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

[Froshshock]

The game is still good and all, but i have to question the decisions made in this game as well, not to mention what OP and others have been digging up about Witcher 3. It's certainly dissapointing to see them dial back on what was one of the only games for adults, and not something that was made for teenagers in fear of backlash. The gaping holes in missing dialogue, relations that definitely needed to be talked about as an example.

To sum it up i'm really just dissapointed, because they could've been a rising giant instead of a falling one with this series.

 

[Krull32]

Yep...
Aiming for the "mainstream" was clearly the wrong decision....
I know its all about money...but now ....hmpf......It's not like the other Witcher games we played and really liked.

 

[CTPhipps]

Well, I think the politics are less dumbed down than you might think if you want to check my essays out on the subject.

http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-politics-of-witcher-3-part-i-or.html

 

[Maerd]

If you made a simple analysis of the things you didn't like and needs to be improved, instead of insulting it is as a game made for teenagers...

Most of the games are made for children and teenagers, may be, 95% of them. There's nothing insulting about that, it's the industry's main target group, like there's nothing bad in clothes or shoes made for teens. The bad is that CDPR tells in their interviews one thing (that they make an adult game) but on practice they've made a game for teens. It's a very good quality game but still the game is for teen target group. The only people who would find that insulting are the teenagers or recent has been teenagers who want to see themselves as adults but mentally they are not yet, which gives them inferiority complex. They are always furious if somebody do not perceive them as adults because they either dress like teens, think like teens or behave like teens. And you're such person: your post filled with denial of everything, even most reasonable points, pretty much proves that.

 

[Krull32]

Most of the games are made for children and teenagers, may be, 95% of them. There's nothing insulting about that, it's the industry's main target group, like there's nothing bad in clothes or shoes made for teens. The bad is that CDPR tells in their interviews one thing (that they make an adult game) but on practice they've made a game for teens. It's a very good quality game but still the game is for teen target group. The only people who would find that insulting are the teenagers or recent has been teenagers who want to see themselves as adults but mentally they are not yet, which gives them inferiority complex. They are always furious if somebody do not perceive them as adults because they either dress like teens, think like teens or behave like teens. And you're such person: your post filled with denial of everything, even most reasonable points, pretty much proves that.

Well spoken. thumbs up.

 

[Shavod]

Most of the games are made for children and teenagers, may be, 95% of them. There's nothing insulting about that, it's the industry's main target group, like there's nothing bad in clothes or shoes made for teens. The bad is that CDPR tells in their interviews one thing (that they make an adult game) but on practice they've made a game for teens. It's a very good quality game but still the game is for teen target group. The only people who would find that insulting are the teenagers or recent has been teenagers who want to see themselves as adults but mentally they are not yet, which gives them inferiority complex. They are always furious if somebody do not perceive them as adults because they either dress like teens, think like teens or behave like teens. And you're such person: your post filled with denial of everything, even most reasonable points, pretty much proves that.

HA HA HA HA HA! Irony of your post is just staggering. I said I agree with some of the complaints about simplified politics and save game import, I just think rest of your arguments is completely unreasonable and overblown, which I explained in my previous posts. Yeah, I'm sure by using words like "for kiddies" and "for teens" you didn't meant to be condescending toward the game or developer in any way. Oh wait, you even using it right here to belittle me and my opinion, so I guess you are denying your own words in the same post, that's actually quite impressive. Yes; I know that The Witcher 3 have a lot of problems, every game in the franchise have them and even every book, which of course doesn't change the fact they are still amazing. As I said, I'm okay with criticism, but not the way you presented it.

And I'm just so glad you stepped down to simple personal insults without even using any counter arguments, it really shows me how fruitless this whole discussion truly is. And your judgement of my character can't be further from the truth. Yes, I'm adult person in my twenties, but I don't really care if people perceive me as one, because of my hobbies or fashion style. I play all sorts of game aimed at different demographics and I can tell you that several games aimed at children or young teens are much smarter and more mature then almost everything in Rated M segment. That doesn't change the fact that I don't agree with your statement of The Witcher 3 being a game made for teenagers. For the more mainstream audience, yes, but for younger audience, no. You could argue that it is a one and the same thing, but it's not, as average gamer is around 30 years old, someone with a job, who doesn't have that much time for a gaming anymore.

Well, thank you for wasting my time in this pointless conversation. Eh, this forum is in some serious need for a bottle of White Honey.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

I agree completely with the op. In terms of main plot and story, TW3 is very superficial and generic compared to the TW2 and even TW1 (which had a very well done portrayal of escalation of violence and fanaticism).

I had once been a supporter of the transition towards open world, or at least I was not an opponent, arguing with its staunchest critics that open world does not necessarily lead to a weaker story. While I believe that still holds true in absolute, in material and economic terms, I now concede that the shift towards open world would have necessitated too much resources and time being spent on making a successful open world as opposed to what I would consider a believable and intriguing world, even if smaller.

TW3's only saving grace is the personal aspect of Geralt's journey, which I am sure many welcome. As would I have, if it didn't come accompanied with such unneccessary sacrifice of quality and common sense.

 

[Maerd]

I had once been a supporter of the transition towards open world, or at least I was not an opponent, arguing with its staunchest critics that open world does not necessarily lead to a weaker story. While I believe that still holds true in absolute, in material and economic terms, I now concede that the shift towards open world would have necessitated too much resources and time being spent on making a successful open world as opposed to what I would consider a believable and intriguing world, even if smaller.

Ah, those good old days 2 years ago. I remember arguing against open world decision because of the detrimental influence of such setup to a story driven game. Well, what can I say now... Welcome to the club.

While the main story is definitely weaker than in both in TW1 and TW2, to be fair, I expected much worse effect of the open world on TW3 storyline.

 

[Simultas]

I think this thread deserves continuation of the discussion

 

[teh_beard]

What boggles my mind is people bringing TW1 into this discussion. Bondiana villain on a mission of salvation through destructionsaving humanity by dominating them with army of supermutants? Really? And all those direct ripoffs and quotations from books?

Can we just admit that real Witcher gaem began with TW2 prologue, plot of whole thing worthy to be another Sapkowski book, and omit TW1 from discussion altogether?
Not that it will change general consensus we came to.

 

[CTPhipps]

What boggles my mind is people bringing TW1 into this discussion. Bondiana villain on a mission of salvation through destructionsaving humanity by dominating them with army of supermutants? Really? And all those direct ripoffs and quotations from books?

Can we just admit that real Witcher gaem began with TW2 prologue, plot of whole thing worthy to be another Sapkowski book, and omit TW1 from discussion altogether?
Not that it will change general consensus we came to.

No, because I liked the Witcher 1.

 

[Rivdoric]

#1 is the biggest annoyance for me too.
The Way Djikstra suddently almost said "HAHAHA I"m Gonna be the Ruler of Temeria ! Gotta kill you Roche !" i clearly didn't understand, they way it was done, it's like they chose to quickly add that thing to make a cliffhanger.
I did not understand the switch of Radovid personnality as well, compared to 1 & 2.
But the biggest deception was what they did to the Wild Hunt. On TW1, Wild Hunt was a kind of God or Spirit that watched your actions throughout the game, asking some relatively interesting questions about motivation and such, kind of a philosophical guide ; in TW3 it's just, like OP said "EEEVILLL" stupid puppet who just want to kill everybody. Again, with a seriously shamefull cliffhanger "Ooo We've been tricked ! It's EEVIL Avallac'h who's responsible !!". Clearly it was not worthy of the talent of CD P and of the numerous qualities of the game.

 

[OutgoingHermit]

Dijkstra's betrayal makes sense, IMO. The way Dijkstra goes about doing it does not.

 

[Rivdoric]

Dijkstra's betrayal makes sense, IMO. The way Dijkstra goes about doing it does not.

Yep that's what i meant

 

[Gerald01]

Yep that's what i meant

The ending quests, specifically the political stuff is very weird and rushed.
Both Djikstra AND Ciri couldn't wait a bit to enact their secret plans like.. a day or so? Very anticlimatic and offputting.

 

[Rivdoric]

The ending quests, specifically the political stuff is very weird and rushed.
Both Djikstra AND Ciri couldn't wait a bit to enact their secret plans like.. a day or so? Very anticlimatic and offputting.

Indeed. If i was Djikstra, knowing Geralt for so long, i wouldn't suddently dare to challenge an assembly with him on it, that would be suicide. As a spy, it would have been more clever to assassinate them.

What do you mean about Ciri ?

 

[Gerald01]

Indeed. If i was Djikstra, knowing Geralt for so long, i wouldn't suddently dare to challenge an assembly with him on it, that would be suicide. As a spy, it would have been more clever to assassinate them.

Yes that was kinda stupid and out of character. Djikstra is perfectly aware of what Geralt can do. Throwing some mobs at him really?

They could have least framed it another way, for instance not making it a choice between Roche and D., but D. contacting you a couple days later to deal with Roche.
Better yet, vice versa with Roche becoming aware of D's plot to off him, and G's having to intervene to save him (meaning D get killed in the attack or somesuch) ->Vassal Temeria finale

or choosing not to help Roche, leaving him at the mercy of Dijkstra ->Dijkstra ruler of Novigrad finale


PS: Roche could have stayed in Novigrad, so more vulnerable to D' machinations

PPS: The mini-quest could have featured some kind of reaction by Novigrad's citizenry/authorities at the news of Radovid's death via small cutscene etc.
In the game, literally nothing changes. It's as if nothing happened.

 

[CTPhipps]

Of course, the game never explains WHY Dijkstra is killing Roche and Thaler. I speculate in my "War of Nilfgaard" blog article but that's not canonical.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

With regards to The Witcher 1, I feel compelled to defend its quality as a story, even though I prefer The Witcher 2. Despite me thinking that the latter was in general superior or more fulfilling to my tastes, the first game was still very good and complex, especially if we look at the 3 primary components of the main plot.

1. The Order vs Scoia'Tael plot is one of the few representations of a gradual escalation of violence and extremism that I think was done well. Both sides are presented with nuance, and we see both become more and more extreme in their actions, as violence slowly escalates into what eventually turns into a full scale rebellion. It is very difficult to properly convey the phase of escalation, especially when it comes to internal revolts, with as much nuance, focusing on many different factors, and as much patience. Yaevinn especially remains one of the most interesting (and certainly very flawed) characters in the series imo.

2. The Identity Quest. This is not Planescape Torment level, evidently. But that iconic (and unrivaled) example aside, I've not experienced an RPG that makes such a big and explicit emphasis to your character actually establishing an identity after amnesia. Even better, the game actually reacts and acknowledges your choices and lines of reasoning, and doesn't just let you RP fully in your head like what most RPGs do with few exceptions. Every choice became part of this quest for identity, making the gravity of choice not only external, but deeply internal as well. That to me is rare.

3. Jacques de Aldersberg. It is true that on paper, Jacques may appear to be a generic villain, but that would be a superficial reading. In many ways, he is a product of your own choices and reasoning, and the game explicitly appreciates that by having him use and twist arguments that you yourself have used when he was a child. Jacques is a deeply tragic and disturbed character, and while his plans may be generic, his character is not. In another story, he would have been the hero (much like Ciri). But instead the game gave us a man crushed by the weight of his own messiah complex, mentally damaged by constant visions of apocalypse, obsessed with salvation.

The Witcher 1 had a lot of flaws, but I think its story was excellent and surprisingly well presented.

 

[Simultas]

The Way Djikstra suddenly almost said "HAHAHA I"m Gonna be the Ruler of Temeria ! Gotta kill you Roche !" i clearly didn't understand, they way it was done, it's like they chose to quickly add that thing to make a cliffhanger.

And after all his men were slaughtered he decided to attack Geralt himself while having a permanently crushed joints in one leg. Makes sense.