You have said well. There is nothing more to be said for me... :yes
Only one point perhaps: https://tcrf.net/Prerelease:The_Witcher_3:_Wild_Hunt/Removed_and_Altered_Quests :thumbup:
Last edited:
You have said well. There is nothing more to be said for me... :yes
Only one point perhaps: https://tcrf.net/Prerelease:The_Witcher_3:_Wild_Hunt/Removed_and_Altered_Quests :thumbup:
Im confused... there was a sign saying someone quoted me here but there is nothing. Is that a bug or what is going on?
That post went in the bitbucket for the cause previously stated.
Every time I see the name Iorveth and Isengrim and the scoia'tel quest which was removed I get upset
So apparently my previous comment was too argumentative and not constructive enough and was therefore deleted. So I will restate it in a manner that the mods may favor.
I meant to give it as an example of the indifference option being perhaps less seniscal than it could have been and maybe a tad forced and a bit contrived. In this instance I am not conviced it could be claimed that Geralt can adopt the indifferent toward politics attitude for he had just recently took part in an assassination plot.
Last edited:
Ok then, I assumed you've meant shrugging off politics in general using "witchers are neutral" excuse would be juvenile. In this particular case I agree, but, like I said - that quest was badly written in it's entirety, plagued by ooc, nonsensical behaviour of everyone involved (except maybe Philippa), that response from Geralt was just the icing on the cake.
Last edited by a moderator:
It does look like that, in Reason of State in particular, the Dijkstra choice at the end may have been added late during the development of the game - perhaps at first the choice was only between Radovid (no assassination) and Nilfgaard (Radovid assassinated).
Not just Reasons of State, nor the third act. The second and third acts may well be linear in nature (when compared to the prologue and act one) but the dumbing down of morale choices are prevalent throughout. Let's be honest here, the writing in TW3 is Jackyl and Hyde and unfortunately there are more Mr Hydes than Dr Jackyls in this game.
For example, the black and white presentation of Eredin and the Wild Hunt is due to the chronic lack of characterisation. We learn that he's doing what he's doing because he believes his world is in imminent danger yet the game conveniently ignores that by giving him less than a paragraph's worth of material. He's never presented as misguided or over zealous or even simply having a differing ideology to Geralt, simply black and white, not through creative decisions, but through neglect.
Notice the longest running, most thanked/redpointed posts on this forum. They're never complaints about gameplay or bugs, it's always writing issues that are the heart of most complaints with this game and I believe the reason why is that CDPR were so obsessed with creating this beautiful open world we could explore that they simply took their eye off the ball on what's the most important aspect of any RPG - it's writing. Whether they ran out of money or simply lost focus, we'll never know and given the sales of the game they may not even be bothered, but if they are, it's a lesson they sorely need to learn from.
Last edited:
Yes, the "third act" issue is separate from the "dumbing down" of the game, which is the topic of this thread, after all. Although I suspect only the former has a realistic chance of being addressed in some way in the future (even if only like in TW2: EE), as it is the result of not enough time and/or resources, while the latter was most probably done on purpose to be able to reach a wider audience.
Well. Almost exactly my thoughts.
As for the topic of matureness, all in all, I would not say TW3 is not an adult game anymore. I think most of it has to do with its nature of open world. With an open world, they were allowed to create a much larger number of situations than previous games, and most of them are pretty heavy. I will never forget the Bloody Baron's sad, fucked up family story, or the pain of a woman felt betrayed by his lover making her restless after death, or the bitter resignation of a man cast out from society for being a gay "monster", or the wariness in dealing with an ambiguous soul trapped in a tree, or the disgusting symbiotic relationship with a parasite feeding on pain that leads a human mind to auto mutilation, or the uneasy story of a village with a sick warrior cult that leads its young ones to almost certain death, and many more, I'd be writing for pages and pages were I to continue. The franchise's trademark continues to live on, despite some glaring cases where "good" and "bad" are clearly discernible indeed, the Wild Hunt itself being a prime example.
Therefore, I respectfully disagree with the OP.
Last edited:
And I agree. Otherwise one could think Hatred is a mature game.
However, TW3 handles those themes I mentioned before and others I left out pretty darn well in a way that makes you think about them, feel them, which I hadn't seen since TW1. Also handling the atmosphere surrounding them splendidly which helps.
Last edited:
Just to illustrate what I meant
Take this scene for instance: (starting at 8.22)
Geralt finds a letter in which Dudu leaves a note for Ciri or Dandelion. "The wine from your birth year [....]"
