Some lessons that should or could be learned from Witcher 3
The lack of of Iorveth, Saskia and other W2 choices making themselves known in W3 highlights that the developers prioritised content in an unfortunate way. If half of the energy and work put on side quests would have been put on tying the trilogy together we would have ended up with a game that with higher potential in terms of consistency and satisfying storytelling.
To me it is clear that IF you are planning to have a trilogy driven by strong characters and a strong story, the gameplay should reflect that.
Yes, Geralt is a Witcher, but the story is not about Geralt taking contract to earn his bread. It is mainly about Ciri, the wild hunt, his friends, power intrigues and the shape of things to come. That is why focus should have been shifted significantly more towards these things. That is not to say monster hunting or taking contracts have no place in such a story, they do, but it should have been integrated much better IMHO.
In stories of urgency, side quests should reflect the ability of the player to act logically. Running to look for loot or sitting down for a round of cards while a man in screaming for help while hanging of the cliff might not be the brightest idea if you want to save the life of that man. Because if you do, you go look for the loot or play cards after you saved him. Of course, sometimes there is not time to do both, and thus it boils down to a choice that will reflect on the character you play.
I don´t think I am alone in saying that I would rather have seen 10x less contracts and side quests giving room for a logical expanded storylines involving characters and events from previous games coming to a conclusion than the other way around.
The lesson I think is to remember what the core and tone of the story you want to tell is all about and focus on that.
The lack of of Iorveth, Saskia and other W2 choices making themselves known in W3 highlights that the developers prioritised content in an unfortunate way. If half of the energy and work put on side quests would have been put on tying the trilogy together we would have ended up with a game that with higher potential in terms of consistency and satisfying storytelling.
To me it is clear that IF you are planning to have a trilogy driven by strong characters and a strong story, the gameplay should reflect that.
Yes, Geralt is a Witcher, but the story is not about Geralt taking contract to earn his bread. It is mainly about Ciri, the wild hunt, his friends, power intrigues and the shape of things to come. That is why focus should have been shifted significantly more towards these things. That is not to say monster hunting or taking contracts have no place in such a story, they do, but it should have been integrated much better IMHO.
In stories of urgency, side quests should reflect the ability of the player to act logically. Running to look for loot or sitting down for a round of cards while a man in screaming for help while hanging of the cliff might not be the brightest idea if you want to save the life of that man. Because if you do, you go look for the loot or play cards after you saved him. Of course, sometimes there is not time to do both, and thus it boils down to a choice that will reflect on the character you play.
I don´t think I am alone in saying that I would rather have seen 10x less contracts and side quests giving room for a logical expanded storylines involving characters and events from previous games coming to a conclusion than the other way around.
The lesson I think is to remember what the core and tone of the story you want to tell is all about and focus on that.
Last edited: