I was convinced when I played it that it would contribute to the ending in some capacity, because the whole 'Payback' quest is very much a Ciri/Geralt bonding one. Though I think that any changes to the main storyline in this way could be very difficult to implement, but I'm no expert so I can't say for sure.
I was convinced when I played it that it would contribute to the ending in some capacity, because the whole 'Payback' quest is very much a Ciri/Geralt bonding one. Though I think that any changes to the main storyline in this way could be very difficult to implement, but I'm no expert so I can't say for sure.
Agreed with almost all the Points but
The choices you make lead to one of three endings:
1. Ciri is (possibly) dead, Geralt then kills himself by monster.
2. Ciri follows in her biological father's footsteps and becomes the Empress of Nilfgaard.
3. Ciri follows her adoptive father's (Geralt's) footsteps and becomes a Witcheress.
I see You understand very well the Witcher lore but why you assume that A witcher makes Suicide=?Thats a little to far fetched in my eyes.Have we not learnd that most the time in GAMES/Movies its allways against all odds in the END the Witcher wins
Remember the Kaer Mohen incident with Cirrila turns in to a rampage Hurrican starting to drag all in to the black Hole=?Just because our Witcher Grandpa is DEAD.Do you see Geraldo gos after that on RAMPAGE MODE and kill evry single ENEMY=? NO you know why=Mutant ergo no emotion ! A emotionless Person will always be logical .Best example MR.Spook vs Cpt.Kirk debatte is one Life worth to save above all others=?Logic Vs Emotion
And thats the main Reason to how it fits that so called bad endings, from my perspective. Cirilla has emotion, (Ticking nuke bomb) and have her around on Monsterhunt or whatever other Enemys in the Univers Exist, there will be no Avalac who will save us from her.
Still all other points are more then valid but i missed the shock moments,The regret Factor in TW3 is non Exist for me.
Completely agree. This thread sums nearly all problems of this game, and it's my opinoin too this game it's not best game of all time, but has the potential to became so. I was also thinking in particular about Priscilla's fate. I don't understand what happened to her. I'm of Triss team, and would like even more addings to her story, but, for example, they built up other great characters (Emhyr, Zoltan, the Bloody baron, Fringilla Vigo, Rita and so on) but they gave them little light during the whole story.
I fear I have to disagree with the OP.
First, this game isn't about relationships at its core. It's actually less about relationships than Witcher 2 was.
Second, the game sufferes from many different limitations - budget limitations, narrative limitations, franchise limitations. Most of these limitations can't be fixed easily or at all.
Third, story, relationships and characters are always subjective, at least once they are consistent. They won't ever satisfy everyone no matter what they do.
Forth, expecations for this game and its story are very different based on what knowledge you have (books, games, nothing at all). It's almost impossible to serve everyone.
Honestly, this is just a bottomless pit. No reasonable Enhanced Edition would ever be able to "fix" that. We should just learn to take the game as it is and accept it how it is. We have to deal with it.
First, this game isn't about relationships at its core. It's actually less about relationships than Witcher 2 was.
Second, the game sufferes from many different limitations - budget limitations, narrative limitations, franchise limitations. Most of these limitations can't be fixed easily or at all.
Third, story, relationships and characters are always subjective, at least once they are consistent. They won't ever satisfy everyone no matter what they do.
Forth, expecations for this game and its story are very different based on what knowledge you have (books, games, nothing at all). It's almost impossible to serve everyone.
Honestly, this is just a bottomless pit. No reasonable Enhanced Edition would ever be able to "fix" that. We should just learn to take the game as it is and accept it how it is. We have to deal with it.
I have gotten more out of this game than what I would have expected.
As you can see 200+ of great entertainment are certainly worth more than what I paid, even if we consider that I paid for expansions what aren't you yet. I would buy them again if I could too.
Yet, I was one of those who "suffered" because of the points that the OP included. Did it ruin my experience of the game completely? No. Did it make it worse? Yes.
Being both a gamer and a book reader (is that a word)?. I tend to value more the story than the gameplay itself. My most memorable memories in gaming are not when I got that ubber +10 sword or when I defeated that boss or whatever. Rather, they are about moments like Triss quests in Novigrad, the last wish quest, Geralt finding Ciri, finding Letho, tower full of mice, bloody baron questline, etc etc. There are MANY great moment in this game.
