That I agree with. There are A LOT of shortcomings, and the books would make some of them even more confusing. Dijkstra's behavior in the end can make sense only in the context of the game, but not in the context of the books, for example. There is enough of discontinuity between the books and the games to make the readers among us quite unhappy. I would say reading the books would enhance experience of the story, but the story, characters, actions, events, etc. should make sense and be examples of good writing on their own.
That I agree with. There are A LOT of shortcomings, and the books would make some of them even more confusing. Dijkstra's behavior in the end can make sense only in the context of the game, but not in the context of the books, for example. There is enough of discontinuity between the books and the games to make the readers among us quite unhappy. I would say reading the books would enhance experience of the story, but the story, characters, actions, events, etc. should make sense and be examples of good writing on their own.
@Scholdarr.452
I am very late to the party here, but like you I finally completed the game after 120 hours where for most of that time I thought I was playing the best RPG ever made then the final Skellieger quests and end battle took place and I was left feeling fairly underwhelmed and confused. I have not read to books, and thus can only base my observations on the in-game content.
I thought I understood the entire premise of the game when Ciri explains that the Wild Hunt is after her because their world is dying and they needed her portal traveling ability granted by the elder blood to invade and conquer Geralt and Co's world.
While I agree that the Wild Hunt is very underdeveloped, knowing that the reason they were so brutal and fanatical was because they were desperate to save their species from annihilation made a lot of sense.
Then Geralt travels to the world of the An Elle and it turns out that its actually a paradise filled with art and architecture and the de facto Prime Minister really doesn't seem to care about Ciri or the white frost at all. W T F?????
I thought maybe Eredin could have been motivated to kill his king because he felt only a ruthless dictator could effectively deal with the threat of entropy / white frost, sort of like what Jaques de Aldersberg wanted to do in Temeria, but nope apparently the white frost is not actually a big deal and he is just a typical power hungry villain.
Then in the middle of the battle with the wild hunt Ciri decides that now is the time to confront the white frost. Again, W T F??? There is never any indication that the frost is an imminent threat, or that she has powers that can stop a force of nature type of threat that exists between worlds. Its pretty much CDPR saying congratulations you have defeated the wild hunt......oh yeah btw that unstoppable world destroying ice age thing we have vaguely alluded to a few times is also fixed....
I feel a much better story would have been the Aen Elle world is in fact becoming frozen and Avallach makes a deal with Ge'els where in exchange for betraying Eredin, Ciri will willingly transport the Aen Elle to a new world, or confront the white frost directly once and for all.
I do agree that Ciri fighting the white frost is a deus ex machina moment, but there does seem to be some precedent within the games for a 'source' or elder blood being able to fight it. The letter Geralt finds in the bookstore from 'A' who is assumed to be Alvin / Jaques De Aldersber states:
"...Know that nothing will save the world except preparing its entire population for this catastrophe. The old tales say a Child of the Elder Blood can stave off the danger, but I tried and failed. Ever since I have been haunted by a hideous vision, a crowned wraith. The specter of my failure.."
Perhaps Ciri would be able to succeed where Jaques failed because she had the guidance of Avallach, Geralt and Yennefer.
Speculation aside, Witcher 3 is a brilliant game, but they way CDPR handled the white frost was very unfortunate..
I am very late to the party here, but like you I finally completed the game after 120 hours where for most of that time I thought I was playing the best RPG ever made then the final Skellieger quests and end battle took place and I was left feeling fairly underwhelmed and confused. I have not read to books, and thus can only base my observations on the in-game content.
I thought I understood the entire premise of the game when Ciri explains that the Wild Hunt is after her because their world is dying and they needed her portal traveling ability granted by the elder blood to invade and conquer Geralt and Co's world.
While I agree that the Wild Hunt is very underdeveloped, knowing that the reason they were so brutal and fanatical was because they were desperate to save their species from annihilation made a lot of sense.
Then Geralt travels to the world of the An Elle and it turns out that its actually a paradise filled with art and architecture and the de facto Prime Minister really doesn't seem to care about Ciri or the white frost at all. W T F?????
I thought maybe Eredin could have been motivated to kill his king because he felt only a ruthless dictator could effectively deal with the threat of entropy / white frost, sort of like what Jaques de Aldersberg wanted to do in Temeria, but nope apparently the white frost is not actually a big deal and he is just a typical power hungry villain.
Then in the middle of the battle with the wild hunt Ciri decides that now is the time to confront the white frost. Again, W T F??? There is never any indication that the frost is an imminent threat, or that she has powers that can stop a force of nature type of threat that exists between worlds. Its pretty much CDPR saying congratulations you have defeated the wild hunt......oh yeah btw that unstoppable world destroying ice age thing we have vaguely alluded to a few times is also fixed....
I feel a much better story would have been the Aen Elle world is in fact becoming frozen and Avallach makes a deal with Ge'els where in exchange for betraying Eredin, Ciri will willingly transport the Aen Elle to a new world, or confront the white frost directly once and for all.
I do agree that Ciri fighting the white frost is a deus ex machina moment, but there does seem to be some precedent within the games for a 'source' or elder blood being able to fight it. The letter Geralt finds in the bookstore from 'A' who is assumed to be Alvin / Jaques De Aldersber states:
"...Know that nothing will save the world except preparing its entire population for this catastrophe. The old tales say a Child of the Elder Blood can stave off the danger, but I tried and failed. Ever since I have been haunted by a hideous vision, a crowned wraith. The specter of my failure.."
Perhaps Ciri would be able to succeed where Jaques failed because she had the guidance of Avallach, Geralt and Yennefer.
Speculation aside, Witcher 3 is a brilliant game, but they way CDPR handled the white frost was very unfortunate..
Dijkstra trying to accomplish what he wanted made sense. Not being able to perusade Roche, Thaler and Ves that a united North was the only way to stop Nilfgaard, that Temeria could just as easily have been a vassal of a Redanian Empire as it was a Nilfgaardian Empire and at least with the former it would share cultural identities, didn't make the slightest sense. Him quoting Shakespeare then then just charging in with his gang of thugs to take on three highly professional killers, was completely out of character. I mean, this is a guy who prides himself on knowing people and then thinks Geralt is going to walk away.
Sure the player can choose to but it's still out of character so the whole thing made no sense. It just felt like the whole thing was a contrivance to kill off Dijkstra who is one of the best characters in the game in the opinion of many players it seems (judging from the annoyance level over this on these forums). I honestly think that Dijkstra and Philip 'The Bloody Baron' Stringer are the two best written characters in the game.
Last edited:
I agree with your post, but I think the purpose of that scene was not to kill off Djikstra but to give the players a choice. . Almost every single little sidequests has somekind of choice involved so they probably thought they have to do it as well in such a big sidquest like Reason of State.
You could argue that killing Roche, Ves and Thaler is not a choice at all, considering who would do that? But keep in mind that Witcher 3 is the first Witcher game for many players and they don't know Roche, Ves and Thaler from Witcher 1/2. I can see how someone who only played Witcher 3 might even sympathize with Djikstra, considering he is- like you wrote- one of the best written characters in the game and helps Geralt several times during the game.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the choices presented to the player are out of character for those involved. It matters little whether you're new to the Witcher series, Dijkstra explicitly says first, that Spys know their people, and second, that he's not a fighter. So charging in to fight three highly armed professional killers - one a Witcher, the other two Veteran Special Forces Commandos - runs contrary to the second statement. Thinking that he and his band of thugs can win against these three also runs contrary to the first statement. Sure, Geralt might take Roche's side, that's a calculated gamble but once he does, that should give Dijkstra pause for thought who as an intelligent guy is going to think, "Can I win this?" and clearly the answer is no.
A very good observation. Not only did she have guidance, but a full tutelage, parenting and schooling.
Makes Alvin even more tragic. Feels like he was way stronger in character than game Ciri, never gave up or surrendered, despite having no one, suffering from visions, and having no explanation as to how things really work.
