Almost finished (my humble opinion)

[lagom76]

Almost finished (my humble opinion)

130 hours later, I have almost finished the game.
Almost, since it keeps crashing since the newest patch and I just don't really care about the last bit of the last quest.
But why that? How dare you, Witcher 3 is not that brilliant? Well, not in my opinion.
Besides of it's great look and the better combat I would always prefer The Witcher 2. It tells the better story, with more intrigue, better dialogues, some surprises.
It felt like a long and good Game of Thrones episode. Witcher 3 is a nice open world game. But I just don't really want to play an open world game.
What I really was hoping for? A more surprising main story, some well written characters, some intrigues, including Emhyr maybe..... just a more intelligent, not so mainstream feeling plot...
Especially Ciri and Yen (and for those who loved the second game also Triss) had nothing much to say in this game.
I mean, what's the point of Ciri, if you only have a handful, quite meaningless dialogues with her? Why should anyone, who did not read the books, care about her?
I was really hyped by the game, and enjoyed it, most of it. But, well, now I just feel like better playing The Witcher 2 again.

Some update: Thanks everyone for sharing their thoughts.
Actually, I finished the last bit of the game now and that last (short) quest with Ciri was really nicely done. I wished for a lot more of this, especially in the beginning of the game.
Overall, still, I think the storyline, especially the last quarter of the game, is only average.

After reading quite a lot here in this (very good) forum, there are much more detailed and well researched posts describing what I think about the game and the storytelling in particularly.

 

[Arianann]

Your opinion is still your opinion, can't argue with that. But you said "I just don't really want to play an open world game", so why did you play the Witcher 3 when every media out there, before and after it's release, specifically talked about it being an open world game. Also if you played the game and don't know the point of Ciri, I'm sorry but you haven't been really paying attention.

 

[lagom76]

Your'e right. But also every media out there told me, the storytelling in this open world game is brilliant. And that is the point for me, it is just not.
For Ciri, also other characters that I loved in the books: You have almost no option to talk to them, you don't experience the characters of the witcher in the game.

 

[moonknightgog]

"I mean, what's the point of Ciri, if you only have a handful, quite meaningless dialogues with her? Why should anyone, who did not read the books, care about her?"

Because it's your daughter, which means that the quest in TW3 is more...intimate and personal.

 

[PJmichelle]

I'm on my second play-through of The Witcher 3 right now. It's a great game, one of the best I've played in a long time, but I'd have to agree with you, it's not as great a masterpiece as The Witcher 2 was. I like the art style, characters, music, locations and most of all the plot of Witcher 2 better. All the towns and villages seem a little trivial when compared to something like Flotsam. In Flotsam you could see that every little piece of rock, every small detail was there for a reason. In Witcher 3 most of the villages are sort of copies of each other, which, I guess, is the price you pay for having an open world game.

 

[lagom76]

"Because she is your daughter" Sorry, no. This is no reason.
This is like Yen in the game is explained: You love here, because she is the one. mhm. ok.
But why? Could you please explain this to me, the player, by showing me the character, showing me the background of their relation?
I loved the first scence with Ciri at Kaer Morhen. But (obviously spoiler ahead ) there is not much more coming.

Btw: I do not want to tell you, The Witcher 3 is a bad game. It is pretty good. But could have been so much better!

 

[rafaelmendes]

"Because she is your daughter" Sorry, no. This is no reason.
This is like Yen in the game is explained: You love here, because she is the one. mhm. ok.
But why? Could you please explain this to me, the player, by showing me the character, showing me the background of their relation?

Btw: I do not want to tell you, The Witcher 3 is a bad game. It is pretty good. But could have been so much better!

It is explained to you through your progression... And you allways have the glossary.
If you want to know every detail about the series, you should play the first two games, I guess.

And the reason why ciri is so important, is a good damn reason. It's not just because she is your "daughter"... You were probably rushing the game and missed some datails. But that's not the game's fault, it is yours.

I never played the previous games, and I got it, you should too.

 

[Lobasso]

I pretty much disagree with everything you have said. W2 was the absolute worst part of the trilogy. It was disgracefully small, had absolutely no sense of exploration, had no contracts apart from the odd nekker and ghoul ones, and you simply did not feel like a witcher at all. To round it off, you got an entirely different game, depending on a single early choice, which is not very good game design if you ask me. The only interesting part of the story for me, was trying to find out Letho's motives, but when he says "Well, I killed them to destabilize the region" I sort of dropped my jaw, and made a "you don't say" gesture. Nonetheless, it is still a great game with an overall great story and characters, but the weakest in the trilogy. W3>W1>W2. The first one simply had more exploration, freedom, and significantly more options to change the story in a meaningful way.

Also, in order for everyone to fully understand why Yennefer, Ciri, or anyone else is important, they would have to recap everything that happens in the books. Other than taking resources away from designing the actual game, fans of the books would find it utterly tedious and pointless. True, you definitely can make more sense of the chaarcters' motives if you have read the books, but it is by no means a prerequisite to enjoy the game for what it is. And as others have pointed out already, the glossary is there to help.

Perhaps it would have been for the best if the first two games actually had been adaptations of the books, with the third one being an original story. That way, noone would miss anything, and we still could have W3 as the masterpiece it is. But they opted for all episodes taking place after the events of the books, which is fine. Especially, since never in my life have I seen a single game that captures the atmosphere and the overall feeling of the books as perfectly as this series does.

And as a sidenote, I absolutely hated Flotsam. The idea was great, but it was ruined by the worst implementation of DOF ever seen, and a disastrous lightning system. But I reiterate, W2 is an awesome game, and a classic.

 

[lagom76]

Yes, you talk about the role ciri is playing in the story.
I am talking about ciri, the character introduced to you by the game.
You know nothing about her in the start, and you end the game almost knowing nothing about her.
And if you have to read the a glossary to get to know her, or even have to read the books, well, this is not a good storytelling...

 

[WolvenGear]

Your'e right. But also every media out there told me, the storytelling in this open world game is brilliant. And that is the point for me, it is just not.
For Ciri, also other characters that I loved in the books: You have almost no option to talk to them, you don't experience the characters of the witcher in the game.

And it is. And if you want a really good story you should read the books.

---------- Updated at 02:28 PM ----------

Yes, you talk about the role ciri is playing in the story.
I am talking about ciri, the character introduced to you by the game.
You know nothing about her in the start, and you end the game almost knowing nothing about her.
And if you have to read the a glossary to get to know her, or even have to read the books, well, this is not a good storytelling...

I never played the first two and I totally got everything about ciri? Did you miss out on the intro plus a lot of side-quests and stuff?

 

[rafaelmendes]

Yes, you talk about the role ciri is playing in the story.
I am talking about ciri, the character introduced to you by the game.
You know nothing about her in the start, and you end the game almost knowing nothing about her.
And if you have to read the a glossary to get to know her, or even have to read the books, well, this is not a good storytelling...

I actually get to know a lot about Ciri...

 

[lagom76]

Perhaps it would have been for the best if the first two games actually had been adaptations of the books, with the third one being an original story.

Absolutely agree with that point. But that is not the way it worked out.
Perhaps it would have been better to just tell their own story, not taking care of the books.
For sure, I understand it is a mission impossible to tell everything that happened in the books before in this one game.
But still, to tell one: You love that person, just because that is the way it is.... nope

 

[Lobasso]

Perhaps it would have been for the best if the first two games actually had been adaptations of the books, with the third one being an original story.

Absolutely agree with that point. But that is not the way it worked out.
Perhaps it would have been better to just tell their own story, not taking care of the books.
For sure, I understand it is a mission impossible to tell everything that happened in the books before in this one game.
But still, to tell one: You love that person, just because that is the way it is.... nope

Problem is, I don't think you or anyone would complain about not being told who Frodo and Sam are, and why it is important to find them, if you played a LOTR game. Because the devs would rightly assume familiarity with the source material. Sapkowski's books were completely unknown in the english-speaking world before the release of W1, so obviously a large portion of the playerbase do not have that kind of familiarity, and I understand what you say. On the other hand, CDPR are Polish, and an equally large playerbase did read the books at some point. These people are extremely happy with the game and the storytelling. It is just not possible to please everyone, and CDPR chose the middle ground. I think it turned out pretty well.

 

[lagom76]

yep, agree with that. At least, now much more people will read the books now

 

[MisterKolega]

Wild Hunt is the weakness of the plot

I think to be honest, the Wild Hunt plot made the whole story go downslope. The characters of the Wild Hunt lack so much in characterization, storytelling, psychology it's just embarassing. Avalach and Ge'els were missed opportunities to add more depth to the third act. There isn't just enough storytelling in the relationship/romance spectre of the game. The Wild Hunt generals are just not very convincing as the main villains. The Crones were much better written. Dijkstra, Philippa and Strenger "Bloody Baron" were superb made but that's the reason i cannot understand what went wrong with Eredin, Caranthir and Imlerith.

The gameplay ist nice, the open world thing has his advantages, graphics are awesome but i think the story has many flaws that were already discussed to death in the forums.

Act 3 is a desaster. An adventure story lives of metaphores, allegories and symbolism. Fantasy lives from the messages it delivers to the audiance but Eredin and his colleagues are a bad joke.

The Witcher 3 and the whole franchise are a masterpiece and surely the shining star of the gaming industries, but there are still so many weaknesses that fans who played the first two games and read the books mostly are disappointed by the main plot.

 

[lagom76]

Well yes, and you explained it better than I did (wanted to keep it spoiler free also).
At least I also want to add: Some of the side quests are really well made and told.
You actually have more opportunities to speak and get to know the bloody baron ( I kinda liked him! ), than you did with the main characters.

edit: I am just exploring the forum, so everything I wrote is probably already discussed a lot..

 

[GameLover69]

65
I thought the story was pretty well told considering there is a limit to resources when creating a world, it's people and their relationships.

Allowances have to be made in storytelling. (hence imagination kicks in)
It would never end if you were to be explained every little thing about every little character and their relationships to one another.

Would we all like more content, damn ya.
But is it really something that is possible considering the medium, budget constraints, release date constraints etc... no.
That is a sign of a well told story IMHO.... leaving me wanting more.
So........ as you say you wanted more, I say to that, then you did really enjoy this like us all....you just wanted more....and I understand and also wanted more.

Good job CDPR.81

 

[Introspectah]

(Initial impression of the title unto itself)

- I say finish that humble opinion!

 

[BroccoliSouP]

130 hours later, I have almost finished the game.
Almost, since it keeps crashing since the newest patch and I just don't really care about the last bit of the last quest.
But why that? How dare you, Witcher 3 is not that brilliant? Well, not in my opinion.
Besides of it's great look and the better combat I would always prefer The Witcher 2. It tells the better story, with more intrigue, better dialogues, some surprises.
It felt like a long and good Game of Thrones episode. Witcher 3 is a nice open world game. But I just don't really want to play an open world game.
What I really was hoping for? A more surprising main story, some well written characters, some intrigues, including Emhyr maybe..... just a more intelligent, not so mainstream feeling plot...
Especially Ciri and Yen (and for those who loved the second game also Triss) had nothing much to say in this game.
I mean, what's the point of Ciri, if you only have a handful, quite meaningless dialogues with her? Why should anyone, who did not read the books, care about her?
I was really hyped by the game, and enjoyed it, most of it. But, well, now I just feel like better playing The Witcher 2 again.

Yeah, Main plot is in my opinion pretty weak(not side quests). Also by putting open world into your game, you loose the streamlining you could use to improve storytelling experience. It is just impossible thing to do and it is one of the things you have to trade if you want an open world game.

 

[verdwhisper]

I, however, think witcher 1 has the best storytelling and atomosphere, Witcher 3 follows and witcher 2 is the worst among the trilogy, but I m not saying 2 is bad, it is still a very good game. Personally, I love open world game better because it is more fun to explore even though Velen looks pretty much the same everywhere. 3 just offered much more than 2. More exploration and side quests. Some ppl argue that witcher 2 looks better than witcher 3 which I dont really buy. Certain scenes of witcher 2 might be more polished than nowhere in velen, but witcher 3 has much more astounding scenes in general. But, it still can be improved! I agree that wild hunt king is the weakness of the main plot, but I m not sure how to make the character stronger in plot. After you figured what he is doing and that is pretty much it. Unless we can teleport to their world and learn some more stories about wild hunt and fight them there. That would be kind of cool. Well, only if there is a witcher 4.