And, to further explain my point, from Now or Never, I enjoyed more the scene at the docks than the fight against the vampire, in the last wish, I appreciated more the dialogue that they have that the fight against the djin, during the bloody baron's line I appreciated more the dialogues with him and his redemption than the fight against the wraiths as he was carrying the botcling, etc etc.
I certainly enjoy fighting, collecting stuff, etc. And this is a game, so all that stuff has to be there and it has to be good (and it certainly is). However, if they were to add to this game and were to spend resources on it, I'd rather they do it on character interactions and dialogue and not in new enemies to fight, loot, etc.
I have gotten more out of this game than what I would have expected.
As you can see 200+ of great entertainment are certainly worth more than what I paid, even if we consider that I paid for expansions what aren't you yet. I would buy them again if I could too.
Yet, I was one of those who "suffered" because of the points that the OP included. Did it ruin my experience of the game completely? No. Did it make it worse? Yes.
Being both a gamer and a book reader (is that a word)?. I tend to value more the story than the gameplay itself. My most memorable memories in gaming are not when I got that ubber +10 sword or when I defeated that boss or whatever. Rather, they are about moments like Triss quests in Novigrad, the last wish quest, Geralt finding Ciri, finding Letho, tower full of mice, bloody baron questline, etc etc. There are MANY great moment in this game.
And, to further explain my point, from Now or Never, I enjoyed more the scene at the docks than the fight against the vampire, in the last wish, I appreciated more the dialogue that they have that the fight against the djin, during the bloody baron's line I appreciated more the dialogues with him and his redemption than the fight against the wraiths as he was carrying the botcling, etc etc.
I certainly enjoy fighting, collecting stuff, etc. And this is a game, so all that stuff has to be there and it has to be good (and it certainly is). However, if they were to add to this game and were to spend resources on it, I'd rather they do it on character interactions and dialogue and not in new enemies to fight, loot, etc.
I value story myself more than anything else as well. And that's my biggest failure. Because deep within I wanted this game just to be a continuation of the books (which I love to the teeth) - on the same level and quality of the books. And no matter what CDPR does - they can never ever reach that level. No matter if they "fix" some things with characters and story, it won't ever be enough, at least not for me. They will never get to the point that the characters and the world I have in mind is congruent with the one they have in mind. They might change some things and perhaps it's even worse for me after that.
And then again, the game has issues that are less subjective, like the complete lack of moral choice and player agency in the last third of the game. Or the spectacle creep ending that is totally ouf of place and pacing. Is that "easy" to fix? I don't think so. It's probably not worth the effort anyway.
So if I had to choose I'd want them to leave TW3 as it is and spend their creative energy on Cyberpunk where they can tell great stories without the burden of Sapkowski's heritage and the creative limitations that come with it. Why spending extensive resource trying to fix something most people are already done with if you could use the same energy to create something new and fresh, something where you're not in the snake pit from the get-go?
Excellent post and it incorporates a lot of what I've discussed in the Triss Merigold thread these last few weeks. I'd like to add two further points.
First is romance as a game mechanic. It's incredibly poorly designed. Due to the decision on whom to romance coming in Act 1, and further due to the lack of characterisation both Triss and Yen suffer from, it's incredibly easy to end up locked in a romance you didn't want or worse, end up in a romance with both women and suffer the Geralt alone ending. There's an incredibly easy way to fix this. After the threesome scene, Geralt is confronted by both women who demand he makes a choice.
1. Yen
2. Triss
3. Alone
It requires only a small cut scene with limited dialogue to fix. Once the decision is made, the game recognises that as your romance choice.
In addition to this, specifically for the abortion that is the Triss romance, you have to look at the flow of each romance option's characterisation through the game. Yennefer appaers in the Dream, the prologue, Skellige (act 1), most of Act 2 and almost the entirety of Act 3. By comparison, Triss only has limited characterisation. Three times in Novigrad (act 1) and once, briefly, in Novigrad again during act 3. Taking the romance element out of the equation for the moment, that's too long between interactions to successfully develop Triss as a character. She needs additional material spread across the final two acts so that you always feel she's an important part of Geralt's life.
The other issue is that the game does a very poor job at explaining certain world events. Two of the most important are the Aen Elle and the White Frost. Ciri explains that Eredin's world is dying and he needs to conquer ours yet when you visit the Aen Elle world, it's a beautiful place as commented on by Geralt. No further investigation in to this claim is ever made. We never have the chance to look at events from their perspective so the game reduces them to generic 'bad guys'. When everything else in The Witcher trilogy is nuanced, this is reduced to black and white without good reason. The best bad guys are those the reader/viewer uncomfortably finds themselves relating to.