After you gather the letter the quest text says "solve the riddle". But what riddle is CDP talking about?
You have to press the button for the witcher senses, follow the glowing red footsteps to the next room and click on the only possible clickable object.
How can CDP call this a "riddle"?
Why not make us read the codex to find out when Ciri or Dandelion were born or design this quest in a way that it's actually make us solve a real riddle?
Another example is the ending of the Hearts of Stone dlc, in which we have to solve O'Dim's "riddle". Aside from the fact that this "riddle" meant just to run around to find the place we have to reach, CDP apparently thought that even that might be too difficult for the player. So in the last room with all the mirrors, Geralt solves the "riddle" by himself in the moment he comes close to the well and say's "Hmm, I wonder how you'll shatter a sheed of water..."
Apparently CDP doesn't think the player is smart enough to figure out how to even solve this "riddle" without some help.
I used these two examples, because I believe that they are representative for CDP treating the player as an idiot.(compare these two riddles to the gargoyles or the "word-riddle" in the sewers of Loc Muinne from Witcher 2) Their whole approach changed between Witcher 2 and 3. They stopped treating the player as someone who is capable of thinking for himself. Imo the simplified main story and politics are the most disappointing results of their new approach.
Take this scene for instance: (starting at 8.22)
Geralt finds a letter in which Dudu leaves a note for Ciri or Dandelion. "The wine from your birth year [....]"
After you gather the letter the quest text says "solve the riddle". But what riddle is CDP talking about?
You have to press the button for the witcher senses, follow the glowing red footsteps to the next room and click on the only possible clickable object.
How can CDP call this a "riddle"?
Why not make us read the codex to find out when Ciri or Dandelion were born or design this quest in a way that it's actually make us solve a real riddle?
Another example is the ending of the Hearts of Stone dlc, in which we have to solve O'Dim's "riddle". Aside from the fact that this "riddle" meant just to run around to find the place we have to reach, CDP apparently thought that even that might be too difficult for the player. So in the last room with all the mirrors, Geralt solves the "riddle" by himself in the moment he comes close to the well and say's "Hmm, I wonder how you'll shatter a sheed of water..."
Apparently CDP doesn't think the player is smart enough to figure out how to even solve this "riddle" without some help.
I used these two examples, because I believe that they are representative for CDP treating the player as an idiot.(compare these two riddles to the gargoyles or the "word-riddle" in the sewers of Loc Muinne from Witcher 2) Their whole approach changed between Witcher 2 and 3. They stopped treating the player as someone who is capable of thinking for himself. Imo the simplified main story and politics are the most disappointing results of their new approach.
Last edited:
@scryar. Yeah I agree with that. It should be mentioned more: there is no problem solving in TW3, in a game where you play as a problem solving mutant. 
Last edited by a moderator:
While it's quite true there are no real challenges in terms of riddles in Wild Hunt, or HoS, I do query whether accusing the Design Team of intentionally envisioning their players as idiots is a civil or productive means of couching the criticism. Promoting the presumption that the Team thought, 'Ha, players are complete fools: We should make this game a lot easier.' unfairly casts them as insensitive and rather blunt. It isn't a very kind assumption to make, as it insults not only the developers, but also many players. I personally agree that the REDs could have created much more challenging puzzles, selectively limited the use of witcher senses, and offered many more opportunities to make more complex choices than simply selecting the 'right' dialogue option. No doubt it was necessary to make the game accessible in order to reach their stated goal of a wider audience, however, this doesn't prove they viewed that audience as a crowd of incompetent halfwits. After all, not everyone actually enjoys puzzles and riddles, and some people strongly dislike them. Does this make them stupid? No. It merely means they have different preferences.
As should, by now, be abundantly obvious from the continued comments on these forums, it's frankly impossible to make a perfect entertainment, which will entirely satisfy and please everyone on all points. What one person considers a triviality, or tediously boring, another player may find to be brilliant or deeply engrossing. At best, one can only attempt to please a large number of people on a majority of points, but never all, and it is not always possible to develop all points equally. As players who enjoy puzzles, it is unfair to always presume that others want, or would even appreciate, precisely what we want. While it is unfortunate that this particular aspect of the game did not receive extensive development, I believe it is inappropriate and disrespectful to assume the REDs consciously considered their audience to be less intelligent, or incapable of independent thought, by necessity of this failing.