, a game, can and should be improved if there are issues, especially glaring ones.

TW3 has glaring issues on every level: Graphics, Audio Volume, Gameplay and Story.

You do not have ANY power or say into what the product you bought should be. Your part in the Witcher 3 consists of the dollars you exchanged in the marketplace for the product. You have ZERO ownership or right to demand changes to a game you were not involved in. That you believe that the Witcher 3 is teeming with problems (as I do) does not and should not compel CDPR to change the game to satisfy you. And any change CDPR makes (or lack thereof) in response to consumer criticism is completely separate from the degree of respect they have for their fans. You vastly over-estimate the rights you think you have over a product you had zero involvement in.

 

[CostinRaz]

You vastly over-estimate the rights you think you have over a product you had zero involvement in.

And you continue spouting this argument.

Let me quote you a CDPR developer from the politics thread:

"I understand. Believe me, there are loads of things we'd like to make better / different if we could, looking back at the game now. Some of the issues you're raising were brought up during development, but for various reasons couldn't be addressed at the point we stumbled upon them.

I'm not saying no, and I'm not saying yes - everything is possible, but it depends on our resources and time."

Also in reply to a huge post about potential fixes and improvements he said this:

As for your questions:
1) They are aware of some of these problems, the others they didn't know about. I'm going to bring the latter to their attention.
2) I can't promise you that these will be done in any form. I can promise you though that I will bring up discussion about those in the office.

They aware are, and admit the issues are there, there's no bullshit thrown by CDPR about respecting some vision because they aren't like you, IGN and Bioware. ( You're using the same argument used with ME3 ).

Instead the argument made by the developer is all about the resources, maybe they will, maybe they won't. Financial considerations will decide that matter, not some half-assed argument over "artistic integrity".

Frankly I have only a frail hope they'll do anything on the scale that would fix the game, but better then standing there telling people to shut up.