Analysis: With Witcher 3 CDPR no longer treat the players like adults [SPOILERS]

[ilayoeli]

True, the game doesn't tell you where to find items. But it does tell you exactly what you need to find. It also marks the location of the monster's lair on your map. So no - you don't need to search them out.

I apologize, I'm just not too sure which contracts you are speaking of. The only contracts where the monster's lair is marked is the Kayran and the Troll (and in this quest there's a bit of exploration nontheless).

Yeah, Witcher 3 also has quests with branching dialogue that changes the outcome.

Yes but only one with actual challenge to it (Menge's dialogue) and even then it's not as reactive as Death: Symbolized

As said, if you wish me to continue naming them, do tell

 

[Garrison72]

There are similarities but they took a more holistic approach to quest design in TW2. TW3 felt rote due to over reliance on a simple formula. You can turn your brain off and follow UI cues from one point to another to solve quests. It's very GTA style. You could rarely do that in TW2, not if you wanted to understand the bigger picture. There were many ways the writers hinted at the history in each area, or they placed subtle cues to hint at plot elements that would affect your decisions. Not to mention the riddles and puzzle elements were far more intelligently designed.

 

[dragonbird]

Death: Symbolized depends on you getting the right answers in a sequence of dialogue, answers you would only know from previous activities (talking to people). The one I'd consider closest in TW3 would be the Annabelle dialogue in A Towerful of Mice,

 

[calasade]

Side quests in TW3 are a repetitive routine of pressing X to WITCHER SENSE and follow tracks
This is one of the more offensive dumbed-down-for-kids aspects in TW3

My approach to the game is once I got out of the little prologue with Vesemer, I started the main story-line, then went adventuring after finding Triss (won't get into the disappointment over that). I like to adventure and explore in an open world (hats off to CDPR for the fast track and the various modes of traveling). I set off to the unknown on the hope that the adventuring would lead to some role-playing opportunities that would later impact the main story-line. Needless to say I am thus far rather disappointed there. But I'm digressing.

What I wanted to say is your statement, that is one of my biggest gripes about TW 3. Witcher sense and how it takes every iota of challenge from the side-quests. None are investigations or even discovery so much as following a GPS (this in relation to scents and tracks). Tedious and boring. I just don't get how Witcher sense ever went beyond the discussion phase. Needless to say, assuming I ever play TW 3 a second time, I won't be repeating a majority of these quests and will probably go with the mod New Game+ to avoid having to do enough side-quests to get to a hearty enough level in order to complete the main story-line. Now, doing a cheat like that sucks, but I just can't fathom another play through with "Use your Witcher Sense to..."

I understand not every side-quest in an open world can be meaningful, challenging, or even require a minimum of intelligence, but I think it would have been better had CDPR come up with a more challenging way of handling side-quests and avoided the formula they have so over-used. Maybe wiser to have introduced far fewer side-quests on the initial release and focused on a few that actually meant something, then maybe release DLC that includes unimportant side-quests and important ones that impact the main story-line and add to the role-playing component (as it is, role-playing opportunities border on non-existent). This might have freed up the resources to address certain issues (continuity, balancing, and better execution), provided an additional revenue stream, and added replay value for gamers.

---------- Updated at 03:33 PM ----------

Good post. TW series will never resemble TW2 in terms of content quality. There is a good reason for that - the game can't be controversial anymore. Devs simply can't afford to offend some people with their creativeness if they want their product to sell well. We are living in a world where the quality of content is judged by the number of sold copies and views on youtube. Masses got no taste nor judgement. In utilitarian world your opinion is equal to any ignorant retard - be it 12 year old boy, SJW, lgbt crowd - that can afford to buy the game. Deal with it, art is dead when you step in Skyrim/ Avatar territory.

TW 2 sold, what, 3M copies. I'd say that's pretty good for a game that lasted only 30 hours. Me, I maintain TW 3 would have sold without the dumbing and taming down and argue that TW 3 owes its success in large part to the buzz created by TW 2 and RedEngine 3 rather than castration and streamlining.

Too bad CDPR buckled when on the precipice of greatness. They might have proved your statement wrong that art and quality are defunct.

 

[warbaby2]

Too bad CDPR buckled when on the precipice of greatness. They might have proved your statement wrong that art and quality are defunct.

The same can be said about almost every other piece of entertainment released in the last, oh say, 10 years or so... at least Witcher 3 didn't totally leave artistic integrity behind to please the masses, unlike many many many other games/movies/TV series, etc.

