Alternate Beginings in The Next Witcher Game (Spoiler Alert)

[Skipper_1O1]

Alternate Beginings in The Next Witcher Game (Spoiler Alert)

I think that Witcher 3 is a big step in the franchise, but a lot bigger for the next installments. The way I see it is that the three major endings can be suitable for three totally different beginnings.
- The bad ending can be a little bit deceiving. The way I see it is that Geralt would replace the ladies of the wood and become the new master of the woods, after all he was the "Defier", and the scene were monsters were swarming in on the hut it will probably mean that they come to show their loyalty to their new master. This will open a totally different scenario, if there will be any Geralt in the next releases, for the new installment as having the monsters as an ally will be a game changer. Imagine having Berem as your right hand. I think this would be the evil path.
+ The second ending were Ciri becomes an empress, it will be the contrary to the evil path as Geralt will have allies among the politicians, which will grant him great authorities. Since Geralt hates politics, or even prefer hunting monsters over being among politicians, this will be a lesser evil path.
= The third ending were Ciri becomes a witcheress, this will be the ordinary Witcher game, but with Ciri fighting by Geralt's side. This is definitely the neutral ending (The witcher's way)

 

[sv3672]

From what I have read in various interviews with developers, it looks like the next Witcher game (if any) would not be a continuation of Wild Hunt, but rather a new story with a different protagonist, and for that reason it also would not be called "The Witcher 4". It has specifically been said that Geralt's story is finished.

But in the case Ciri was made the new protagonist, I suspect her endings would not make a major difference, in the end she becomes a witcher, one way or the other: for example, in the bad ending she does not really die, and comes back after a few years of traveling between worlds. There would be references to the different endings, but the game would be mostly the same.

To be honest, I would prefer if more Witcher games were not made, and CDPR focused on new IPs.

 

[Skipper_1O1]

From what I have seen, official interviews and statements from game developers are similar to political ones, meaning that they always change what they already said. However, I believe the main point from saying that this would be the end of Geralt's story is that they need a break, and I think they said that too, and they are right. Taking a time off from a long time project will provide an opportunity to think from a different perspective when they return again to make another witcher game, but I hope that they do not fall into the same mistake of Mass Effect.

Hypothetically speaking, Ciri is of course an important character which can play a major role in the next witcher game. However, the idea behind an alternate ending is to have alternate beginnings, and I do not mean simple references that happen at the opening of the game, otherwise it will be worthless to make alternate endings from the first place, and this is a common problem in RPGs. I understand your point from your example, that Ciri will eventually return, but each ending has its own consequences, and if Ciri traveled between worlds after facing the white frost, then it would be illogical that she will return to become a witcheress. For instance, she might become a sage and that she reached high places in Tir ná Lia. In any case, the way I see it is that Geralt's story is far from being settled. It is true that every good story has to reach an ending, but first you need to make sure that it is ready to be ended.

Witcher is a franchise, so it will be difficult for CDProjekt not to consider new releases.

 

[sv3672]

It has been repeatedly said in interviews for years since 2013 that CDPR do not plan to make more games with Geralt as the protagonist, his saga has been envisioned as a trilogy and it has been concluded already. They do intend to revisit the Witcher universe at some point in the future, but with a different main character, and possibly in a different location (much of the world has not been explored yet) and/or in the distant past or future. Of course, plans can always change, but it would look bad after saying it so many times that there will not be a Geralt sequel. Using your example, politicians are not exactly known for their honesty. So far, I thought CDPR is a company that cares about its reputation.

Also, endings from the previous games never had a really major impact in the sequels so far, they are recognized if you import a save, and various bits of content change accordingly, but it is like 2% of the entire game both in Assassins of Kings and in Wild Hunt. Which is better than nothing, but it is also why I do not think it is realistic to expect two completely different games depending on whether Ciri becomes a witcher or empress. More so if the hypothetical sequel was to be released a decade after TW3 (since if the other AAA game that is planned until 2021 in addition to Cyberpunk 2077 is not a Witcher, "TW4" would likely not be out before 2025), a lot of the players would be newcomers or lost their Witcher 3 saves long before. After such a long time, it makes sense if the developers start a new story from scratch, rather than continue what is already finished. Perhaps one of the reasons why TW3 has more divergent ending states than the older games is that a continuation was not anticipated by the writers, it was meant to be the end of the story.

It is true that Mass Effect Andromeda has been a failure, but that is largely the result of the game simply not being good, and in my opinion it was also released too soon (both in terms of needing more work, and the franchise needing a longer rest than just 5 years after ME3). I do not think a new Witcher game that is equally as well made as Wild Hunt would be received badly like MEA, even if it disappointed a minority of players that they are not playing as Geralt. It is a valid concern, though, but as I noted before, I would personally prefer new IPs rather than further Witcher games. In any case, CDPR is an ambitious studio, not afraid of the challenge of succeeding where BioWare failed. Low risk milking of the same franchise with endless sequels is more of something one would expect from the likes of Ubisoft and Activision.

Update: reply to the post below:

Spoiler

I do not think that it will go this far to affect CDProjekt's reputation, even laws get amended, so changing mere statements will quite unlikely reflect the company's dishonesty. What I meant to say that these kind of statements aim to give no promises or expectations so that the fans will not get high hopes of what the future holds, so instead of giving promises to the fans, which might cause big disappointment in case the company failed to deliver these promises, they say do not expect anything, there are no promises, no guaranties,... etc, just to avoid any obligations they cannot fulfill anytime soon, which will make the company work under less pressure.

I cannot see how their statements can reasonably be interpreted in any other way than Geralt's saga being over. I do not say that CDPR cannot change their minds, but if they did, it would probably be the result of pressure from shareholders and fans. And I think it is quite likely that there would be disappointment for the latter, not least because:

Better than nothing will not always cut it. At a some point fans will be expecting something a lot more than what we already have. In terms of how realistic it sounds to the different game paths, it will depends on how the planning for the game works out.

Fans expecting a significantly better handling of different paths from the previous game will likely end up being disappointed. There was a chance to improve it in TW3, yet it was not better than in TW2, only about the same. Why expect a sudden change now? It is not worth it commercially to invest a large amount of resources in this aspect of the game, when only a minority of players really cares about it. Maybe they would do it out of good will or for their reputation, but making a (from artistic point of view totally unnecessary) sequel contrary to their own previous statements would already show that the company cares about nothing but profit.

So, what one would rationally expect then is for Ciri to just become a witcher in the end no matter what, since that is what would probably suit the game the best, and is the most popular ending as well. Also, should Geralt become the protagonist again (fortunately unlikely), his ending could very well receive the "Shani" kind of treatment, too. I have no idea how the different endings with Emhyr, Dijkstra or Radovid winning the war could be handled in a way that makes sense and is not too expensive to implement, so one of them (I guess Emhyr) would have to be canonized. At best Geralt's three endings could be respected in a Ciri sequel, but that is about it. Most people are not really passionate about the other choices anyway.

Obviously, it would be difficult to take story choices in "Witcher 4" seriously after they have been rendered irrelevant three out of three times already, that is another disadvantage to consider. Nor would anyone believe a statement that TW4 is the end of the story, "this time for real", unless Geralt is killed certainly and unconditionally.

Even if took many years to release another Witcher game, it is highly unlikely that the fans will forget more than 10 years of playing the Witcher.

They will not forget it, but will be more willing to accept to something completely new. The currently still loud "Geralt or bust" crowd will slowly shrink over time and become small as players from 2015-2017 become older and move on. Even now it already looks like the majority of people who comment on forums accept the developers' decision. Many will also discover in Cyberpunk 2077 that CDPR can (hopefully) make a game that is just as good without Geralt, too.

Story wise, Geralt is not finished yet because there are many perspectives from his character were not developed yet. For example, the moral side is barely addressed and superficially designed, which is a good thing because it will give CDProjekt more time to experiment this side of the game.

His story is finished very well, whatever your ending is. He does not have a strictly defined morality because the game is an RPG and you can influence it with your choices (within reasonable limits), but the trilogy has developed him enough that there is more potential in writing someone new than in learning more about Geralt's minor nuances.

 

[Skipper_1O1]

I do not think that it will go this far to affect CDProjekt's reputation, even laws get amended, so changing mere statements will quite unlikely reflect the company's dishonesty. What I meant to say that these kind of statements aim to give no promises or expectations so that the fans will not get high hopes of what the future holds, so instead of giving promises to the fans, which might cause big disappointment in case the company failed to deliver these promises, they say do not expect anything, there are no promises, no guaranties,... etc, just to avoid any obligations they cannot fulfill anytime soon, which will make the company work under less pressure.

Better than nothing will not always cut it. At a some point fans will be expecting something a lot more than what we already have. In terms of how realistic it sounds to the different game paths, it will depends on how the planning for the game works out. Even if took many years to release another Witcher game, it is highly unlikely that the fans will forget more than 10 years of playing the Witcher. Blizzard spent 12 years working on Starcraft 2 before releasing Wings of Liberty. There was an interval of many years without releasing a new Starcraft game, but it all worked out quite well. On the other hand, you have Duke Nukem Forever which took like 10 years until it was published, but it received negative feedback, so it really depends on how carefully CDProjekt plan their game. Furthermore, the company can fix this time gap by releasing remasters or something like that, just to keep the fans engaged with the franchise.

Story wise, Geralt is not finished yet because there are many perspectives from his character were not developed yet. For example, the moral side is barely addressed and superficially designed, which is a good thing because it will give CDProjekt more time to experiment this side of the game. I will try to illustrate it with a separate example. Building a house is a progress that requires an accurate and careful planning, and it is possible to have flaws in the plan, so if you reached a stage where you made a big progress and discovered that there are many flaws to be fixed, it would be rational to try to fix these flaws instead of erasing it and start from scratch. The reason is that by trying to fix the existent problems, you will not make the same mistake again in the future. On the other hand, if you directly decided to build the house from scratch, then you will most likely fall in the same errors again because you did not attempt to find the required solution from the first place. The same goes with witcher, and it will not be clear whether the flaws are fixed or not unless it is published to the public in order to create a live experiment, so business wise Geralt's story is also not yet finished. The reason is that a game is always in a beta stage for the developers as they will always learn something new, and the more they develop their project the more they will learn, so if they did not make the most out of their project and decided to do something else entirely, they will miss a lot of information. The problem was not in Mass Effect Andromeda, but it was the rush to reach an ending for Mass Effect series as they did not extract enough knowledge from the three installments in order to create another project. Every studio has its own ambitions and strategies, but in the end they all work within the same field, so any good or bad experience that endured by any company will be, supposedly, an addition to the intelligence of the others.

 

[Razrback16]

I really think they will and definitely hope that they do make more Witcher games - this is easily the best series of games I've ever played in ~3 decades of heavy video gaming. I think it makes plenty of sense for CDPR to end Geralt's story - he's had a pretty awesome ride and I'd love to see him make a cameo appearance in the next set of Witcher games, if they decide to make them -

What I personally would love to see them do is chronologically, have the world of The Witcher fast forward about 30 years after Blood & Wine and have something cataclysmic occur that re-ignites the need for Witchers. If I were advising CD Projekt Red, I'd suggest hiring a professional author to write a bridge book or 3 that would sort of "set the stage" for the next protagonist. It would educate readers on what's going on in the political world, introduce new rulers, sorceresses, mages, main good guys, main bad guys, neutral characters the new main character would meet along his path and decide how to react to (befriend or detest).

For romance, similar to Geralt's story, there should be multiple love interests, but maybe instead of having both of them pining desperately for the main protagonist the way Triss & Yennefer did for Geralt, maybe the protagonist has to work for it a little bit, and decide who he wants to go after and has some competition such as a mage, a prince, etc.

Food for thought.

 

[Skipper_1O1]

I think it is time to introduce multiple characters gameplay, like GTA V, the world of the Witcher is vast enough to handle such thing. It might also lead to co-op missions with the old fashioned split-screen mode. This strategy can help the game to be proportionate with each of its parts. For instance, I felt that Velen took like 60% of the Witcher's 3 game time or maybe even more, and other territories like Skellige only had something like 20%, and I was really exciting about Skellige because it was so interesting, but it just felt that I am controlled by the game events unlike Velen where the players are absolutely free to do whatever they like, and it had many side-quests and random events, and not just tons of loot spots. Having multiple characters can balance the distribution of the game activity across all of its sections.

 

[Sooxzay]

Dude dont make me hope for another witcher game! This would be super awesome. I cant get enough of it..

But this would be super difficult. Geralts story as mentioned is over. Ciri cant be the protagonist since she got several endings.

There must be another witcher. The multiple character idea sounds interesting but I dont think that it works. In GTA V they all come together and have missions together. They are connected to each other while witchers actually work alone. Aditionally some people could dislike one of the multiple characters and dont like playing them when they are forced too and end up canceling playing the game.

It just has to be a witcher we maybe didnt hear about yet. Maybe from another school. But again this would be super hard. We have so many memories to geralt and all of his friends and people that are connected to him in his long journey that people would always try to compare this experience with the new one. And when they dont feel the excitement like in previous games and with geralt they will fail.

For now CP2077 will come. I dont think there will be a new witcher game in the next 6-8 years. And if there will be a new one well.. They need a really really good concept.

 

[Skipper_1O1]

Well they don't have to be directly connected to each other, they could be chasing a common goal or that certain events were triggered which made the characters meet each other, you know in the wrong place at the wrong time thing, similar to Geralt and Letho in Witcher 2. Furthermore, I think it would be better to have a main leading role character, and sub character(s), and I will elaborate more on this in the next point.

The other schools is an interesting aspect, and I think they can be suitable in certain scenarios. For example, the protagonist is trying to rally the remaining members of the various schools and bring them back to their glorious days, if they had any . Alternatively, it could be that the protagonist is seeking to acquire the special mutagens of these schools, in continuation of the long journey of acquiring their special gears. This is where I will mention again that Geralt should continue. Geralt's character is a well developed one, so it would be a lot easier to relate many scenarios to him because a new character might not fit in well enough as you mentioned. Which lead us back to your point, regarding that people might not like the new character, because having Geralt as the main protagonist is a guaranteed, and in your words, "super awesome" experience, and even if the other new character is not good enough, Geralt's presence will cover, in my opinion, the other character(s) flaws. And This what happened in Witcher 3. The developers tried to experiment having a secondary playable character as Ciri, with Geralt as the main one of course, to see how it will work out. To me it was interesting only because her dashing skill, other than that there was nothing else, not even her story events, however, since Geralt was the main protagonist, any other flaws in Ciri's role did not affect my gaming experience that much.

Like you said, they do need a really really good concept.

 

[SigilFey]

Spoiler: How about alternate time period?

I was mulling over a game that would occur at the Conjunction of the Spheres...or just after it. Playing as a group of regular, desperate people who decide to hunt down some monster terrorizing their land. During the course of the prologue, you play as each of these characters in turn. Each of them makes some sort of profound discovery about what these "monsters" are and where they come from before being killed off (in gruesome fashion, of course) by one beastie or another. Upon all of the other members of the party members being killed, the perspective shifts to the final character, and you somehow come into contact with the first mutagen. (I've debated it being something like a spore or monster venom that the character accidentally ingests, a potion or brew given to the player by a monster like a godling, or even a "hunter" from some other plane of existence that purposefully forces the character to take it...but frankly, I don't like any of those ideas much.) The only thing I think should be clear is that taking the mutagen is an intensely bad idea, but the character has no choice.

Following that, and since mutagens prolong life and health, I'd have the story skip forward, say, 50 years, leaving much of that time steeped in mystery. The character from the prologue now meets the player character and s/he gets wound up in "hunting monsters". The course of the game would be discovering the source of new mutagens and basically experimenting on yourself or other characters that team up with you (not always successfully). The knowledge of how the character from the prologue knows these things (the missing 50 years), would provide a source of dramatic action and discovery to further the story and introduce how the witchers came to be.

Major mechanics would be mixing mutagens to unknown results. Perfect combinations would give only a significantly positive result. Getting close would result in a permanent, moderate improvement and a temporary debilitation. Failing big-time would grant a significant ability and a significant debilitation -- both of which are permanent. (Hence, the player may choose to test things on other characters first, creating a skin-crawling take on "teamwork" and generating some interesting character dynamics.)

Combat would be about learning to take advantage of the abilities granted by the mutagens, and developing moves and combos that would differ based on whether the character mutated to become faster, more agile, stronger, more precise, etc.

Monster hunting would be less about finding books and lore on monsters (since none exist), and all about actually investigating for clues, observing them, and invariably, learning things the hard way.

The end of the game would be the player character becoming the first ever person to be recognized as a "witcher".

(However, this is taking enormous advantage of the license. I would want to ensure that what was created was as close to the canon of Sapkowski's world as possible.)

Sorry -- just realized this was wildly off-topic. Didn't start that way... (Just add a few distractions and a tangential thought.)

What I actually meant to respond was: alternate starts are very difficult for a game that's in any way story-heavy. It's usually little details like how conversations go, or moments where you run into old characters. Inherently, I think focusing on the same characters might start to grow very stale. The same thing happens to TV shows that are being written to "air for as long as possible", not written with a clear beginning, middle, and end. Not saying it can't happen, but alternate starts would be mostly cosmetic, and I think it would fall very flat on the second playthrough.

Unless...the game itself was shorter and could be played through multiple times for totally different takes on the story-line, depending on the start condition. I would imagine one, complete playthrough for a game like that would be around 10-20 hours, if it offered multiple starting conditions, which would then offer their own branching story-lines from there.

A safer approach might be to simply take The Witcher Series in a new direction. (And we've arrived at my idea above. [I am a demigod of going off-topic. This is where I started in my mind.])

 

[Sooxzay]

Spoiler: How about alternate time period?

I was mulling over a game that would occur at the Conjunction of the Spheres...or just after it. Playing as a group of regular, desperate people who decide to hunt down some monster terrorizing their land. During the course of the prologue, you play as each of these characters in turn. Each of them makes some sort of profound discovery about what these "monsters" are and where they come from before being killed off (in gruesome fashion, of course) by one beastie or another. Upon all of the other members of the party members being killed, the perspective shifts to the final character, and you somehow come into contact with the first mutagen. (I've debated it being something like a spore or monster venom that the character accidentally ingests, a potion or brew given to the player by a monster like a godling, or even a "hunter" from some other plane of existence that purposefully forces the character to take it...but frankly, I don't like any of those ideas much.) The only thing I think should be clear is that taking the mutagen is an intensely bad idea, but the character has no choice.

Following that, and since mutagens prolong life and health, I'd have the story skip forward, say, 50 years, leaving much of that time steeped in mystery. The character from the prologue now meets the player character and s/he gets wound up in "hunting monsters". The course of the game would be discovering the source of new mutagens and basically experimenting on yourself or other characters that team up with you (not always successfully). The knowledge of how the character from the prologue knows these things (the missing 50 years), would provide a source of dramatic action and discovery to further the story and introduce how the witchers came to be.

Major mechanics would be mixing mutagens to unknown results. Perfect combinations would give only a significantly positive result. Getting close would result in a permanent, moderate improvement and a temporary debilitation. Failing big-time would grant a significant ability and a significant debilitation -- both of which are permanent. (Hence, the player may choose to test things on other characters first, creating a skin-crawling take on "teamwork" and generating some interesting character dynamics.)

Combat would be about learning to take advantage of the abilities granted by the mutagens, and developing moves and combos that would differ based on whether the character mutated to become faster, more agile, stronger, more precise, etc.

Monster hunting would be less about finding books and lore on monsters (since none exist), and all about actually investigating for clues, observing them, and invariably, learning things the hard way.

The end of the game would be the player character becoming the first ever person to be recognized as a "witcher".

(However, this is taking enormous advantage of the license. I would want to ensure that what was created was as close to the canon of Sapkowski's world as possible.)

Sorry -- just realized this was wildly off-topic. Didn't start that way... (Just add a few distractions and a tangential thought.)

What I actually meant to respond was: alternate starts are very difficult for a game that's in any way story-heavy. It's usually little details like how conversations go, or moments where you run into old characters. Inherently, I think focusing on the same characters might start to grow very stale. The same thing happens to TV shows that are being written to "air for as long as possible", not written with a clear beginning, middle, and end. Not saying it can't happen, but alternate starts would be mostly cosmetic, and I think it would fall very flat on the second playthrough.

Unless...the game itself was shorter and could be played through multiple times for totally different takes on the story-line, depending on the start condition. I would imagine one, complete playthrough for a game like that would be around 10-20 hours, if it offered multiple starting conditions, which would then offer their own branching story-lines from there.

A safer approach might be to simply take The Witcher Series in a new direction. (And we've arrived at my idea above. [I am a demigod of going off-topic. This is where I started in my mind.])

I like the idea making a game shortly after the conjunction. Especially because this scenario gives CDPR the possibility to make the game more grittier than the old witcher games.

The monsters appear for the first time and the life of humans is driven by chaos despair and death. We will be able to play the first person that gets in contact with mutagens as you mentioned. Maybe the reason for giving up his former life to become a witcher could also be a tragic incident where his whole family died because of a monster from the conjunction.

This also gives the possibility to work on the signs witchers can use. We dont have access to all signs and fighting abilities etc. from the beginning and have to research by several quests how to use which sign and how to use them effectively etc. There is a lot of potential.

A game before Geralts story however makes more sense to me than a sequel. Nilfgaard won the war in the north and for the next couple of years there will (at least I think) be peace between the kingdoms. So the setting wont be as depressing than a game where all of a sudden monsters appear and turn the world into a feast of human blood. :faith:

 

[Skipper_1O1]

It is a good idea, and can I see the effort that you made, but to be honest I am not a fan of prequels, especially in the case of trilogies because the story gets very deep in the original installments and it would be less appealing for people who progressed through the trilogy to play a whole game that its events are set before the trilogy.

However, there is a possible scenario here. To demonstrate, as a consequence to the second conjunction of the spheres, many unique and unknown creatures have emerged, and several time fragments are scattered across the lands. It was later discovered that these creatures and time fragments relate to the first conjunction of the spheres, and these time fragments would allow the one who passes through them to travel back in time in order to solve the mystery behind the unknown creatures that roam the area of each time fragments. Then the protagonist will face the encounters you mentioned, ancient mutagens, initial monster observations and discoveries, and so on, until the protagonist discovers how to defeat these mysterious creatures in order to end their threat and to make the time fragments disappear so that the invasion of other dimensions can be stopped.

It can be great as a main quest or even a DLC, but as a complete game I do not think, in my opinion, that it will work out very well. The point of alternate beginnings depends on how far the game creators want to go with them, how they prioritize the game elements, and which elements are going to take the most of their resources. If the alternate beginnings are a priority, then they will go beyond random encounters or being cosmetic. If not, then alternate beginnings will not have much of an impact. However, sometimes even the simple things were interesting to me, like the import of certain swords in Witcher 2 because I felt that my long adventures of looting items did not go in vain . Which brings me to the replay value, and I do not know if it is just me or not, but I have finished the first Witcher three times, Witcher 2 one time, and Witcher 3 also one time. I can't remember why I finished it three times, but your point about making a game shorter in order to increase its replay value reminded me of my gaming sessions in the first Witcher, and I believe it is a good idea.