I think I might just go with Radovid in my next playthrough, this way I can just avoid the entire mess with Djikstra.
Thaler + Roche basically becoming traitors and selling out to Nilfgaard isn't something I particularly enjoyed either.
On top of that I'm not sure book Geralt would ever get involved into a king assassination anyway, even if the king is as bad as Radovid.
Thaler + Roche basically becoming traitors and selling out to Nilfgaard isn't something I particularly enjoyed either.
On top of that I'm not sure book Geralt would ever get involved into a king assassination anyway, even if the king is as bad as Radovid.
Well it's the fact that he doesn't look like your tipical fantasy elf with the bald head and the war paint on his face that makes him interesting. He's Eredins vanguard and leads his front line in battle and is one of his most trusted commanding officers. When he is beating Vesemir up you see that even if Imlerith is such a bad ass guy, Eredin so needs to lift a finger and Imlerith obeys to his command at once (stopped attacking Vesemir). The contrast is interesting, Imlerith being one of the main villains and being a great warrior but acknowledging Eredins unquestioned authority but Eredin doesn't even deserve such power from what we see in the game how he is potraited. Imlerith is the only Aen Elle who is shown to have some life next to being a member of the Wild Hunt (drinking and hanging around at the Bald Mountain). I think this was a great way to add depth to an important character. He shares his motivations with Eredin and the whole Wild Hunt agenda but Eredin seems to be more the military-general-politics interested guy where Imlerith's a talented fighter who maybe doesn't give a damn about higher politics. Eredin's the one who you assume is a big player in the Aen Elle political millieu.
You see actually all the Wild Hunt antagonists have something like different character traits and are not entirely copy paste villains, only those traits are not explained deeper and CDPR just didn't take the time to make more out of them for what reason ever.
That's all just a small example and something that stung in my eyes the first time i observed this scene. That's why im so much disappointed. You clearly see that there is more beyond these characters but someone didn't take the time to express their whole potential. It's actually sad isn't it?
He looks like the typical video game bad guy instead. I don't see how a paint on his face makes him any more interesting..
Which contrast? There is no contrast shown in the game between members of the Wild Hunt.
And why not? I don't see how the game portraits Eredin as somebody who doesn't deserve to be in command.
Life? I think the scene at the Bald Mountain makes no sense at all. It's just a setting to present a boss enemy, nothing more. Imlerith has no reason to be there. There is no point why the Aen Elle and the Crones should be "allies" or "friends" of whatever. That makes no sense at all. And which depth do you mean? That he sits in a thrones (why the hell is there a throne standing below a tree at a witch sabbath?) with two succubi to his feet like he was the most badass ever? For what reason? What is he doing there alone? From what we know the Aen Elle can't travel so easily alone. They need Caranthir to do so. So why should Imlerith attend the witch sabbath in the way he does? From what we know the Aen Elle hate everything that isn't elven. They only travel to the world of the humans to abduct a few of them as slaves. If you ask me everything that is connected to Imlerith is just bullshit, sorry. The whole witch sabbath is bullshit and only serves as a vessel to enable a boss fight.
I fear you mix up your own imagination and what is shown in the game. Pretty much everything you write here isn't portrayed in the game. It's just how you filled all the characterization and plot holes in your head. I could do the same for every possible character or villain. But I don't think that it's my "job" to fill out huge holes in plot and characterization in my mind. Of course there is always something to fill out but the basis should be there. I want to enjoy a good story, not writing my own in my head. The lack of characterization for the Wild Hunt is just ridiculous in TW3 if you ask me...
I don't see any different character traits. You could THINK that they possibly had them but they are not shown at all in the game. All three Wild Hunt boss enemies have not more depth than a usual monster Geralt hunts down in one of his contracts. Like monsters, the only difference between members of the Wild Hunt is their different toolset (weapon, movement, abilities). But that is only their mechanical layer, how they work as mechanics villians, but it adds little to nothing to their narrative layer and characterization.
