Yeah, but you have to limit them somewhat or it gets too random. The strength of this game is that characters don't feel too generic/replacable.
I think the devs did a good job overall by giving 2 decent choices. The intensity of the Triss vs Yen fight is the best indicator that they did sth. right. Ofc the tension between books and tv implementation will always be there.
I think the breakup between the games makes sense and that you search for the other one at the start of the game. However, you shouldn't be automaticially be back together with Yen. It felt completely weird, especially since they don't really act like they're back together in White Orchard/Vizima.
They should've just started with a "clean" state, would've been better for both camps: with Yen, they could've slowly getting to know/trusting each other again, and players would've get to know her along with Geralt. Would've been way more organic. Instead, you're supposedly togehter with a women you don't really know about, and their distant/akward interaction didn't help. It must feel confusing and trigger repulsiveness.
And for the other side, it would've avoided the again nasty and illogical breakup, continuation and story/dialogue problems.
So instead of breakup with Triss>being automaticially together with Yen > breakup again with her, they could've just skipped part 2... Geralt would look way less illogical/jerk, and Yen would've feel way less pushed upon players, and she could grow way better on players
Couldn't agree more.
Gracias, la verdad que uno se harta de ver como tanta gente se esfuerza tanto para sugerir mejores y directamente los desarrolladores pasan de nosotros. Directamente el juego me parece una tomadura de pelo. Apenas han cumplido nada de lo que prometieron y, además, se nota mucho que el juego esta diseñado para niños o jugadores que no exigen mucho.
Un saludo desde España!!
It would also help with the illogic/jerkness argument if Geralt wouldn't automatically and constantly fawn over Yennefer in Skellige and fondle her from behind decorative carpets (alternatively even screw her on a taxidermied piece) only to tell her he doesn't like her anymore half an hour later.
Yeah, in this scenario he acts like a manipulative, sneaky whore :dry:
Very true, but Geralt does the same thing to Triss (and in much shorter timespan) at the Vegelbud party: he hugs her, compliments her, enquire about her relationship with Moritz, only to turn her down 5 minutes later. In the end, I reckon CDPR wanted us to fell like jerks whatever choice we make about Triss and Yen, and that's where "forced flirting" comes from
Very true, but Geralt does the same thing to Triss (and in much shorter timespan) at the Vegelbud party: he hugs her, compliments her, enquire about her relationship with Moritz, only to turn her down 5 minutes later. In the end, I reckon CDPR wanted us to fell like jerks whatever choice we make about Triss and Yen, and that's where "forced flirting" comes from
I agree, to an extent. But I feel like his lovesick/horndog behaviour is much more accentuated with Yennefer. I mean, in Freya's garden, after going the "OK, meet you in Larvik" route he looks like he had his balls licked by an angel just because she paid him a morsel of a compliment and touched his face*... A bit of behavioural consistency wouldn't go amiss.
* (I always found that scene highly entertaining. The way she regally stretches her arm to him, a bit like Madonna reaching out to touch one of those starving African children, and he then blooms like a beautiful, beautiful flower... It's very amusing to me. And endearing at the same time but only if, like me, you believe that Geralt absolutely fucking worships Yennefer.)
Last edited:
Years, that he spent with sorceresses - did their job :teeth:
Yeah, but like I said - Reds wanted us to feel a certain way... You knew who you'd choose, so did I, so did many others, but for most of the people who bought TW3 both of those women are complete stangers. They wouldn't feel the gravity of the choice otherwise. But yes, more player agency would have been nice, that's for sure.
To expect a studio to remain absolutely the same as it grows, takes on new ideas, and attempts new projects is rather unrealistic. As unpleasant as it may be, there's naught in this world that is free from change. A game-developing company by necessity of the industry must follow the market and the fashions of the time to a certain extent, in order to remain 'relevant', attract new players, and increase their profits. Such is the nature of business. To expect them not to do so is asking much indeed. Just be glad they haven't follow every fashion of the industry.
Of course, this isn't very satisfying for a section of their audience -- and please remember that we're only a small section -- who would prefer greater consistency and interconnection between their games. However, how does one do this? Make several different individual versions of the game? One for Roche's Path, one for Iorveth's, and one for newcomers with no previous experience in the series? It may seem an easy idea, but that would have been rather a lot of work, and would have probably confused a few people. As we see, it isn't always possible to do all that one would like in a story, and compromises must be made, displease whom it may.
As for comments that the present game is for children, or people who are somehow less intelligent or critical: a few less of those comments, please. There's no need to insult people who enjoy the game as is, even when phrased in broad generalities.
Moderator: @Sam2305 , keep it in English, please. Using another language to make a critical comment does not excuse the comment. We ask that people post in English here. Thank you.
