A Critique and Defense of The Witcher 3's story
Many of us long time Witcher fans (books or just the game) were disappointed with the story of The Witcher 3, especially when compared to The Witcher 2. While it's far from being horrible, and certainly beyond just mediocre, I can see were certain points of contention lie. This is to be a critique, yet defense of the story; an evaluation of merits and lackluster facets.
1) Eredin: King of the Wild Hunt, leader of the Aen Elle, Eredin Bréacc Glas, the villain with barely any screen time, who really needed that screen time, or did he? Eredin has a problem with the community, with many believing his scenes, motives, and characterization are for bland, plain morally black. The problem isn't that Eredin is a poor character; the problem is the little screen time he has is horribly misused. Eredin is more complex than he seems at face-value. The problem lies that knowledge from the books is required to fully understand him.
Both Eredin and Avallac'h (who are corroborating with each other) both interacted with Ciri in the last book of the saga. Ciri was to give birth to Auberon's child, the King of the Aen Elle at the time. To simplify things, Auberon has troubles with the whole sexual intercourse part, so Eredin concocts an aphrodisiac for his king. Rather it was intentionally or not, Auberon dies from it. Thee important thing to note is that the aphrodisiac wasn't straight up poison. Ciri escapes, despite Avallac'h and Eredin's attempts to prevent her escape. Eredin chases after, and the story of the games picks up from there. Eredin and Avallac'h exterminated the world they currently reside in. The world of the Aen Elle with soon die, so they wish to conquer the world of the Aen Seidhe, the one our story takes place in. Ciri can be used to open up portals for obvious reasons. Point is, Eredin, in game, seems like some power hungry apocalyptic rider. In actuality, he is trying to find a new world so his entire race doesn't die off. While that plan involves exterminating the world our characters reside in, Eredin cares more about his own race. The game just shows him killing people and shows a horribly inaccurate death of Auberon. Eredin has more to him though, it's just not all very well portrayed.
Example: Remember when Eredin reached for Ciri at Kaer Morhen, risking his own life, and Carenthir had to pull Eredin away. Eredin was determined to to save his own race, that he risked his own life at the slight chance that he might succeed and be able to apprehend Ciri.
2) Avallac'h and Ciri: Let's address the positives first to a common critique: Why does Ciri suddenly want to use her Elder Blood in a way she did in the books? Well, there is a much larger incentive at this point, The White Frost and The Wild Hunt being pretty good incentives. Avallac'h is also supposed to be a genius on the topic of Elder Blood, which does match his book persona. So this whole plot line about Ciri saving the world does make sense.
The negatives come from The White Frost just abruptly occurring. It makes sense; it was discussed before the ending, especially during the quest "Through Time and Space" (which is an amazing quest. It's one thing to be told about the fate of all worlds, and another to be shown it). Still, it definitely could have been addressed more.
Big point: So what's with Avallac'h? Geralt is being completely logical to suspect Avallac'h of desiring something yet untold. But, no, in the end, he is reveled to have a complete heart of gold. He complains about Ciri, but that's about it. He trains her, hides her, risks her life, fights his long known ally, all for what reason? Eliminating The White Frost makes sense. That benefits all worlds, including the Aen Elle. This plan makes logical sense. Problems arise with, um, why didn't Avallec'h just explain this to Eredin? Couldn't he just have reasoned with Eredin that scaring away your own chance of saving the world was a dumb idea, and that Avallec'h had a better solution? This is what drew people to The Witcher 2. People extensively talked things out before resorting to violence. In fact, the 2 major climaxes in AoK are border negotiations, and the talk with Letho, not combat. Instead, Avallec'h just goes out completely on his own with no help from his own people, makes enemies with a much stronger enemy he probably could have reasoned with, and then runs away from them for years. yes, clearly worthy of his sage status
3) The random characters from the book that come into play for no good reason: Why are Margarita Laux-Antille and Frangilla Vigo in the story? They come completely out of nowhere, Margarita having barely any lines or character, and Frangilla having like 2 lines and no character, other than the personalities they had in the book. This isn't a good reference, it's just shoving characters from the book in your face.
4) The poor-pacing of Act 3: The Sunstone! That one ancient thing with that one ancient story that comes completely out of left-field. This at least has a mildly interesting story and makes some sense as a plot device, but it's obvious that the writers couldn't think of a complex plot device for that section of the story. Still, it led to some swell quests and seeing a luminescent whale.
5) The underwhelming parts relating to cut content: So, the Crones' have a festival. Ooohhh, so these evil, immoral, promiscuous, child-eating, absolutely repugnant witches are throwing a festival. What atrocities might we witness?!? Well, apparently we were supposed to get and orgy bit and mass ritual suicides, and a few other zealot, cult like actions that would lead to an extremely memorable experience. Instead, we received a bunch of people sitting around a fire. Hmm.
A major, MAJOR issue is the final battle. While it is prepped, and the confusion of Nilfgaard, Skellige, and The Wild hunt all fighting at once on a battlefield is captured, it still has pacing issues.There is an elaborate plan in place, but the actual battle is just sporadic. It's like the writers wrote certain highlights of the battle, but never wrote the transitions between events, and then the game released with what it had. Some transitions make sense, and some don't. For example, how, amidst an entire battle, did Geralt just run into a secluded Eredin? Yes, he killed everyone, but Geralt just runs through a bunch of infinitely respawning enemies through a narrow land strip and find Eredin fighting a beloved main character. Wha-? Getting Ciri to face Caranthir made much more sense, as his stuff needed to be destroyed. The rest of the logic lies somewhere in between, including Eredin randomly reveling that Avallac'h is working in his own self-interest.
This final battles feels a bit rushed, and it's clearly suggested that deadlines may have prevented CD Projekt Red's true idea for the final battle. The original battle was to take place at Novigrad, with much more content than we have. Just look it up, as a giant siege of Novigrad is a lot to cover, and listing it here would make this post longer than the absurd length it already is.
5) Triss' lack of involvement after Novigrad & the lack of any consequences for her actions: Me, personally, never had a problem. To me, CD has been anticipating player's catching on to Triss' horrible actions, but through in a romance option just because certain gamers wanted it. In case you haven't figured it out, Triss is an absolutely horrible friend. So Geralt has amnesia. What does good ol' pal Triss do? Does she tell him of his past, of his life, of his relationships, of the person (Yennefer) he was going to be spending to rest of his life with until something horribly insidious occurred? None of that, Triss gets jealous of Yen, sleeps with Geralt, leads him on knowing her friend Yennefer might just be out there too, and continues manipulating and seducing Geralt anyway. Come The Witcher 2, and she neglects to tell Geralt about a very important secret organization that could very much prove Geralt innocent. But no, she never brings it up until Geralt figures it out, assuming the player choose the path were he brings it up.
No, the problem is Geralt nor Yen ever act hostile towards Triss. One would think Geralt and Yen would completely break all ties with Triss for being a horribly friend to both Geralt and Yen, but they still treat her as if she's a close friend. Triss sleeps with Yennfer's man (kinda), neglects to make Geralt's life easier at several points in the first two games, yet no one ever brings this up.
I suspect this was done so there wouldn't be an obvious romance path, but the game obviously infers Yennefer was meant to be with Geralt, with Triss being an afterthought.
I know I missed, points, but I can only type so much.
Many of us long time Witcher fans (books or just the game) were disappointed with the story of The Witcher 3, especially when compared to The Witcher 2. While it's far from being horrible, and certainly beyond just mediocre, I can see were certain points of contention lie. This is to be a critique, yet defense of the story; an evaluation of merits and lackluster facets.
1) Eredin: King of the Wild Hunt, leader of the Aen Elle, Eredin Bréacc Glas, the villain with barely any screen time, who really needed that screen time, or did he? Eredin has a problem with the community, with many believing his scenes, motives, and characterization are for bland, plain morally black. The problem isn't that Eredin is a poor character; the problem is the little screen time he has is horribly misused. Eredin is more complex than he seems at face-value. The problem lies that knowledge from the books is required to fully understand him.
Both Eredin and Avallac'h (who are corroborating with each other) both interacted with Ciri in the last book of the saga. Ciri was to give birth to Auberon's child, the King of the Aen Elle at the time. To simplify things, Auberon has troubles with the whole sexual intercourse part, so Eredin concocts an aphrodisiac for his king. Rather it was intentionally or not, Auberon dies from it. Thee important thing to note is that the aphrodisiac wasn't straight up poison. Ciri escapes, despite Avallac'h and Eredin's attempts to prevent her escape. Eredin chases after, and the story of the games picks up from there. Eredin and Avallac'h exterminated the world they currently reside in. The world of the Aen Elle with soon die, so they wish to conquer the world of the Aen Seidhe, the one our story takes place in. Ciri can be used to open up portals for obvious reasons. Point is, Eredin, in game, seems like some power hungry apocalyptic rider. In actuality, he is trying to find a new world so his entire race doesn't die off. While that plan involves exterminating the world our characters reside in, Eredin cares more about his own race. The game just shows him killing people and shows a horribly inaccurate death of Auberon. Eredin has more to him though, it's just not all very well portrayed.
Example: Remember when Eredin reached for Ciri at Kaer Morhen, risking his own life, and Carenthir had to pull Eredin away. Eredin was determined to to save his own race, that he risked his own life at the slight chance that he might succeed and be able to apprehend Ciri.
2) Avallac'h and Ciri: Let's address the positives first to a common critique: Why does Ciri suddenly want to use her Elder Blood in a way she did in the books? Well, there is a much larger incentive at this point, The White Frost and The Wild Hunt being pretty good incentives. Avallac'h is also supposed to be a genius on the topic of Elder Blood, which does match his book persona. So this whole plot line about Ciri saving the world does make sense.
The negatives come from The White Frost just abruptly occurring. It makes sense; it was discussed before the ending, especially during the quest "Through Time and Space" (which is an amazing quest. It's one thing to be told about the fate of all worlds, and another to be shown it). Still, it definitely could have been addressed more.
Big point: So what's with Avallac'h? Geralt is being completely logical to suspect Avallac'h of desiring something yet untold. But, no, in the end, he is reveled to have a complete heart of gold. He complains about Ciri, but that's about it. He trains her, hides her, risks her life, fights his long known ally, all for what reason? Eliminating The White Frost makes sense. That benefits all worlds, including the Aen Elle. This plan makes logical sense. Problems arise with, um, why didn't Avallec'h just explain this to Eredin? Couldn't he just have reasoned with Eredin that scaring away your own chance of saving the world was a dumb idea, and that Avallec'h had a better solution? This is what drew people to The Witcher 2. People extensively talked things out before resorting to violence. In fact, the 2 major climaxes in AoK are border negotiations, and the talk with Letho, not combat. Instead, Avallec'h just goes out completely on his own with no help from his own people, makes enemies with a much stronger enemy he probably could have reasoned with, and then runs away from them for years. yes, clearly worthy of his sage status
3) The random characters from the book that come into play for no good reason: Why are Margarita Laux-Antille and Frangilla Vigo in the story? They come completely out of nowhere, Margarita having barely any lines or character, and Frangilla having like 2 lines and no character, other than the personalities they had in the book. This isn't a good reference, it's just shoving characters from the book in your face.
4) The poor-pacing of Act 3: The Sunstone! That one ancient thing with that one ancient story that comes completely out of left-field. This at least has a mildly interesting story and makes some sense as a plot device, but it's obvious that the writers couldn't think of a complex plot device for that section of the story. Still, it led to some swell quests and seeing a luminescent whale.
5) The underwhelming parts relating to cut content: So, the Crones' have a festival. Ooohhh, so these evil, immoral, promiscuous, child-eating, absolutely repugnant witches are throwing a festival. What atrocities might we witness?!? Well, apparently we were supposed to get and orgy bit and mass ritual suicides, and a few other zealot, cult like actions that would lead to an extremely memorable experience. Instead, we received a bunch of people sitting around a fire. Hmm.
A major, MAJOR issue is the final battle. While it is prepped, and the confusion of Nilfgaard, Skellige, and The Wild hunt all fighting at once on a battlefield is captured, it still has pacing issues.There is an elaborate plan in place, but the actual battle is just sporadic. It's like the writers wrote certain highlights of the battle, but never wrote the transitions between events, and then the game released with what it had. Some transitions make sense, and some don't. For example, how, amidst an entire battle, did Geralt just run into a secluded Eredin? Yes, he killed everyone, but Geralt just runs through a bunch of infinitely respawning enemies through a narrow land strip and find Eredin fighting a beloved main character. Wha-? Getting Ciri to face Caranthir made much more sense, as his stuff needed to be destroyed. The rest of the logic lies somewhere in between, including Eredin randomly reveling that Avallac'h is working in his own self-interest.
This final battles feels a bit rushed, and it's clearly suggested that deadlines may have prevented CD Projekt Red's true idea for the final battle. The original battle was to take place at Novigrad, with much more content than we have. Just look it up, as a giant siege of Novigrad is a lot to cover, and listing it here would make this post longer than the absurd length it already is.
5) Triss' lack of involvement after Novigrad & the lack of any consequences for her actions: Me, personally, never had a problem. To me, CD has been anticipating player's catching on to Triss' horrible actions, but through in a romance option just because certain gamers wanted it. In case you haven't figured it out, Triss is an absolutely horrible friend. So Geralt has amnesia. What does good ol' pal Triss do? Does she tell him of his past, of his life, of his relationships, of the person (Yennefer) he was going to be spending to rest of his life with until something horribly insidious occurred? None of that, Triss gets jealous of Yen, sleeps with Geralt, leads him on knowing her friend Yennefer might just be out there too, and continues manipulating and seducing Geralt anyway. Come The Witcher 2, and she neglects to tell Geralt about a very important secret organization that could very much prove Geralt innocent. But no, she never brings it up until Geralt figures it out, assuming the player choose the path were he brings it up.
No, the problem is Geralt nor Yen ever act hostile towards Triss. One would think Geralt and Yen would completely break all ties with Triss for being a horribly friend to both Geralt and Yen, but they still treat her as if she's a close friend. Triss sleeps with Yennfer's man (kinda), neglects to make Geralt's life easier at several points in the first two games, yet no one ever brings this up.
I suspect this was done so there wouldn't be an obvious romance path, but the game obviously infers Yennefer was meant to be with Geralt, with Triss being an afterthought.
I know I missed, points, but I can only type so much.