And finally we agree on something.
---------- Updated at 03:34 PM ----------
For doing what exactly?
Last edited:
The only reason that bullshit ending exists is so that they could present the possibility of Ciri being killed off. Why they thought they even needed to kill Ciri is beyond me, especially given that the player doesn't even realise he's making choices that count towards that inevitability. My first playthrough resulted in that ending and so utterly pissed off was I, that I'd wasted close to 200 hours only to be punished for it, that I deleted the save in disgust and started again without completing the final quest.
"Life? I think the scene at the Bald Mountain makes no sense at all. It's just a setting to present a boss enemy, nothing more. Imlerith has no reason to be there. There is no point why the Aen Elle and the Crones should be "allies" or "friends" of whatever. That makes no sense at all"
That entire scene is based on polish folklore. So yes, it makes sense.
Give me some minutes and I will return to answer to the C&C system, I apologize, didn't have time yesterday.
---------- Updated at 02:00 PM ----------
Ciri doesn't die.
That entire scene is based on polish folklore. So yes, it makes sense.
Give me some minutes and I will return to answer to the C&C system, I apologize, didn't have time yesterday.
---------- Updated at 02:00 PM ----------
Ciri doesn't die.
I think you misunderstood me. The setting itself is fine (the witch sabbath). If you were only there to hunt down the crones (for whatever reason) it would be totally ok (well, if it was a "real" witch sabbath with all the violence and sex and stuff...)
Only Imlerith being there makes no sense at all - at least not in the way it was depicted in the game.
You don't have to apologize. It's a free world. And you don't need to hurry anyway. I will be away for another week very soon so I won't be able to answer to you soon.
Last edited:
That's open to interoperation and not a debate to be had in this thread. The point is, choices you didn't know you were making were there to punish the player and that's not good game design.
This.
All the choice and consequence theory away, this is still just plain bad game design. When you punish a part of your audience for basically doing nothing "wrong" you are a bad game designer. There is no reason why you would want to do so. It's one thing to create a "bad" world that is kind of depressing. But then this feeling should be applied to everyone and not just a part of the people for arbitrary reasons. This is not "the lesser evil", this is "depressing vs happy".
The point is that players FEEL cheated and punished if they notice that another decision would be notably different in tone and that they made a "wrong" decision in a puzzle where they thought they had to make a hard choice. All these choices towards Ciri are just horribly poorly designed imho, based on oversimplification of complex topics and flawed goals, neglecting player psychology.
What makes it worse is that there aren't any other hard meaningful choices in the main narrative once Geralt found Ciri. These situations are all we have. What makes them double disappointing imo.
Last edited:
Why? In the folklore, there is a connection between the Wild Hunt and the sabbath. Basically, the Wild Hunt legend had influence on the development of the early modern idea of witches' sabbath. And Łysa Góra (Bald Mountain, in Poland) features countless legends about the sabbath.
I think this is actually a touch of class. Besides, the crones kidnapped the children, giving them, or a part of them, to the Wild Hunt. So actually there is a connection.
This is a problem. An ending is an ending, you shouldn't feel punish. Actually, I think that the bad ending is the best ending. Because it is consistent with the books and with two prophecy in TW3.
Nice to know. So I'm supposed to have intensive knowledge about Polish folklore to understand certain scenes in the game? I don't think so. If there is a connection of that kind CDPR has to explain it to me well enough to enable me to understand their narrative.
And why should the Crones do so? Why are they allies to the Aen Elle in the first place? Nothing of that is explained in the game. That the story is based on Polish folklore is nice (I really appreciate that) but it's a bad excuse for bad or lacking storytelling...
I agree to a certain extend. But there are several problems to that. First, the White Frost thing itself. Second, that I can't decide how I (as Geralt) want to react to Ciri's decision. And third, that the bad ending offers even less information in the ending slices about what happened to other people.