Of course, this isn't very satisfying for a section of their audience -- and please remember that we're only a small section -- who would prefer greater consistency and interconnection between their games. However, how does one do this? Make several different individual versions of the game? One for Roche's Path, one for Iorveth's, and one for newcomers with no previous experience in the series? It may seem an easy idea, but that would have been rather a lot of work, and would have probably confused a few people. As we see, it isn't always possible to do all that one would like in a story, and compromises must be made, displease whom it may.
As for comments that the present game is for children, or people who are somehow less intelligent or critical: a few less of those comments, please. There's no need to insult people who enjoy the game as is, even when phrased in broad generalities.
Moderator: @Sam2305 , keep it in English, please. Using another language to make a critical comment does not excuse the comment. We ask that people post in English here. Thank you.
Last edited:
IMO, any critical comment has no need for an excuse. I wrote it in Spanish just to say hello to a compatriot. That's all. Anyway, It's understandable that, for practical reasons, we use the same language so it won't happen again
Last edited:
A disconnected, stand-alone. Not the way to end a trilogy that promised every decision would matter. I was unaware of the writing team switch. Now the story mess that is TW3 makes sense. That, however, does not excuse the mess. A grave, extremely disappointing mistake, them letting or having the team that did the first two games not do the third.
I spent quite a bit of time playing TW3 yesterday. When I first began this game I thought it was perhaps the finest game ever created. Trouble is the more I get into it, the more disappointed I become. Now I don't classify it as an actual RPG but an aesthetically beautiful action game. The game is remarkably shallow. Maybe this is due to the open world and the unbelievable amount of quests. Quantity over quality, or depth in this case. I'm not even half-way done and the quests have grown tedious. The ever-increasing shallowness is in no small part due to the overly simplified politics and the impression none of the decisions I make really matter. More a mystery than anything, and still, not a tantalizing or particularly difficult mystery to solve. The game as a whole feels like it's aimed more for teens and young adults than intelligent grown-ups, as the first two were and as the series is advertised. Anyway, what I'm finding is that TW2 is by far superior in almost every way. TW1 is, too, in some ways.
At least now I know why TW3 feels disjointed and set apart. Sucks that it also feels like a giant step backwards. If not for the sense of closure I would definitely have quit by now; something that was inconceivable for 1 & 2. Contemplating how successful TW3 has been, I would say this. Its success is not due to it. The buzz created by TW1 led to TW2 selling more. What happened with the TW series is more or less what happened with Bethesda's Elder Scrolls; how an installment fueled the next one.
At the stage I am in the game, I think the awards TW3 won were awarded by those who either didn't play the series or TW3 in its entirety and merely focused on the main quests. Despite its accolades and sells numbers, I anticipate that TW 3 will hurt the next CDPR offering.
---------- Updated at 01:24 PM ----------
Actually, the quality can be inestimably hurt by a change of personnel. Even one developer or writer if said developer/writer is a lead in some way or mostly responsible for the vision. Look no farther than Dragon Age: Origins and DA 2 for a fine example of what can happen between games in the same series.
---------- Updated at 01:27 PM ----------
Compromises that result in failing to deliver on what was promised is a good way to ruin a company's reputation.
Last edited:
Completely agree. Especially with the last sentence
Last edited:
The thread's been quite enjoyable, but we've gone beyond just focusing on Triss. We're more talking about inconsistencies and the nullification of gamer-decisions.
When all this happened? Could you pass me a link where this is explained? Anyway, it explains a lot.
Prior mistakes do not validate future ones. There was backlash from gamers regarding TW2 and being railroaded into pursuing the relationship with Triss. These were the people who chose Shani. I suspect a lot of them didn't bother purchasing TW3. Those who did forgave the trespass only to be burned a second time in TW3. Other meaningful decisions not getting recognized is as bad, if not worse, but I think the relationship gets mentioned more because people get more attached to the characters than the world.
In regards to Triss, I thought the Rose of Remembrance and choosing to save Triss in Act III resolved the relationship and gave the impression Geralt and Triss were together for good.
---------- Updated at 01:42 PM ----------
Thankfully we can separate them and choose Triss.
But I tell you, the majority of TW 3 is a whole lot less without her, or even a main companion. In TW 2 I liked that regardless which side you chose there was a main ally (Roach or Iorveth).---------- Updated at 01:47 PM ----------
I give not one whit that CDPR wanted to direct the story this way or that. A game great (or even just good) at the role-playing portion of an RPG does not do that.
The topic of this thread has indeed wandered about a bit, but seems to generally align with the theme of this preexisting one. Threads merged. Carry on.
I still believe Letho's cameo was worseYou know, guys, I've been thinking...Maybe it's good that CDPR cut Iorveth out of the game completely? At least he wasn't killed off in a half-assed cameo like my poor girl Sheala
I mean, being betrayed by the Emperor after the entire plot in TW2 sort of makes him a complete idiot