A Critique and Defense of The Witcher 3's story

[slightlyedible]

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.

 

[Guest 3874899]

As to the fifth point: I was thinking the same for a very long time. And even though at first Yennefer can be annoying, she is definitely very intriguing and also beautiful, sometimes witty. But very recently I started to think that basically all the female characters are fuqd up from at least a normal person's point of view, and the least fuqd up is I think Triss (if we don't count the 1st Witcher game, because I suspect Triss might be just a red-headed Yennefer in the 1st one).
According to our world's morals Yennefer constantly abuses Geralt (I'm talking about the game now, but in the books too): manipulates him all the time for one, and always belittles him, doesn't think of him as an equal (you don't have to know, you're just a witcher). For a very long time the only reason in the books they keep getting together is because Geralt made that wish (because she smells nice?!), which doesn't seem like a healthy love to me. More like an addiction to a drug which you know destroys you, but you keep returning to it.
If we don't count the 1st Witcher, then Triss tells everything about Yennefer to Geralt at the very beginning of the second game, as Geralt said in the cutscene, even though it hurts her. So if the player chose to romance Triss, then Geralt did it while he already knew very well everything about his past relationship (toxic, as Dandelion says, and I can only agree). Also, as far as I remember, in the 2nd game Triss actually wants to tell Geralt about the Lodge, but she then got kidnapped, so. It made it a bit difficult

Nice critique anyway!

---------- Updated at 07:22 AM ----------

Triss tells everything about Yennefer to Geralt ... even though it hurts her

I don't think Yennefer would ever have had the backbone to do something like that... (games... I read the books, but I don't remember if she had ever been honest with Geralt when it didn't suit her goals)

 

[Guest 3847602]

1. Agreed completely. The problem with Eredin isn't just the screentime, it's his entire personality that needs a rewrite. One-dimensional, trashtalking villains may have their use in some other stories, but for the Witcher series - it simply doesn't cut. Though, to be fair, something similar have happened in the books with Vilgefortz, he went from charismatic antagonist to "for the evulz" psycho and it was disappointing as well.
2. I think the White Frost should never have been a part of the game to begin with, Sapkowski used it as a plot tool to explain why everyone wants to use Geralt's adopted daughter, he didn't plan to resolve it himself, he left it to happen 3000 years in the future. It wasn't up to Ciri to stop it. It wasn't the magic phenomenon that destroys every planet, it was the natural cataclysm (a climate change) that threatens the Aen Seidhe world. It seems like the writers at CDPR unnecessarily took the responsibility upon themselves to conclude it and failed to do so in a satisfying manner.
3. Agreed, it was pointless, it could only jeopardize Firingilla's appearance in the final expansion.
4. Also true, Sunstone was deus-ex machina.
5 (6). That's because Triss is completely different character from game to game, she becomes whatever the new plot demands her to be. Manipulating Geralt and taking advantage of his amnesia was brushed aside in a single autodialogue exchange. In TW3 she have the different role, she is "too kind for her own good", dwelling too much on what have happened in the previous games goes against that new image.

 

[sv3672]

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.

They were planned to have more screen time (especially Margarita Laux-Antille), but much of it was cut during the later stages of development. Nevertheless they still serve a purpose in the story, it is just not a major role. And there are many characters in the game with similar small amounts of screen time, it just happens that in this particular case book fans probably expected more.

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.

A fair amount of stuff was cut in that section of the game, and even some that was not barely made it into the final version. That is responsible for a number of issues, but it is unfortunately something that is not uncommon in game development (especially when the initial plans are very ambitious), The Witcher 2 also had a rushed third chapter.

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

And also to the game getting an "adult only" rating (= lost sales) and possibly banned in some countries. While it is a somewhat disappointing decision, it is understandable that that particular cut content was not deemed important enough to the story to make it worth the trouble with censorship. You already know enough about the crones from the game, and the important part of that quest is not the orgy but defeating Imlerith.

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?

This is basically the same problem as point 4 above, the final battle with Eredin was planned to be in Novigrad and probably in a larger quest, and Caranthir would have been in a separate quest that was cut, and then the two boss fights were merged into a single quest in Undvik.

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.
...
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 generally do not agree with what you wrote, but there is an already existing thread devoted to this topic, so I will not go into the details. There is a lot of misleading and biased information regarding this on forums, but the writers of the game obviously do not consider her an "absolutely horrible friend", nor does the game itself suggest that. Also, I find the notion that "this was done so there wouldn't be an obvious romance path" and "just because certain gamers wanted it" to be rather disrespectful towards the developers, as it implies accusing the real people who made the game of being artistically corrupt, hypocritical, and dishonest towards their fans. And if that is how you see it, what if they also only brought back Yennefer into the games after TW1 "just because certain gamers wanted it", after all, they had no obligation to do so, and could just as well made her dead or disappeared for good ?

I do not think there is anything in the game that concretely infers that Yennefer was meant to be with Geralt, either, only that they have a past together from the books. And the inequality of screen time (which is not as extreme as some think, by the way, it is about a 3:2 ratio of dialogue lines over the entire game) can reasonably be explained with production issues/cut content (see above), Yennefer's importance to Ciri's story as an adoptive mother, and the game introducing a major new character to players who might not have read the books. It does not necessarily have to do anything with some evil conspiracy, maybe the choice was indeed meant to be real, and the game is just not perfect, like in the case of the various other issues in its later chapters.

In any case, whatever your subjective views are regarding the morality of Triss' actions, they do not justify bad production (such as lack of content, dialogues, poor C&C, etc.), and it would be rather contrived to use that as a way of communicating to players whether they made the "right" choice. A new player only sees one thing, that something in the game is badly made, and will understandably complain.

 

[The_Fixer]

2. I think the White Frost should never have been a part of the game to begin with, Sapkowski used it as a plot tool to explain why everyone wants to use Geralt's adopted daughter, he didn't plan to resolve it himself, he left it to happen 3000 years in the future. It wasn't up to Ciri to stop it. It wasn't the magic phenomenon that destroys every planet, it was the natural cataclysm (a climate change) that threatens the Aen Seidhe world. It seems like the writers at CDPR unnecessarily took the responsibility upon themselves to conclude it and failed to do so in a satisfying manner.

Wholeheartedly agree. CDPR probably just needed it to justify the 3 different endings in a more "dramatic" way. But in my opinion, if it's not broken, don't fix it. And the White Frost as it was in the books to me certainly wasn't broken.

 

[sv3672]

Wholeheartedly agree. CDPR probably just needed it to justify the 3 different endings in a more "dramatic" way. But in my opinion, if it's not broken, don't fix it. And the White Frost as it was in the books to me certainly wasn't broken.

It seems at some point in development there were plans to add a boss fight with Avallac'h near the end of the game, maybe the white frost "plot twist" was added later instead of that, and that is why it feels so tacked on. Not sure if the Avallac'h fight would have been a good idea either, though.

 

[HarelMor]

1) While i agree with you that eradin didn't received enough game time, I understand why he didnt had a lot of lines. Eradin treat Geralt, the Aen Seidhe and the humans as insects, They are only means to an end he doesn't feel the obligation to explain anything.
Regarding the poison, Ge'els watched what Avallac'h version of the events, avalach manipulated him, by giving him a portion of the truth in the vision, something that will incriminate eradin.

2) Avallac'h is master manipulator, he have the ability to play and control people. Ciri seems to be under Stockholm syndrome. In my opinion Avallach wanted the red riders to lose in order to give the leaders of the Aen Seidhe a false feeling of security, when they will be confident enough, he will come through the back door, in my opinion the nilfgardian empress ciri end fit his plan.

5) I do agree here, i was certain that i will see that the tree spirit will avenge the crones, or do something to the world if released (at least be there for geralt in the sad ending). Meeting tamara somewhere in novigrad or oxenfort, where geralt will need to decide if she will live or die by his sword.

6) In my opinion triss is the same person she was in the witcher 1 she just changed her mask to fit the current situation, kindness will give her a lot more then obvious manipulation. She is in love with geralt and want to get him with every possible means.

 

[toudis815]

2. I think the White Frost should never have been a part of the game to begin with, Sapkowski used it as a plot tool to explain why everyone wants to use Geralt's adopted daughter, he didn't plan to resolve it himself, he left it to happen 3000 years in the future. It wasn't up to Ciri to stop it. It wasn't the magic phenomenon that destroys every planet, it was the natural cataclysm (a climate change) that threatens the Aen Seidhe world. It seems like the writers at CDPR unnecessarily took the responsibility upon themselves to conclude it and failed to do so in a satisfying manner.
.

Absolutely the biggest issue. The way CDPR presented the White Frost has absolutely nothing to do with the canon. I'm also curious how people who didn't read the books reacted to this, because I think that it came out of nowhere as the "final boss" and reminded me famous Mass Effect 3 ending in some way.

Things you all guys say about Eredin, Avallach are obviously right, these characters have been completely misused. I would add Emhyr to the list who was basically one of the main villains in the books, Nilfgaard was also presented as an evil authoritarian empire in W2, but here is basically a good daddy and reasonable ruler if you compare him to Radovid that is so insane and disgusting in W3 that I can't take him seriously. Whole Witcher has always been (both books and games) about shades of grey, no black and white characters, and here they gave us Hitler.

Anyway if you treat W3 as a standalone story and not think about characters and terms from books that was misused, plot seems to be pretty solid (except this White frost in the end - I just can't stand this). W3 is a great game with a good story but unfortunately imo plot is so much worse then W2

 

[Krull32]

Damn, when i think about all that cut content.... And how it was supposed to be ( or planned...) and what we have now...
Eredin, witches sabbath ...... This alone ....:realmad::wallbash:

Can only agree with the TE. :like:

Btw,

I think the White Frost should never have been a part of the game to begin with

True.

 

[Zyvik]

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.

Yep. Rita and Fringilla were treated horribly. Absolutely horribly. Sheala was the worst though.

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

Regarding Triss...Her character is just a mess. CDPR clearly didn't intend for her to be so unlikable and obnoxious since they said in an interview that her biggest flaw is that she's "too kind for her own good." Her character suffered because of the inconsistent writing.

I still think that she should've had a bigger role in the third act. Otherwise I just don't see the point in her presence.

 

[Holgaroni]

I'll just mention the wasted opportunity of the Novigrad part with the 4 bosses, a couple of them were initially connected to the Scoiat'ael, and their total absence made the bosses screen time reduced and this part less... engaging.

 

[Ortwyn]

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.

Radovid told Geralt about the Lodge (and that Triss is a member) in TW1. But in TW2 all the guys somehow forgot about it and the Lodge is a secret organization again. As Zyvik pointed out, the problem is...

Regarding Triss...Her character is just a mess. CDPR clearly didn't intend for her to be so unlikable and obnoxious since they said in an interview that her biggest flaw is that she's "too kind for her own good." Her character suffered because of the inconsistent writing.

Exactly so.

I'll just mention the wasted opportunity of the Novigrad part with the 4 bosses, a couple of them were initially connected to the Scoiat'ael, and their total absence made the bosses screen time reduced and this part less... engaging.

Whoreson is a disappointing villain as well. Why we cannot have a better sabbath, but dead whores in Whoreson's appartment are ok? Sabbath would serve as an appropriate background for the Crones, but dead whores are only a poor cliche as it reminds Joffrey from the Game of Thrones so much. Whoreson Junior is both pure evil and incompetent - bad combination I would say. If only he had some interesting positive trait and not killing him would be an option.

Radovid that is so insane and disgusting in W3 that I can't take him seriously. Whole Witcher has always been (both books and games) about shades of grey, no black and white characters, and here they gave us Hitler.

What's even worse - basically anyone who follows Radovid's lead (or is used by him) is evil and disgusting. This is very disappointing if you compare it with the Order from TW1 and more or less good guy Siegfried.

I think the White Frost should never have been a part of the game to begin with.

I believe that the White Frost completely ruined the ending for me. It is pure deus ex machina, present in the game only for the sake of Avallac'h. The Chosen One Ciri walks into the portal and saves the Universe by defeating the White Frost - with no explanation how she did it. Totally uninteresting, dull and boring.

 

[sv3672]

I still think that she should've had a bigger role in the third act. Otherwise I just don't see the point in her presence.

As mentioned in another post, some content was probably deleted (I doubt that "Well?" is all that was originally planned in Battle Preparations, and a number of file names of scenes in The Sunstone do suggest otherwise), a common source of issues in the third act.

Radovid told Geralt about the Lodge (and that Triss is a member) in TW1. But in TW2 all the guys somehow forgot about it and the Lodge is a secret organization again.

Amnesia seems to be a recurring theme in the Witcher games. Anyway, to answer the quote from the OP:

Spoiler

In Chapter 1:

Brothel Mom: We started peeping - me first. I saw that redhead, Triss Merigold, and Cedric, our drunkard ex-Squirrel.
Brothel Mom: The redhead approached the magic mirror and said, 'Let's see who our ice queen's been talking to recently.'
Dandelion: She meant Síle.
Brothel Mom: Even I figured that out. She waved her hands, shouted an incantation, and a man appeared in the room. Mighty ugly - Derae was so scared she squealed.
Brothel Mom: When I finally got Derae out of the way, a different figure was in the room. A woman Triss called 'Philippa.'

...