But not only the ending feels punishing. Take the drinking scene in Kaer Morhen. It's nowhere clear that "You don't have to be perfect at everything" leads to a depressive scene that feels like somebody wants to punish you for a bad decision. The underlying problem of all of that is the strict "self-assurance" vs "not self-assurance" pattern, that is nothing else than a simple "good" vs "bad" pattern that is insuficient for meaningful choices.
I don't really understand. You didn't know when you where making a choice? Or is it just that you didn't know what the consequence would be?
I think a bit of both. First, the choices with Ciri don't feel meaningful. They don't feel like they had a big weight on the ending. And with the completely misplaced and downright stupid timers you don't have even time to think about it properly. So it feels rather arbitrary and so do the dialogue choices. That the consequences feature a clear "right" vs "wrong" pattern is the second part of the problem. You'd expect that every choice you make in a game like the Witcher would feature good and bad elements, just like the lesser evil mantra implies. But it's not like that. One choices is happy and makes you happy and the other one is depressing and makes you depressed.
Yeah, well, it is not just with Ciri choices. Except some secondary quests, and Crones/Spirit choice, there are no difficult choices it all. In TW2 we had quite a few (with whom to go, whom to save, kill the king or not), and every single one did not give us everything we wanted. We were clearly stand to loose something. We may choose to help a friend in need, but leave Saskia enthralled, or kill Henselt, but leave Kaedwen in chaos. There were obvious and predictable consequences we could consider, and also unpredictable ones. People were struggling with the decision whom to save - Triss or Saskia, and there were reasons on both sides, and unpredictable global consequences as well, which did not feel forced at all.
In TW3 choices are sanitized, and it is always either to accept some quest, or not. We never get to choose between two people, for example. I hoped at least in Novigrad we will have to choose either to help Triss with the mages, or Zoltan with non-humans about to be persecuted. But no, all Zoltan wanted were some stupid cards, and there was no reason to reject Triss' quest at all.
After playing for a while I figured the final choices won't be morally difficult, but I sure as hell had no idea that they would be actually more like puzzles to solve, and not something to ponder and reflect upon. Some random dialogues, as a bunch of other dialogues with Ciri, but somehow these were crucial, and on a timer. Why a hell did we need a timer, to begin with? Shouldn't people at least reflect on what they are about to say? A timer made these choices pretty random, you know. Once I got distracted, and pushed a button at the last second. I got it "right", but it is such a shame that after 150 hours of playing the ending I got depended on my reflexes, not my reasoning.
Last edited:
I agree with everything.
But I want to elaborate a bit on the "timer" issue on top of it. The dialogue timers are a huge mystery to me in TW3 because they make every sitution worse and because they have no actual purpose at all.
Let's have a look at another game that used such choice timers: The Walking Dead. There is a scene in the first season where you are barricaded in a shop and the zombies trying to get it, already about to break through the door. In this situation you get a choice with timer. You have to decide whether you send person A or person B to secure the door.
So why does the timer work in this situation?
1) Because the content and meaning of the choice itself is pretty clear and obvious. It doesn't require you thinking about its actual meaning before you can concentrate on making a (moral) decision. You don't know what will happen but you feel that whomever you choose will be in danger. That's really a requisite of every choice situation in a game with a timer because without that a timer will only render the choice itself aritrary.
2)he limited time made sense in the context of the game. There was a reason why a decision had to be made in a short amount of time, basically because external influences would take away the choice from you if you need to long to decide on it anyway (zombies breaking through the door).
Back to Witcher 3 and the Ciri choice situations. I'm sorry, but CDPR really misunderstood the concept of timed choices because neither point 1) nor point 2) applies to these situtions. There is clearly no external pressure requiring you to make fast decisions. And the content and weight of the questions themselves are not nearly as clear enough to make a solid decision on time. You just take one that makes "more sense" on first sight, literally. I don't see how that should make the choice more meaningful or impactful, quite the opposite. The timers in these situations are plain bad game design and should be removed ASAP. But maybe they are just there to "disguise" the simple "happy" vs "depressing" scheme, I don't know...
Edit: About
Last edited: