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

[Garrison72]

It's true there's a distinct shift in how morality is treated in the latter half. It almost felt like I was playing a game from another developer when I capped off Junior's quest in his hooker death house, or listened to Radovid and his strained chess analogies. And as good as The Bloody Baron was, I still feel the goings on in Flotsam equaled or surpassed it with a more layered approach to the plot.

 

[sv3672]

I was vastly disappointed with how Radovid turned out. Hell, he was more intriguing in TW 1 despite his non-existent impact and very limited scenes in that game. But I digress.

If I counted right, Radovid has similar amount of content in TW1 and TW3, and more in TW2. But the least in TW3 relative to the length of the game, and he also became somewhat one-dimensional after getting fully mad.

I'm in the quest On Thin Ice and feel no excitement over facing him because I have little comprehension of him beyond his serving as the big baddie. Fact is his death is just a matter-of-fact means of providing safety for Ciri.

The final battle with Eredin was planned to be in Novigrad (the quests were: q210: Battle Preparations (Skellige), q211: deleted (Caranthir boss fight in Skellige), q501: On Thin Ice (Eredin boss fight in Novigrad, the quest name would probably have been different, though)), and chances are the entire section starting from Battle Preparations had to be cut down significantly. So, to be fair to the developers, the Eredin battle might not have been intended to be as bad as it ended up like in the final game, although I suspect his character would never have had much depth.

I would have also liked for CDPR to stretch out the relationship choice with Geralt not deciding between Yen and Triss (with better writing and more romantic options for both along the way) right up until the very end in the final battle where he has to save one or the other and in that moment his decision is made.

The choices might have been later in early versions of the game during development, apparently both in Act 2 before The Isle of Mists, but were moved earlier, first the Yennefer choice (I think this happened already before 2014, and the Ugly Baby quest was reworked to properly react to it), and later Now or Never was moved too (probably less than a year before release, and quests were not updated to take the choice into account).

What's it been, sixteen years since BG 2 was released? SIXTEEN years and still, that game outshines games released today in so many facets, the facets are difficult to count. Rather than build in spirt on what BG 2 did and make story-telling and romance options even better, it seems dev companies can only continue to falter and go backwards.

I guess it takes too much resources to implement everything that is demanded from a new "AAA" game, a huge open world, jaw-dropping graphics, "cinematic" presentation, and so on, and the writing and RPG mechanics end up being simplified because something like a branching story line is now much more expensive than in some old text based or 2D game. Not to mention the investment required to make the game discourages taking risks, with development and marketing costs of $50-100 million, companies play it safe and maximizing sales becomes a priority.

 

[saladin1701]

It's true there's a distinct shift in how morality is treated in the latter half. It almost felt like I was playing a game from another developer when I capped off Junior's quest in his hooker death house, or listened to Radovid and his strained chess analogies. And as good as The Bloody Baron was, I still feel the goings on in Flotsam equaled or surpassed it with a more layered approach to the plot.

I'd be amazed if anyone didn't kill Junior at the conclusion of that quest because the game leads you down a merry path to that inevitability. But at the same time, that's a good thing because not every character has to be nuanced, sometimes people are just evil. Junior is a clear psychopath and the beauty in that part of the story is its very personal nature to Geralt as a father. Perhaps the outcome might have been different were Geralt not worried sick he's going to turn around the next corner and find Ciri nailed to the wall. Furthermore, unlike Junior, in the games Geralt has always been portrayed as someone with a strong morale core so the story, and the way it directs you to that conclusion, is in-keeping with the character of the players involved.

 

[calasade]

I'd be amazed if anyone didn't kill Junior at the conclusion of that quest because the game leads you down a merry path to that inevitability. But at the same time, that's a good thing because not every character has to be nuanced, sometimes people are just evil. Junior is a clear psychopath and the beauty in that part of the story is its very personal nature to Geralt as a father. Perhaps the outcome might have been different were Geralt not worried sick he's going to turn around the next corner and find Ciri nailed to the wall. Furthermore, unlike Junior, in the games Geralt has always been portrayed as someone with a strong morale core so the story, and the way it directs you to that conclusion, is in-keeping with the character of the players involved.

I didn't mind that Junior was inherently evil either. I in fact experienced some of the greatest satisfaction from TW 3 in having Geralt kill the sick SOB. Nor did I feel like it violated Geralt's moral code. He kills monsters regardless whether they are bestial or human. Also liked having to hunt Junior down because getting into his compound presents some fairly tough fights which are a rarity for TW 3. My only disappointment with finding the whoreson was doing so felt too easy.

Radovid handing him to Geralt on a silver platter?

Yeah, too convenient, I thought.

What would have made that quest quite amazing was for Geralt to get there to save Ciri just as she disappeared, never seeing him and knowing they were that close to rejoining.

 

[saladin1701]

I didn't mind that Junior was inherently evil either. I in fact experienced some of the greatest satisfaction from TW 3 in having Geralt kill the sick SOB. Nor did I feel like it violated Geralt's moral code. He kills monsters regardless whether they are bestial or human. Also liked having to hunt Junior down because getting into his compound presents some fairly tough fights which are a rarity for TW 3. My only disappointment with finding the whoreson was doing so felt too easy.

Radovid handing him to Geralt on a silver platter?

Yeah, too convenient, I thought.

What would have made that quest quite amazing was for Geralt to get there to save Ciri just as she disappeared, never seeing him and knowing they were that close to rejoining.

I think the issue with Radovid was not in giving Geralt his asset but what he asked for in return didn't really match up. The investigation to find Philippa should not have consisted simply of a quick jaunt around an underground maze and kill a few easy monsters, it should have been longer and a lot harder. Within the confines of the story, it should have been potentially life threatening to Geralt. That said, they turned Radovid into a raving lunatic for some unbeknownst reason so who the hell knows what is going through his head?

 

[calasade]

I think the issue with Radovid was not in giving Geralt his asset but what he asked for in return didn't really match up. The investigation to find Philippa should not have consisted simply of a quick jaunt around an underground maze and kill a few easy monsters, it should have been longer and a lot harder. Within the confines of the story, it should have been potentially life threatening to Geralt. That said, they turned Radovid into a raving lunatic for some unbeknownst reason so who the hell knows what is going through his head?

Even a madman would ask for more is my thinking. Here Radovid has under his thumb a dangerous killer that has access to Emhyr and Radovid is a ruthless king losing a war...

Philippa was another that should have been much harder and way more of a mystery to discover. Pretty obvious who the owl was, too. When Triss revealed that, it was a "Well, duh" moment. And that sure didn't make Geralt come off as bright. For him not to have connected the feathers with the owl was out-of-character because Geralt is pretty damn clever.

 

[FishNab]

Damn, the nitpicking is strong is this one xD It's hard to argue with any of the OP's points, but at the end of the day it's just a videogame, and while it does have some major flaws story-wise, Eredin and the Wild Hunt being the biggest one, it delivered a much more compelling story than most other games out there.

 

[saladin1701]

Even a madman would ask for more is my thinking. Here Radovid has under his thumb a dangerous killer that has access to Emhyr and Radovid is a ruthless king losing a war...

Philippa was another that should have been much harder and way more of a mystery to discover. Pretty obvious who the owl was, too. When Triss revealed that, it was a "Well, duh" moment. And that sure didn't make Geralt come off as bright. For him not to have connected the feathers with the owl was out-of-character because Geralt is pretty damn clever.

Remember though that the entire game was dumbed down for newcomers. They followed the money trail at the expense of those of us who invested ourselves in the previous games and abandoned their own core philosophy in the process.

 

[Sneky]

Remember though that the entire game was dumbed down for newcomers. They followed the money trail at the expense of those of us who invested ourselves in the previous games and abandoned their own core philosophy in the process.

Talk for yourself, not for others. For me Witcher 2 was easily the worst part in Witcher series.

 

[calasade]

Talk for yourself, not for others. For me Witcher 2 was easily the worst part in Witcher series.

Which game someone prefers is up to personal taste. For instance I found TW 2 to be best among the three. What cannot be argued is TW 3 being dumbed down and its much lower level of difficulty. Nor can it be argued that the target audience was changed for TW 3. TW 1 & especially 2 were made for discerning adult gamers looking for a challenge. TW 3 is directed towards YA consumers looking for something to breeze through requiring no thought. You can see the intended target audience in every facet of the game, from execution to difficulty to content and subject matter and the presentation of those. CDPR abandoning their core philosophy could not have been made plainer had they painted their intent in black on a big white background.

---------- Updated at 05:06 PM ----------

Remember though that the entire game was dumbed down for newcomers. They followed the money trail at the expense of those of us who invested ourselves in the previous games and abandoned their own core philosophy in the process.

I still maintain that was a needless abandonment and that profits would have been near the same given TW 2's success - the buzz it created - and the budget that went into 3. 3's legacy would have lasted longer, too, had they stuck to their core philosophy. Most people I know are playing 3 a single time with some not bothering to complete it.

Included in the former is a friend who eats, drinks, sleeps, and craps video games. Long story short, he lives for games. Says a lot if he plays something just once. He's a consoler, me I'm a PCer and so we disagree on a few points of what is good vs. bad (mainly, he doesn't mind button-spamming whereas I detest it), but there is one thing we agree on. This is no RPG.

Among the latter is my nephew (teenager). I love the boy, but have to admit he's not the brightest bulb in the lamp. He started 3 more enthused than any game I've seen him get excited about, but he got bored and quit.

 

[saladin1701]

Talk for yourself, not for others. For me Witcher 2 was easily the worst part in Witcher series.

What are you on about? I never claimed any particular one was the best. I said the third one was dumbed down in comparison. By CDPR's own admission, the third game was made more accessible for newcomers.

 

[GuyNwah]

Moderator: Disputing the quality of the writing from your armchairs is fair game. Putting words in other members' mouths is not. Keep it up, and posts will have to be deleted.

 

[ilayoeli]

Damn, the nitpicking is strong is this one xD It's hard to argue with any of the OP's points, but at the end of the day it's just a videogame, and while it does have some major flaws story-wise, Eredin and the Wild Hunt being the biggest one, it delivered a much more compelling story than most other games out there.

Arguable.

 

[Sneky]

but there is one thing we agree on. This is no RPG.

So what is RPG then, only isometric games? Witcher 3 is not RPG because u didnt like it or what? Then Witcher 1, Witcher 2 also are not RPGs, then all "ARPGs" are not RPGs. and i agree with you

CDPR abandoning their core philosophy could not have been made plainer had they painted their intent in black on a big white background.

I think they did big progress from Witcher 2 which was failure in many aspects and big disappointment for many after Witcher 1.

 

[calasade]

So what is RPG then, only isometric games? Witcher 3 is not RPG because u didnt like it or what? Then Witcher 1, Witcher 2 also are not RPGs, then all "ARPGs" are not RPGs. and i agree with you

I think they did big progress from Witcher 2 which was failure in many aspects and big disappointment for many after Witcher 1.

While 1 and 2 are more or less RPGs, 3 is not. In 1 and 2 your decisions matter. They influence the immediate and long-term. 3, on the other hand, has many decisions that do not impact the world (or even Geralt) one bit. Thus these decisions are inconsequential and are nothing more than window dressing to make you feel like you're looking at a RPG. 1 and 2 reflect changes, as a RPG should. 3 does not. Role-playing games require thought and present challenges. Where is thought and challenge in 3? No need to explore really, just go to where "?" marks the spot. Alchemy is done for you. Heck, a lot of things are done for you. Control is taken from you. No strategy required. Just button-spamming.

There comes a point when dumbing-down ruins the role-playing experience. 3 reached that point, then went miles beyond it for good measure. You want to call 3 a cinematic adventure, I can understand that, but no, it is not role-playing. Not to me. Just has some role-playing elements, many of which are rather weak.

 

[Sneky]

While 1 and 2 are more or less RPGs, 3 is not. In 1 and 2 your decisions matter. They influence the immediate and long-term. 3, on the other hand, has many decisions that do not impact the world (or even Geralt) one bit. Thus these decisions are inconsequential and are nothing more than window dressing to make you feel like you're looking at a RPG. 1 and 2 reflect changes, as a RPG should. 3 does not. Role-playing games require thought and present challenges. Where is thought and challenge in 3? No need to explore really, just go to where "?" marks the spot. Alchemy is done for you. Heck, a lot of things are done for you. Control is taken from you. No strategy required. Just button-spamming.

There comes a point when dumbing-down ruins the role-playing experience. 3 reached that point, then went miles beyond it for good measure. You want to call 3 a cinematic adventure, I can understand that, but no, it is not role-playing. Not to me. Just has some role-playing elements, many of which are rather weak.

Actually Witcher 2 combat system was dumbed down much more than 3 which actually requires some strategy. Witcher 2 in other hand was hack and slash with auto aim just button smashing and rolling. And Witcher 1 and 2 also have some decisions which didnt impact world, what now? For example Fallout 1 decision also didnt impact world at all, and? Fallout is still one of the best rpg ever made. RPG is very subjective term. For me from RPG standpoint. Witcher 1 > Witcher3 >>> Witcher 2. Check some RPGs forum for example RPG Codex because this is very common opinion.


BTW: Witcher 2 was much more "cinematic experience" than Witcher 3 is. Witcher 2 was quest > cinematic > quest > cinematic. At least in Witcher 3 you can explore world between story. In both Witcher 2 and 3 rpg mechanics are pretty weak.

 

[calasade]

Actually Witcher 2 combat system was dumbed down much more than 3 which actually requires some strategy. Witcher 2 in other hand was hack and slash with auto aim just button smashing and rolling. And Witcher 1 and 2 also have some decisions which didnt impact world, what now? For example Fallout 1 decision also didnt impact world at all, and? Fallout is still one of the best rpg ever made. RPG is very subjective term. For me from RPG standpoint. Witcher 1 > Witcher3 >>> Witcher 2. Check some RPGs forum for example RPG Codex because this is very common opinion.


BTW: Witcher 2 was much more "cinematic experience" than Witcher 3 is. Witcher 2 was quest > cinematic > quest > cinematic. At least in Witcher 3 you can explore world between story. In both Witcher 2 and 3 rpg mechanics are pretty weak.

RPG is not a subjective term. People like to try and make it a subjective term so they can call a game they like role-playing. The fact we have gone and broken down cRPG into different subcategories and combined various genres hasn't helped.

Witcher 2 dumbed down more than 3? Which features a super power, GPS, a telepathic horse, alchemy genie, etc.?

The combat in the Witcher series has never been anything great, yet at least 2 required some strategy. In 3 you can't lay traps and don't have to make sure you have the proper ingredients for brewing potions and drinking them beforehand or making and applying oils because the alchemy genie handles all that for you. The most you have to do is look at the monster, say, "Hey, that's a watchmacallit." and apply the proper oil, drink an appropriate potion. You can also do those things at any time. Even on Death March there is no strategy or preparation required. From an RPG perspective, yes, 1 & 2 had their faults but were ultimately able to overcome them (which is why I said they were more or less RPGs). Maybe this is due to my espresso-deprived brain, but I cannot think of a decision in 1 or 2 that did not impact Geralt or the world/story.

There are two areas in which 3 overcomes its predecessors. Game engine (presentation) and equipment. The array of armor and swords in TW 3 was quite incredible, though they were not differing enough in stats. Special purpose armor or equipment for a specific, near impossible to beat enemy would have been a great touch.

I'm afraid you've confused cutscene with cinematic. Those are very different things. Witcher 3 is like playing an interactive movie while 2 stays closer to RPG roots. As for cutscenes, TW 2 had an hour and fifty minutes worth or something like that. 3 has over thirteen hours of them. Of course, 3 would have more. It's a much longer game, but what made 3's especially irksome to me was when they occurred and what happened within them.

Common opinions in today's gaming environment doesn't much matter to me. Most are more than happy to lower their expectations and redefine their definition of what a quality game is as long as the game is the cool thing to play. I am not among them.

 

[Goodmongo]

RPG is not a subjective term. People like to try and make it a subjective term so they can call a game they like role-playing.

Then please tell us the official definition of what a RPG game is and cite your source and why that is the OFFICIAL definition. Point is there is no official definition and therefore it is subjective.

 

[moonknightgog]

Then please tell us the official definition of what a RPG game is and cite your source and why that is the OFFICIAL definition. Point is there is no official definition and therefore it is subjective.

Pen & Paper. And no, it's not subjective. An RPG is a genre that allows the player to play a role in what is and enviroment of interactive and collective storytelling. Therefore, in an videogame RPG what is important in quest, design, dialogues tree and choices and consequences. And these have been really dumbed down in The Witcher 3.
The quest design is basically linear when the only thing you have to do is follow the quest marker or the red trails. You will not find something like Vizima confidential here.
The dialogues tree contains very little dialogue choices, and most of them are really there only to ask secondary informations. Most of the time you are basically forced to say what CDPR wanted you to say.
Choices and consequences are irrilevant in TW3. The choices you make aren't really important, because even if the consequences are different, the outcome is ultimately the same.
Let's take the Red Baron. His storyline has two outcomes. He commits suicide or he leaves to cure his wife. But nothing change. No matter what, he will disappear and his sergeant will take control of crown's peach. This is lazy.

 

[calasade]

Then please tell us the official definition of what a RPG game is and cite your source and why that is the OFFICIAL definition. Point is there is no official definition and therefore it is subjective.

The most critical aspect of a cRPG is choice and consequnce, is it not? How decisions fail to impact Geralt or the story or opposing decisions have the same impact (thereby making the decision inconsequential), those have been well-covered, so we'll skip them that have been mentioned and are of the Indiana Jones Syndrome. Instead, we'll go to the truly ridiculous, something I saw in a review.


White Orchard. Geralt and Vesemer face off against the griffin. Fight starts, but you realize Geralt is way too low-level to face the griffin. So you light out, you know, to survive, leaving Vesemer alone to fight the griffin. A pretty heavy decision, role-playing to be a coward and leaving him alone to fight that monster. You go do quest after quest to get leveled up. No matter how long it takes you (days or weeks in game-world) Vesemer is still fighting that griffin. No impact to you fleeing; neither in the long-term or short. One or two things should have happened. Either Vesemer defeats the griffin (at which point the game can continue, and if this were a real RPG, no one would have anything to do with Geralt) or the griffin kills Vesemer. If Vesemer dies at this juncture, the game is going to be quite messed up. Left in an unrecoverable state. So I can understand why CDPR allowed Vesemer vs. the griffin to be a never-ending fight with no victor, but right there I just lost all respect for TW 3 as a role-playing game.


In that same vein, only a few times can you take off and have that taking off impact the game (Ciri in getting her revenge for example - you'll get a failed mark in the subquest for not following her to the Golden Sturgeon, but she's still there no matter how long you take). Oh and with Yen, in the boat. Dive and swim to that island where the rocks are interesting, and she'll take off on you, resulting in a failed romance quest.

Reputation is another. Loot in front of guards, take off, come back. Everything is okay. You're not marked as a thief. Do whatever you like in Novigrad, the witch hunters will never come after Geralt and burn him at the stake, not even if you run all over the city killing their members. Sucking the spirit from that garden in Skellige really makes no difference beyond Skellige folk bitching about it. A more realistic reaction from such a Viking-based society would have been Yennefer and Geralt getting gutted because of what Yen did.

There are, like I said, numerous examples of non-impact and getting railroaded into something. They have been well-covered, so for the sake of not being redundant, I'll stop here.


Yes, there are some decisions that have impact, but not enough for me to consider TW 3 more RPG than a simple action game.