Triss: What did Síle want from you?
Filippa: Isn't it obvious? Two Northern rulers have perished. We've been thinking on these developments.
Triss: Temeria is in chaos and I lost my position. There goes the effort we put into building peace!
Triss: What's your intention? What has the Lodge decided? I mean, it was created to protect the interests of magic.
Filippa: We'll adjust to the new order and make use of this situation.
Triss: Five years of my work wasted! The Peace of Cintra hangs by a thread and Temeria will plunge into civil war any day now! There's nothing to use! We need to find those responsible and dispense justice!
Filippa: Calm down. Two things should be partaken cold - sorrel soup and politics. Calculate and don't let your emotions lead you.
Filippa: We can't resurrect Foltest, so stop playing the avenger. We'll proceed wisely and deliberately. We'll use the situation. Understand?
Triss: At least help me clear the witcher's name.
Filippa: Triss, stop thinking with your vagina and get a hold of yourself. The witcher will manage…

In Chapter 3:

Geralt choice: A strange choice.

Geralt: Demavend hated mages.
Triss: No more than Henselt or Radovid. Síle and Philippa saw Demavend as the weakest ruler. His son, Stennis, blows hot and cold... Plus, he who controls the Pontar Valley, controls the North. So, it was in Aedirn that a popular rebel emerged preaching the idea of a new state.

Triss: At one of our meetings, I just asked how they imagined overthrowing Demavend. That was the last time I was invited.
Triss: After Demavend's death I became suspicious, but had no evidence. Philippa brushed me off.
Triss: When you went off to meet Iorveth and Síle was busy with the kayran's carcass, I managed to scan parts of her megascope. That's when I learned that Síle had dealings with Letho.

Geralt choice: Why didn't you tell me?

Geralt: Why didn't you tell me?
Triss: I wanted to! But we never met after that!

So, she did want to help clear Geralt's name, did not know about the Lodge's involvement in any assassination until just before getting kidnapped, and the Lodge (Philippa) was not interested in helping the witcher.

 

[Garrison72]

If I get reductive, most of the things I personally don't like come back to Ciri's inclusion - White Frost, Wild Hunt, Eredin, Avalach, Uma, Sunstone, etc. All of the above belong firmly in high fantasy, and I was hoping that would never be the focus of the series. Once they addressed these elements directly, they lost their mystery and became trite or unconvincing. The fact Sap went there in the books is irrelevant. CDPR said this is their own story, not even an adaptation, so they didn't need to follow his lead everywhere. Besides, the books work best when characters and theme are the core element; fantasy is there to flavor the narrative and enrich the setting. Nothing more. So as crazy as it sounds, and even though she adds some great moments to the game (when you first find her is pure genius on CDPR's part), I say get rid of Ciri and about 70% of the game's narrative issues vanish. Have the story instead be about Geralt finding Yen and Triss, choosing between the two, and trying to navigate the hell politics in a time of war, which is a major theme in the books anyway - Geralt's struggle to be moral and neutral at the same time.

 

[Krull32]

Why we cannot have a better sabbath, but dead whores in Whoreson's appartment are ok?

Good example. A lesser evil gets more disgusting stuff than the pure evils.
if you consider this, compared to whoresons quest , the sabbath is just a happy hippie party...

 

[Rawls]

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.

Yes this point has been brought up many times. It was actually mentioned by one of the heads at CDPR to be the one biggest regret of the entire story. I think some of the things in your recitation of the facts about Eredin and Avallach are implied rather than outright said, but I agree with your interpretation of Avallach and Eredin’s histories generally. As I proposed in this thread - http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threads/47769-Stories-and-Adventures-Thread/page4 - I really thought their story could have benefited from being fleshed out in a linear flashback mission for Ciri in Tir na Lia. But by the time you get to the point in the Witcher Saga story where we are in the Witcher 3, it doesn’t really make sense for Eredin to explain his motivations to Ciri or Geralt. And since those two are the PoV characters, if Eredin wouldn’t say it to them, I don’t see how the players would learn about it.

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

I liked Avallach in the game, but agree that the game make him appear much more “gold hearted” as you put it than the unicorns lead Ciri to believe he is in the books. I was very happy that the White Frost was included as a plot point but agree that it was not done very well. I also agree that showing an argument between Eredin and Avallach about these issues would have gone a long way. My personal preference would have been that Eredin succeed in abducting Ciri in “On thin Ice” with Geralt and Avvalch chasing after him through time and space. The finally catch up to him at the Spiral aka Gate of the Worlds where the argument ensues. Ultimately Geralt has to fight Eredin and wins the day … or you see a game over screen ... see http://forums.cdprojektred.com/thre...ed-edition-quot-aka-Legacy-for-the-ages/page5 - post #47. There are ways to head canon such a rift between Eredin and Avallach, but they are not in the game and I strongly doubt they can be include at this point.

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.

