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

+
Again no argument brought forward, there's virtually no way Eredin can be considered even a remotely "good" antagonist as he barely appears in the game and has very little to say. He's virtually a non-character.

Corypheus for all his flaws is a character at least.

EDIT: If I was talking about TW1 Eredin, well THAT version would bury Corypheus alive with how awesome he is.



It has more high notes I'll grant you that, but looking back at it there's nothing really interesting in TW3's main story, which is what killed it for me. What makes it "seem" good is that superb voice acting, never thought female Hawke would do so well as Ciri, the score of the game and the cinematic direction.

DA:I and Fallout 3 are considerably less cinematic and pack less of a punch, but despite that they are far more complex and nuanced as stories, featuring bigger moral dilemmas ( was there ANY moral dilemma with the choices presented in the main story outside of the Bloody Baron? ) and more interesting characters.

One of the biggest failures, and I consider this far more important then lack of logic in the plot and with the war, is that there's literally no moral dilemmas for the player in the main plot outside of Act 1 Velen with the Baron, which incidentally makes that entire portion the best part of the game. All the choices in the main story after that, despite having consequences, mean little.

Fallout 3 did present a very interesting moral dilemma with the president in the main story. DA:I had a constant argument about religion and yours views on it and your role as Inquisitor in the world.

Witcher 1 was all about the identity of Geralt and his relationship with Alvin and what moral stances you took, Witcher 2...well I don't need to explain this I think.

Dragon Age Inquisition was a disaster. I've been following the franchise since Origins, and what they did with Corypheus was shameful. The character had a lot of potential, but he ended up being extremely one dimensional. Not to mention the fact that, regardless of the choices you made in the game, the player-character invariably ended up being the right arm of the Chantry and the in-game equivalent of Jesus. I don't know what "moral dilemmas" you are speaking about. At the end of the day, no matter what choices you make, Tevinter loses, the Chantry is reconstituted, Corpyheus lies dead and buried, and the Inquisition becomes the reigning political force throughout the land. The only real "imactful" choices are whether or not you support the mages vs. the templars.

Quest design was also dreadful. Collecting Elfroot after Elfroot after Elfroot, and then searching for Shards and solving random Arstraria puzzles is not my idea of fun. There's also no pay off. At the end of the "Sand and Ruin" questline, after spending hours trudging around the Hissing Wastes, is the player rewarded with some meaningful insight into Dwarven lore? Is he confronted with a moral dilemma to grapple with? Nope. Just a random piece of discardable loot.

The characters were all right ... nothing to write home about. I much prefer Yennefer, Triss and co. Bioware's basically dead to me at this point. The people who used to have talent there have clearly moved on.
 
Last edited:
I don't know what "moral dilemmas" you are speaking about. At the end of the day, no matter what choices you make, Tevinter loses, the Chantry is reconstituted, Corpyheus lies dead and buried, and the Inquisition becomes the reigning political force throughout the land. The only real "imactful" choices are whether or not you support the mages vs. the templars.

Your role as Herald, belief or lack thereof, the Divine outcome, your role as leader of the Inquisition, the outcome of the Orlesian Civil War.

The religious debate alone in DA:I far surpasses most of the moral dilemmas of TW3. What moral dilemmas where there anyway? Fuck all besides the Baron.

As for Corypheus. His role was to showcase the ancient age of Tevinter, now long lost and to be a force of nature as an antagonist type that was trying to counter you throughout the game, and he was quite well done there and I'd very much disagree he was one dimensional.

But hey taking the piss on EA/DA:I is nothing new.
 
Eh, even though I prefer TW3 overall, Corypheus was better than Eredin AS PRESENTED IN TW3. Though to be fair, both antagonists are lacking and are not on the levels of Loghain, Letho or Jacques.

I would also have to agree on the representation of religion in TW3, which seems to be wholly evil without any redeeming qualities. Nuance and subtly was essentially thrown out the window with the portrayal of religion. I find having ant-religious sentiments shoved down my throat is just as bad as having religion shoved down my throat. Even though I disliked how the central plot panned out in DA:I, I really liked how religion was portrayed in a really balanced manner on both sides- how it provides a sense of community for the faithful, something to believe in, yet can also be used to commit atrocities in the name of some holy doctrine.
 
Eh, even though I prefer TW3 overall, Corypheus was better than Eredin AS PRESENTED IN TW3. Though to be fair, both antagonists are lacking and are not on the levels of Loghain, Letho or Jacques.

Both antagonists lacked a significant amount of character. I didn't even finish DA:I because to be honest, I got bored, and in Witcher 3, I couldn't bring myself to hate Eredin. Basically, because he did nothing to warrant my hate. Sure, The Wild Hunt was painted as this terrible force that brought death and destruction, but it never felt like they were necesarily a threat. There is another thread discussing how Eredin really only has 12 lines in the game, which is a terrible decision for the MAIN antagonist. It seemed like CDPR didn't even care about creating a complex character that we should fear, and hate throughout the game.
 