Nerd culture is mass culture now, and the lowest common denominator is the new target... sadly, that very fact did ultimately spell doom for artistic standards in almost all other forms of entertainment culture before it. I mean, think about it, why DO you think the once sidelined/frowned upon nerd topics of fantasy, scifie, computer games and comics have become mainstream all of a sudden?

 

[Sephira]

@calasade

Geralt's work is being a witcher. Witchers have enhanced sight, enhanced sense of smell, enhanced hearing. That's what witcher senses stand for. I don't think they could be portrayed in other way. It's Geralt's nature.

Ok then, let's say this gets repetitive as a game mechanic for side quests. Contracts need this to further proceed in investigations and so on and so on... Generally who criticize this aspect (and I'm not saying you can't) never says that almost every side quest had a story on its own. From a big to a minor quest which might have been pointless (like the pan, or the hens). This is what makes side quests good in this game. Even those handful fetch ones have a simple but good story.

 

[calasade]

The same can be said about almost every other piece of entertainment released in the last, oh say, 20 years or so... at least Witcher 3 didn't totally leave artistic integrity behind to please the masses, unlike many many many other games/movies/TV series, etc.

Nerd culture is mass culture now, and the lowest common denominator is the new target... sadly, that very fact did ultimately spell doom for artistic standards in almost all other forms of entertainment culture before it. I mean, think about it, why DO you think the once sidelined/frowned upon nerd topics of fantasy, scifie, computer games and comics have become mainstream all of a sudden?

Doesn't excuse the fact CDPR did it, especially when they said upon starting the Witcher series that they weren't going to do that very thing. Like I said, ironic thing is had they stuck to their guns, they likely would have been just as successful. Now? With TW 3, I consider them as watered down as Bioware.

 

[menofhorror1114]

It`s funny how a game often is praised by the majority but take a look at the official forums and it`s teared apart. Not to say this is a bad thing. After all only criticism can lead to improvement.

That beind said, I agree with Maerd in a lot of points including the dumbed down politics and the story not being as complex as Witcher 2. However his second point about the "lesser vs greater evil" point is in my opinion not correct. There were plenty of other quests(besides the Baron and the leshen quest) that had me thinking about what to choose and do. Be it the one where you have to choose if you avenge a village for being slaughtered by a witcher or letting him go for being fooled by the village, be it to take Ciri to the emperor or not, be it to let Triss get tortured by the hunters to gain knowledge about the treasure or not and risk not getting to know anything, be it to let the sylvian fool the people for their own good or kill him and give the people the truth but destroying their protector. There were plenty of moments where I had to think.

Yes the storyline (as much as I enjoyed it) isn`t as tight as Witcher 2 anymore. But with an open world game and a bigger budget the game will also have to target more people. How are they going to target those if they start off with the politics just as complex as W2. CD Project also wants to get bigger, evolve. They need to expand on their audience as well, they are a business after all. How are they going to do that when you start the game and you already have no idea of nothing from the get go.

Yes the witcher sense is used a lot but how else do it? In a big world like W3 questing without witcher sense would only lead to frustration. Geralt has the witcher knowledge, not me. I mean Hearts of Stone had the first sidequest where there wasn`t much handholding and probably 80 percent missed it. Yes the quests shouldn`t have resolved too much on the Witcher sense but I simply don`t know how else to do it without making things frustrating. And seriously as much as Witcher2 was praised that game had a lot of frustrating moments.

And if you look at W1 and 2 side and main quest then guess what: There were many people who did things because they were eeeeviiilll. I know it`s a shocker but many people are evil without a reason. Not everything needs to be gray because not everything is. Yes I do liked the story in W2 way more but to say it`s always clear what to choose and say in W3....I completely disagree with that.

I mean yes, I also am not a fan of watering down and it`s very good that people point this out. But give me another game where every sidequest is interesting, had it`s own little story and most of the time a little twist. No moment of W3 was boring and despite some dumbed down changes (and some story issues especially in the rushed lated parts of the game) it still kept being true to the Witcher.


Overall I still prefer the atmosphere and potion system (oh god the potion system) of Witcher 1 and the story of Witcher 2. But Witcher 3 is great as well. Yes its definitely more targeted towards teens I agree with this.

 

[calasade]

@calasade

Geralt's work is being a witcher. Witchers have enhanced sight, enhanced sense of smell, enhanced hearing. That's what witcher senses stand for. I don't think they could be portrayed in other way. It's Geralt's nature.

Ok then, let's say this gets repetitive as a game mechanic for side quests. Contracts need this to further proceed in investigations and so on and so on... Generally who criticize this aspect (and I'm not saying you can't) never says that almost every side quest had a story on its own. From a big to a minor quest which might have been pointless (like the pan, or the hens). This is what makes side quests good in this game. Even those handful fetch ones have a simple but good story.

