An argument that story fixes/augmentations should take priority over expansions, even from a business POV

[latios507]

I posted this in response to another thread on the same topic.

For CD Projekt RED, tackling the suggestions with the least resource expenditure is ultimately the most logical. Will the time spent applying any of the suggestions be overall beneficial to the current game's vision? Will it encroach on potential future projects storyboards? These questions should help offer an answer and guide the direction to a solution.

People are asking for additional content to be added post main story.They want it to reflect some presence of a timeline that goes forward, rather then into a past that appears to have been gutted and left lifeless. To many, the current version of game play after completing the main story is an old save with the bonus of a new game + option, carrying over everything we've earned in the last act/chapter.

This is creating mixed feelings towards there even being an option to play after completing the story and many are feeling mislead because of this. Being story driven the entire game also adds to the sense of abandonment many claim to feel after hitting this "brick wall" so suddenly. I think many will agree that this is a well written story that captivates the audience and offers over the top game play mechanics and immersion that has set the bar so high in regards to future RPGs and games alike. The combination of these things is a key factor that is adding to what seems to be frustration for many. I don't believe people are refusing to accept closure to Geralt's epic saga, it's the sense they cannot continue to appreciate the character and his presence in a world with purpose. Especially this being the end of his saga.

People's suggestions seem to hint "carrot on a stick". Repetitious and randomized spawning witcher contracts, limited interactions with main characters in the form of short dialogue acknowledging Geralt's actions up to the very end of the main story. In summary people want acknowledgment, even in the most subtle form.

I believe there is a misconception between two important things. The first being the implementation of a world reflecting the epilogue events. The second being implementation of a world reflecting the time before the epilogue, but directly after the events of the main story. The difference between these two is massive in terms of development time, planning, and overall implementation.

I take it that you're trying to say it's costly and time consuming to develop everything.
And it feels like we are not being rewarded enough in terms of explanation/cutscenes due to our action in the game.

Right now, most people are unhappy with the way the world is reflected in the current state (the one we're playing in after completing the game). Yes witcher contract and everything just becomes a grind afterwards (expected of a open world Sandbox Game). They can still beef up the lackluster epilogue by taking advantage of this current timeline.

However, the one that bothers me is you can't interact with your love interest/main NPC after completing the game. No conversation, and no chance even to play a gwent card with them. The fact that the tempo of the story have already dropped after Act 3, this is just like adding another nail to the coffin.

The second option of implementing the post-epilogue aka post-game content are very slim (time and cost), but if CDPR decides to take a 180 degree turn and implement it no doubt they'll be able to solve the problem plaguing the lackluster epilogue and end-game issue. But i'm pretty sure it'll be a third expansion since the 2 other expansion is treated as before the end of the game.

 

[EliHarel]

This is all fantasy talk, I know - there's no guarantee that CDPR will do one or the other. But still, for the sake of discussion, I'm unconvinced that if they do add more content to the game, then it should be post-end material and improving the free roaming that comes after. I still view it as just a bonus for people who want to continue their side quests. My preference is that the focus would be almost entirely on the main story and main characters, and everything that leads up to the ending.

Focusing on post-ending material to me feels like even more concentration on the open world and free roaming aspect, and I suspect that that may have been the prime reason the writing, C&C and story-telling took a serious dip in many places compared to TW2. TW3 may have been the best marriage so far between an open world and a story driven game, and still I think it wasn't worth it. I don't want them concentrating on that even more now, let alone on aspects that won't improve the more important matters (from my perspective) that might be capable of improvement. There are things I think are too core to the game and thus can't really be changed, such as the C&C in the main quests (which are disappointing), but adding new information and expanding certain scenes to shed some light on the antagonists, politics, the White Frost and other side but important characters? I think that's relatively less complicated to do, and would like that instead of continuing to play a story-focused (I hope) game after the story is, well, over.

 

[PeliGrietzer]

I'm curious why everyone is focussing on post-main-quest play here. In the OP I argued that in order to sell the expansions CDPR have to do story fixes/augmentations that will *either* make post-main-quest play attractive *or* increase the replay value of the main quest. Personally I stopped playing right after the main quest ended, so I'd be x10 more excited about fixes/augmentations that deliver better world-state reactivity (throughout the game logically and also as expressed in epilogues) and therefore make replays worthwhile than about fixes/augmentations that make post-main-quest play fun. It's just that, technically speaking, CDPR only has to fix *one* of these issues (post-main-quest play *or* replay value) to solve the 'who the heck is going to buy mega-side-quests' problem. Fixes/augmentations that increase the replay value of the main quest also seem a lot more viable, since the game is already full of awesome-seeming choices that fail to motivate a replay because they end up only influencing two or three lines of future dialog, if even that. If every major choice changed *a few dozen* future lines of dialogue, some of the world's cosmetics, and a good handful of cut-scenes I would replay this game so much I'd miss my (Narrative Theory) dissertation deadline. Personally I don't like the fact that CDPR replaced massively branching main quests with a smorgasbord of side-quests, but what they promise and don't deliver is substantial branching in interpersonal relationships (expressed through dialogs and cutscenes) and world-states (expressed, at least, through cosmetics or something.) I mean, you can't help feeling a little cheated by CDPR when a quest gives you the option to give Radovid crystals or to hide them from him, and when you see him next he says 'I hope you brought something better than crystals this time' no matter what you chose.

 

[yoobzon]

I'm curious why everyone is focussing on post-main-quest play here. In the OP I argued that order to sell the expansions CDPR have to do story fixes/augmentations that will *either* make post-main-quest play attractive *or* increase the replay value of the main quest. Personally I stopped playing right after the main quest ended, so I'd be x10 more excited about fixes/augmentations that deliver better world-state reactivity (throughout the game logically and also as expressed in epilogues) and therefore make replays worthwhile than about fixes/augmentations that make post-main-quest play fun. It's just that, technically speaking, CDPR only has to fix *one* of these issues (post-main-quest play *or* replay value) to solve the 'who the heck is going to buy mega-side-quests' *problem. Fixes/augmentations that increase the replay value of the main quest also seem a lot more viable, since the game is already full of awesome-seeming choices that fail to motivate a replay because they end up only influencing two or three lines of future dialogue, if even that. If every major choice changed *a few dozen* future lines of dialogue, some of the world's cosmetics, and a good handful of cut-scenes I would replay this game so much I'd miss my (Narrative Theory) dissertation deadline. Personally I don't like the fact that CPDR replaced massively branching main-quests with a smorgasbord of side-quests, but what they promise and don't deliver is substantial branching in interpersonal relationships (expressed through dialogs and cutscenes) and world-states (expressed, at least, through cosmetics or something.) I mean, you can't help feeling a little cheated by CDPR when a quest gives you the option to give Radvoid crystals or to hide them from him, and when you see him next he says 'I hope you brought something better than crystals this time' no matter what you chose.

The solution to your first request is simple: Release Redkit 2 and post-game content will appear. I just want to remind people that post-game content is not really the standard in single playe. Modders create that. Thats why I have my own request to CDPR: Hurry up with Redkit2 and create a modder outreach program to get all those talented skyrim people modding in the Witcher camp .Vetted mod bundles should also be available on PSN and XBox like for like 3 bucks a pop with some royalties going back to the leading modders

As for low replay value, I have to disagree. I'm on my 3rd playthrough now and I'm dtill baffled by all the neat little story twists I am finding.

 

[PeliGrietzer]

About the financial issue that EliHarel discussed in page 2: I think we have to distinguish between the question of whether not-crazy-fan-players are upset about Choice & Consequence in Witcher 3 being slapdash and broken -- they're definitely not --, and the question of whether non-crazy-fan-players would be more interested in replaying Witcher 3 a 2nd or 3rd time come October if it had better Choice & Consequence mechanisms. Remember the you can't go Witchering in Oxfenfurt and Velen for the Man of Glass unless you are replaying or post-main-quest playing, and the fact that only a thousand people on the internet have intense feels about broken/absent C&C take the life out of a replay, or get angry about how post-main-quest play feels unsatisfying doesn't mean that only a thousand people on the internet have diminished replay motivation due to broken/absent C&C (especially for a 3rd play-through), or a diminished interest in playing otherwise awesome looking side-quests due to bleak post-main-quest atmosphere. I think that every kind of player's likely to feel that making different choices than you did the last time isn't as exciting as it was supposed to be because it doesn't to seeing cool new things,and every kind of player's likely to feel post-main-quest blues if they keep Witchering post-main-quest. I admit that I don't know how big of a difference it would make for them, but I do suspect that if there's no EE type work the paid expansions, while making a tidy profit, will do poorly compared to the paid expansions of comparable (in terms of critical and financial success) games.

The whole 'mega-side-quest' approach to expansions is weird in my opinion, actually: games with strong story-telling (and while The Witcher 3 has awful narrative branching, it has cry-your-eyes-out awesome story-*telling*) don't ever publish these kinds of expansions as far as I can recall. Like, evenin Borderlands 2, which was 90% side-quests but had a really captivating story, the expansion DLCs were all mini-campaigns, separated from your run through the campaign. (It was technically possible to play them mid-campaign, but in a breaking-the-forth-wall kind of way.)

 

[SolemnXII]

New content in expansions is what draws more players that have quit or have taken a break from a game.
This includes the people that haven't even played the game yet; expecting a larger game than if they were to have purchased vanilla.

Much of what the op is implying should in the meantime be patched in updates/ redkit mods (depending on release).
Better yet, released along with new content.

 

[darkness58ec]

So you say, except the reception for the main quest is extremely positive. And you don't have to find ways to get people to play the witcher 3 more when people are already playing it for 80-200 hours.

There is a huge target audience for the expansions. My guess is you will buy them despite your current critique.