Your role as Herald, belief or lack thereof, the Divine outcome, your role as leader of the Inquisition, the outcome of the Orlesian Civil War.

The religious debate alone in DA:I far surpasses most of the moral dilemmas of TW3. What moral dilemmas where there anyway? Fuck all besides the Baron.

As for Corypheus. His role was to showcase the ancient age of Tevinter, now long lost and to be a force of nature as an antagonist type that was trying to counter you throughout the game, and he was quite well done there and I'd very much disagree he was one dimensional.

But hey taking the piss on EA/DA:I is nothing new.

You are taking the piss on TW3 because you are disappointed its not the game you wanted
TW3 is not perfect (lame Act 3, Eredin a weak antagonist etc.) but its not even comparable with DA:I in that regard (which was just shit)

It also seems that you brush aside the flaws that DA:I has but shit on TW3 for the same thing
Corypheus is just as generic and one dimensional as Eredin, both are Saturday morning cartoon villians with no depth at all and just screaming idiots

DA:I had no moral debates at all, it was just a lame power fantasy
Doesn't matter if you are a Human or Elf or freaking Qunari Inquisitor everyone follows you just because
The Orlesian Civil war is resolved during a freaking ball and had one dimensional players with no depth (not that Radovid is better)
What religious debate? lol
If you want difficult choices play DA:O or TW2

The story was very short and half assed the focus was on lame fetch quests (which were basically 80% of the game) and lame exploring in lifeless zones
And this is where TW3 clearly wins, it has great side quests a terrific open world + awesome and likable characters (DA:I had rather lackluster companions and a terrible bland protagonist)

After playing TW3 one simply can't go back to DA:I
TW2 and DA:O own both of them anyway, now those were masterpieces
 
Last edited:
Absolutly right almost in all aspects i have alrdy spent to much time here in the forums 14h straight and have a reply for the answer of your question about the censorship apartment here : i copy paste it from the other Post thx OP for such a great analysis i cant add nothing more

Hi all, i agree with Op not only the sex scenes almost evrything rape.Torture etc.etc. the threesome with jen/triss too,i Was expecting (people calling Witcher Trylogie as GAME of Thrones)
R18 rly After goggling for almost 2 hours found alot Evidence why/because/who is responsible for that.
Most people here think we are the center of the universe, look around even in europe we have censorships(Germany).Worldwide(US Kontigent.Asia,Arabia.Australia)this are all countrys who are explicite forbid anykind of sexismus in game , but funy not so decapitating peoples head and more stuff,.Rape,Showing Boobs and more stuff is Banned,or censored.
And No its not MICROSOFT or SONY/ENTERTAINMENT its the countrys LAW worldwide who forcing GameDevelopers to approach soflty a theme who is still in 20th centrury still great problem like the bi/Gay marriage.
Imagine a small Indie/Dev Team put a great game out wanna pleese not only EUROPE/ going to reach the WORLD what do you think they can afford to make 10 Different patches games wIth censored stuff in it=`?
Now to answer OP ,Yes i Hope after the deploy of the redKIT modders will be making the ALL uncensored version like it should be in the first PLACE.
ps.I hope you understand what i have typed sry for the grammar/spell not native speaker
ps.Thats the reason the naked mod was dwl alrdy more then 2ok times
 
Very good post and I agree with most of it. Especially about the EVIIIIILLL-ness of some characters. Spot on.

But I have to disagree about the sex scenes. I mean sure they are nice, but they are not so important as to make drastically different animations for all of them.
 
Last edited:
Your role as Herald, belief or lack thereof, the Divine outcome, your role as leader of the Inquisition, the outcome of the Orlesian Civil War.

The religious debate alone in DA:I far surpasses most of the moral dilemmas of TW3. What moral dilemmas where there anyway? Fuck all besides the Baron.

As for Corypheus. His role was to showcase the ancient age of Tevinter, now long lost and to be a force of nature as an antagonist type that was trying to counter you throughout the game, and he was quite well done there and I'd very much disagree he was one dimensional.

But hey taking the piss on EA/DA:I is nothing new.



LOL!!!! What religious debate? It was a simple do you or don't you believe with the majority vote pinged to believe. There wasn't much to debate other than "I'm not the Herald." "There is no maker." The game still treated you the same and everything played out as usual.

Cory was a cartoon super villain, nothing more and nothing less. The Inquisitor beats him without breaking a freaking sweat and at nearly every turn in the game all but "In your heart Shall burn" It's the only scene Cory has to shine.

TW3 did a much better job at showcasing a more realistic view of the world, politics, religion, et al. No sermons, and no hand holding. Meanwhile DA;I can't even present something as simple as homosexuality without holding the player's hand and telling them how they should think and respond.