They had expanded roles that had to be cut. It’s a sad reality of game development, deadlines & opportunity costs.

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.

I actually really liked the sunstone quest. Sure it’s a plot device, but who cares? They needed a way to corner Eredin and this provides it. It’s not exactly like they could just wait around for him to show up on his terms and expect to win. I’m fine with it.

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.

RE Crones - First and foremost I definitely don’t agree that mass orgies & ritual suicides would have made that part of the game better or more mature in any way shape or form. It would have made it worse for me. I much prefer the way it is (a regular festival where the sheep-like people of Velen are ignorant to the true facts of what is going on with the whole pot of child sacrifices bit). Also the whole needing the game to not be adults only rated.

RE: Final Battle – I agree. It’s anticlimactic compared to the Battle of Kaer Morhen. I disagree about how it doesn’t make sense that Geralt just happens upon Eredin. He runs there because he sees and recognizes Eredin’s ship, sees it get hit by the enflamed Skellige ship, and he runs there as quickly as he can.

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 actually like both of the romances quite a bit (I prefer Yens but both a just fine IMO). I strongly disagree with your reading of Triss. I generally speaking take her at face value and not as a master manipulator. But that’s a discussion for another thread. Specifically this one http://forums.cdprojektred.com/thre...aster-manipulator-or-a-victim-of-circumstance. I also don’t agree that the game obviously infers anything. The game actually gives Geralt a pretty good out. If you don’t want to be with Yen, just do the last wish quest, tell Yen you don’t love her anymore, and it’s easy to head canon that Geralt’s love for Yen was really the Wish all along and not his true feelings which explains the constant conflict. Again that’s not my preferred reading of what I would do in game. But it’s a fairly clever way around the fact that Book Geralt would obviously go for Yen in the games.

I know I missed, points, but I can only type so much.

The main points are fair to make. There isn't much defense of the story I see above, just critique and that's fine. In defense of the story, The first two acts are very good. And really the pieces of Act 3 were there as well. There are specific instances where the game could have been greatly improved by changing some things. But hindsight is 20/20 and the quality of the story we do actually have is very good compared to most video games I have played. I doubt there will be any changes to the main story at this point. Hopefully CDPR will apply the lessons learned here and make an even better game next time. CP2077 here we come.

 

[toudis815]

So, she did want to help clear Geralt's name.

Triss wanted to do a good thing but Phlippa forbade her - story of her life

 

[Garrison72]

Triss wanted to do a good thing but Phlippa forbade her - story of her life

 

[sv3672]

As I proposed in this thread - http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threads/47769-Stories-and-Adventures-Thread/page4 - I really thought their story could have benefited from being fleshed out in a linear flashback mission for Ciri in Tir na Lia. But by the time you get to the point in the Witcher Saga story where we are in the Witcher 3, it doesn’t really make sense for Eredin to explain his motivations to Ciri or Geralt. And since those two are the PoV characters, if Eredin wouldn’t say it to them, I don’t see how the players would learn about it.

There is also a cut quest where Geralt would have temporarily infiltrated the Wild Hunt, I think it is q211_canaris, in which case it would have been after Battle Preparations and before the final battle. However, it was deleted relatively early (not so late that it would obviously be the result of running out of time), so maybe it was not deemed a very good idea after all.

The game actually gives Geralt a pretty good out. If you don’t want to be with Yen, just do the last wish quest, tell Yen you don’t love her anymore, and it’s easy to head canon that Geralt’s love for Yen was really the Wish all along and not his true feelings which explains the constant conflict.

Actually, skipping the quest leads to the same result.

 

[xxRENEGADExx]

1. Agreed. Too weak WH/Eredin character development. (And as a boss, too :hrhr
2. "Ciri saving the world" hello WitcherHollywood! I don't like it, too.
3. Seems a lack of time prevented devs to develope these ladies...
4. I think same reason as in 3. They were just in a hurry. I'm pretty sure about this.
5. Triss actually has her field in games - it's politics. TW1 perfectly display her in this light. But since TW2 devs decided to put "a bit" her aside. Instead to show us, at least, cut scenes about her adventures in TW2 - we mostly receive dry facts . And in TW3 with it's "terrific" politics - she is far from it mostly, too. We have just talks. To bad...here lies a really big potential.About romance - for me, as a player, the main problem was game interfering into Geralt's decision. I don't want Geralt be with Triss - he'll be with her in TW2 unavoidably, automatically. I want Geralt to be with Triss, but between TW2 and TW3 Geralt will break up with her unavoidably, automatically. (No cut scenes again about union/break up - just dry facts) and etc.


Simplification and hollywood styling.