The Bloody Baron is a perfect example of this and is probably the best written story in the entire game. Here is a bully of a man who likes to get drunk and throw his considerable weight around and beat on his wife. For all the world he is a monster when you first meet him. An utter prick. Yet should the player choose to, you can dig beneath the surface and explore this man and his life in a way that provides more depth. One can then find themselves actually sympathising with him (although never condoning) because his relationship with his family is far more nuanced than it initally appears. Yet for all Eredin's importance on the game, his relationship with Geralt, Yennefer and Ciri, we never get the chance to explore his character to the same depth as we do Stringer's. Had the same level of depth been written in to him as the Baron we'd have had one of the best antagonists of all time.
Finally, as for the White Frost, that ending comes completely out of left field. The game never explains why the bloody hell Ciri is going off to fight a snow storm. Up until this point, from the end of the dream, throughout the game, the White Frost is an Ice Age that comes to all worlds eventually. The subtle undertones are presented as this is the end that comes to us all. It can be interoperated as death itself and Eredin's profound fear of death leading him to his actions. Only to then become an entity which can be defeated Ciri's 'blood'. It felt contrived so that the developers would have an excuse for Ciri's death to occur and was quite probably the poorest piece of writing in the entire game. That ending needs attention.
First is romance as a game mechanic. It's incredibly poorly designed. Due to the decision on whom to romance coming in Act 1, and further due to the lack of characterisation both Triss and Yen suffer from, it's incredibly easy to end up locked in a romance you didn't want or worse, end up in a romance with both women and suffer the Geralt alone ending. There's an incredibly easy way to fix this. After the threesome scene, Geralt is confronted by both women who demand he makes a choice.
1. Yen
2. Triss
3. Alone
It requires only a small cut scene with limited dialogue to fix. Once the decision is made, the game recognises that as your romance choice.
In addition to this, specifically for the abortion that is the Triss romance, you have to look at the flow of each romance option's characterisation through the game. Yennefer appaers in the Dream, the prologue, Skellige (act 1), most of Act 2 and almost the entirety of Act 3. By comparison, Triss only has limited characterisation. Three times in Novigrad (act 1) and once, briefly, in Novigrad again during act 3. Taking the romance element out of the equation for the moment, that's too long between interactions to successfully develop Triss as a character. She needs additional material spread across the final two acts so that you always feel she's an important part of Geralt's life.
The other issue is that the game does a very poor job at explaining certain world events. Two of the most important are the Aen Elle and the White Frost. Ciri explains that Eredin's world is dying and he needs to conquer ours yet when you visit the Aen Elle world, it's a beautiful place as commented on by Geralt. No further investigation in to this claim is ever made. We never have the chance to look at events from their perspective so the game reduces them to generic 'bad guys'. When everything else in The Witcher trilogy is nuanced, this is reduced to black and white without good reason. The best bad guys are those the reader/viewer uncomfortably finds themselves relating to.
The Bloody Baron is a perfect example of this and is probably the best written story in the entire game. Here is a bully of a man who likes to get drunk and throw his considerable weight around and beat on his wife. For all the world he is a monster when you first meet him. An utter prick. Yet should the player choose to, you can dig beneath the surface and explore this man and his life in a way that provides more depth. One can then find themselves actually sympathising with him (although never condoning) because his relationship with his family is far more nuanced than it initally appears. Yet for all Eredin's importance on the game, his relationship with Geralt, Yennefer and Ciri, we never get the chance to explore his character to the same depth as we do Stringer's. Had the same level of depth been written in to him as the Baron we'd have had one of the best antagonists of all time.
Finally, as for the White Frost, that ending comes completely out of left field. The game never explains why the bloody hell Ciri is going off to fight a snow storm. Up until this point, from the end of the dream, throughout the game, the White Frost is an Ice Age that comes to all worlds eventually. The subtle undertones are presented as this is the end that comes to us all. It can be interoperated as death itself and Eredin's profound fear of death leading him to his actions. Only to then become an entity which can be defeated Ciri's 'blood'. It felt contrived so that the developers would have an excuse for Ciri's death to occur and was quite probably the poorest piece of writing in the entire game. That ending needs attention.