For a book, his having such a sensational ability is fine. For a game? Not so much if it's as unchecked as it is in TW 3. In a game I want balance, to be challenged. Take that out along with the thinking factor and what's the point of playing the quest (or in this case, the majority of side-quests)? I'd like to see the majority of quests being where witcher sense doesn't come into play and I have to work at it. Might be frustrating at times, sure, but at least there would also be a sense of satisfaction upon completing them.

 

[Sagitarii]

TW 2 sold, what, 3M copies. I'd say that's pretty good for a game that lasted only 30 hours. Me, I maintain TW 3 would have sold without the dumbing and taming down and argue that TW 3 owes its success in large part to the buzz created by TW 2 and RedEngine 3 rather than castration and streamlining.

Too bad CDPR buckled when on the precipice of greatness. They might have proved your statement wrong that art and quality are defunct.

Game time has nothing to do with sales - I would go as far as saying it can impact the sales negatively. People have less and less time and more and more of them want a compact and exciting, quality games.

I want to remind you that TW2 dumbed down many aspects from TW1 too, without even counting the gameplay factor - it dumbed down on the most important thing - witcherness. And while it made the franchise very well known, it was still a niche. TW3 sold so much, because it was well marketed and reached more audiences, cause of the specific way they presented and designed the game. It doesn't owe much to TW2.

Of course I don't agree with many aspects they've changed from the previous games, but I don't see that huge disparity between all of the 3 games, people sometimes mention - each one has it's strong points and weaker ones. It's honestly quite hard to pick the one that is miles better than the rest.

I will certainly not agree, that CDPR doesn't treat us like adults anymore. Just look at HoS - quality wise - best thing they've ever done. But I will certainly agree that TW3 has big problems with the narrative, mainly caused by the scale of the game and too big ambitions.

 

[warbaby2]

For a book, his having such a sensational ability is fine. For a game? Not so much if it's as unchecked as it is in TW 3. In a game I want balance, to be challenged. Take that out along with the thinking factor and what's the point of playing the quest?

The experience, I guess... another notable feature of the "new mainstream" is the inherent challenge adversity. "They" want to have experiences handed, not challenges presented to them... be they physical or intellectual.

 

[Sephira]

For a book, his having such a sensational ability is fine. For a game? Not so much if it's as unchecked as it is in TW 3. In a game I want balance, to be challenged. Take that out along with the thinking factor and what's the point of playing the quest?

It's not a sensational ability. It's normal for witchers. You're playing as one of them. But I understand you. For a game anyway it can work as well. Could have they been better fleshed out, to give more challenge? Of course they could, and I agree, that's why I pointed out the story factor, but they're not that bad per se.

 

[calasade]

Game time has nothing to do with sales - I would go as far as saying it can impact the sales negatively. People have less and less time and more and more of them want a compact and exciting, quality games.

I want to remind you that TW2 dumbed down many aspects from TW1 too, without even counting the gameplay factor - it dumbed down on the most important thing - witcherness. And while it made the franchise very well known, it was still a niche. TW3 sold so much, because it was well marketed and reached more audiences, cause of the specific way they presented and designed the game. It doesn't owe much to TW2.

Of course I don't agree with many aspects they've changed from the previous games, but I don't see that huge disparity between all of the 3 games, people sometimes mention - each one has it's strong points and weaker ones. It's honestly quite hard to pick the one that is miles better than the rest.

I will certainly not agree, that CDPR doesn't treat us like adults anymore. Just look at HoS - quality wise - best thing they've ever done. But I will certainly agree that TW3 has big problems with the narrative, mainly caused by the scale of the game and too big ambitions.

Saying TW 2 had no part in the success of TW 3 is like saying Morrowind didn't fuel the sales of Obilivion which did not in turn fuel the sales of Skyrim or Star Wars IV had nothing at all to do with how well Star Wars V did, etc. Buzz from one title to the next (word-of-mouth) is the single biggest reason for failure or success.

TW 2 was dumbed down in comparison to TW 1, but I think with TW 2 there was a happy medium whereas in TW 3, the dumbing down is just too much. And no, it's not for adults. Not in content or presentation. It's PG-13 in most aspects.

I haven't yet played HoS, so I cannot comment on that, though I will after I complete TW 3.

---------- Updated at 04:31 PM ----------

The experience, I guess... another notable feature of the "new mainstream" is the inherent challenge adversity. "They" want to have experiences handed, not challenges presented to them... be they physical or intellectual.

Makes you want to weep, doesn't it? Or maybe start banging heads against the wall. What the heck, apparently those heads are empty anyway.

 

[warbaby2]

Makes you want to weep, doesn't it? Or maybe start banging heads against the wall. What the heck, apparently those heads are empty anyway.

Ah well... the inevitable collapse will come, I guess... you can only run on reboots/re imaginings and dumbled down sequels for so long.

 

[calasade]

Ah well... the inevitable collapse will come, I guess... you can only run on reboots/re imaginings and dumbled down sequels for so long.

Cannot come quick enough.

 

[Sagitarii]

Saying TW 2 had no part in the success of TW 3 is like saying Morrowind didn't fuel the sales of Obilivion which did not in turn fuel the sales of Skyrim or Star Wars IV had nothing at all to do with how well Star Wars V did, etc. Buzz from one title to the next (word-of-mouth) is the single biggest reason for failure or success.

TW 2 was dumbed down in comparison to TW 1, but I think with TW 2 there was a happy medium whereas in TW 3, the dumbing down is just too much. And no, it's not for adults. Not in content or presentation. It's PG-13 in all aspects.

I haven't yet played HoS, so I cannot comment on that, though I will after I complete TW 3.

I like how you twisted my argument. Never said it had no part - of course it had, I said it didn't owe much to TW2. And especially not to the "engine". It was mostly lots of marketing money, hype since the first E3 and great trailers. 6 million copies sold (probably like 7-8 now) are couple of millions more that bought TW2.
This means - basically half (or more) players of TW3 never played TW2 or even heard of it.

TW2 was like a start of the avalanche, but still it was just a few rocks falling down. It cannot compare to TES, which was already an established franchise and especially cannot be compared to Star Wars.

Yes, the fact that Witcher was a trilogy helped TW2 and TW3 (naturally), but the success of the TW3 can be mainly attributed to the way it was marketed and long hype for the game.

Speaking of HoS, you can play it from around level 30, but I would advise you to play it afterwards, just like you said, since it can level you up quite a bit. Make a save around level 30-31 and start it after you finish.

 

[calasade]

I like how you twisted my argument. Never said it had no part - of course it had, I said it didn't owe much to TW2. And especially not to the "engine". It was mostly lots of marketing money, hype since the first E3 and great trailers. 6 million copies sold (probably like 7-8 now) are couple of millions more that bought TW2.
This means - basically half (or more) players of TW3 never played TW2 or even heard of it.

TW2 was like a start of the avalanche, but still it was just a few rocks falling down. It cannot compare to TES, which was already an established franchise and especially cannot be compared to Star Wars.

Yes, the fact that Witcher was a trilogy helped TW2 and TW3 (naturally), but the success of the TW3 can be mainly attributed to the way it was marketed and long hype for the game.

Speaking of HoS, you can play it from around level 30, but I would advise you to play it afterwards, just like you said, since it can level you up quite a bit. Make a save around level 30-31 and start it after you finish.

Didn't mean to twist your argument, so sorry about that. What I meant to say is TW 2 had much more to do with the success of TW 3 than you're saying. Without TW 2 there would have been no money for the marketing of TW 3, which is why I maintain that even had TW 3 kept the same level of difficulty and been aimed at an adult market, it would have sold nearly or just as well, but we'll never know unfortunately.

Thank you much on the tip re HoS.

:cheers4:

 

[wouter445]

This moral problem exist with all media this day's.
it's not just the witcher 3 anymore, simple look at Lord of the rings all those evil people have bad teeth to simple show that the person is evil.... or look very grayish to illuminate it's nature.
Bioware made it even worse with their last game DA:I the Protegonist can't even be evil.

that's why i like witcher 2 the most it's very complex the moral is on a scale

 

[Raven-beauty]

This means - basically half (or more) players of TW3 never played TW2 or even heard of it.

I am one of those. The witcher world swallowed me whole and I wuv it! Because of the TW3 I picked up TW2 and the books.

 

[sv3672]

Doesn't excuse the fact CDPR did it, especially when they said upon starting the Witcher series that they weren't going to do that very thing. Like I said, ironic thing is had they stuck to their guns, they likely would have been just as successful.

Yes, with its much higher marketing budget, and targeting consoles as the main platform from the beginning, TW3 would probably have sold better than its prequels anyway without all the "streamlining" and catering to the mass market. Maybe not exactly as well as it actually did, but still clearly profitable nevertheless. And it is not like the first two games are that hard to get into that a sequel with no compromises would have been limited to a niche market. It seems CDPR went from "we are rebels" to "it is all marketing driven" in TW3, and wanted to minimize risks on all fronts (consoles, open world, story, gameplay); admittedly they almost went bankrupt in the past, but with how much profitable the game ended up, it may have been unnecessary.