The Divine outcome is pointless and unrealistic, especially if you pick Leliana and even Vivienne. The Civil War never has any real consequences behind it although the Ball was nice. As leader, your only options are to pick which adviser to listen to and you never face any real consequences to any choice made.

and quite frankly if you are a female noble there is just no reason why you can't be appointed Divine. And everyone bowing down to a non human in a world that hates and fears them is a joke.

And we already know for the 1000th time that Tevinter is evulz so Cory simply showcases what we've already been told thousands of times about that place.
 
Last edited:
The Witcher 3 is no longer a game for adults but a game for teens.
.

Very detailed and posted impressive thread. The only thing I immediately disagree is the "no longer a game for adults, but for teens".
I am in my late 30s, but would never think, a teenager could not distinguish a bad of a well-told story.
Or even, that a child could not understand the concept of evil (besides evil character looking eviiil).
In literature for kids and teens, it is the same as it is for a mature audience: Some is complex and life-like told, some just flat.

I think, the poor characterization and inconsistent narration of the witcher 3 story is there, just because the writers for this game were not really able to do a better job. Simple as that (yes, I know, this is very simplified)..

Some content that is rather important for relationships might have been shortened simply, just because it is too risky to show it (e.g. sexual desire for young Ciri).

So, even it would be a game for teens, it would only be an average, if not poorly told story..
 
Last edited:
The Witcher 3 meets Hollywood

Well many topics and themes from the books and previous games just went missing in the creating process of The Witcher 3 simply because the core philosophy of The Witcher 3 seems to be quite different than in the first two games.

Where TW1+TW2 are for a mature audiance and the complexity of the story seems to be higher, The Witcher 3 is a typical Hollywood blockbuster with a lot of action. The Witcher 3 is mainly about adrenalin paced fast action with the tough guy Geralt and his friends against the scary looking sceleton armor wearing bad guys with small brains and big muscles (thats sadly the Wild Hunt).

The Witcher 3 is actually Hollywood in a video game. How else can it be explained that so many difficult topics (Geralt as a Red Rider, relationship between Geralt-Yen-Triss-Ciri, identity, love, war, politics) were neglected?

The greatest moment in the game were the Battle of Kaer Morhen and the heart breaking father-daughter relationship between Geralt and Ciri. This relationship is basically the only thing that carries the Wild Hunt plot.

I find it sad that they also left out the philosophical topics from TW1 and the conversations with Geralts friends about the meaning of life, love and other things (remember the fantastic scene from TW1 when he has a drink with Zoltan and Dandelion and they talk about the concept of love and being a witcher in a changing world). Why did all this get lost?
 
Wow, great post OP. Made me realize quite a few things I didn't pick up playing through the game. I definitely agree about how simplistic so many of the choices were in this game and how so many characters were made 1-dimensional (Eredin is almost 0-dimensional IMO, barely says anything and his last words just made him look like a total clueless idiot). There is definitely a lot of opportunity to improve things with an enhanced edition and I as well would be happy to pay extra for it if they can address the various issues posters on this forum have brought up.

There are so many good points on here I really hope CDPR is reading them. I totally get they had a deadline that they had to move many times, and it was a very ambitious game to make and they likely had to simplify many parts and drop many things they might have wanted to do. With the game engine, the general plot line, graphical assets all done, and some more flexibility with time, I think great things could be done with an enhanced edition of this game.
 
Last edited:
Wow, great post OP. Made me realize quite a few things I didn't pick up playing through the game. I definitely agree about how simplistic so many of the choices were in this game and how so many characters were made 1-dimensional (Eredin is almost 0-dimensional IMO, barely says anything and his last words just made him look like a total clueless idiot). There is definitely a lot of opportunity to improve things with an enhanced edition and I as well would be happy to pay extra for it if they can address the various issues posters on this forum have brought up.

The problem is that if the "dumbing down" and censoring of the content is intentional, then it is unlikely to be changed even if an enhanced edition was released. Although the copy&paste sex scenes in particular are probably the result of cost cutting, fixing them may not be a high priority (especially since other games that can be seen as competitors to TW3 are even worse in this aspect).
 
Don't forget the number one dumb-down for minors: primitive hand-holding quest design
Both in TW1&2 you had quests that you either needed to initiate some self-promoted exploration or actually THINK. In The Witcher 1 you had some interesting quests in which you had to think to get best results like Adda's quest and Vizimia Confidential. In The Witcher 2 to complete every contract you had to explore the areas all by yourself and a lot of side quests (and some main quests) demanded you think, quests like Death: Symbolized, Liles and Vipers, The Gargoyle contract and more - they had puzzles you need to solve.
In TW3 all elements of thinking were stripped out of quests and they were practically boiled down to PRESS WITCHER SENSE AND FOLLOW TRACKS. There is one exception with Caleb Menge dialogue (and VERY few VERY basic puzzles in one or two dungeons) but that is it.
 
It is true that the puzzles have been simplified compared to those in chapter 3 of TW2, the one in Magic Lamp is not too bad, but if I recall correctly in The Sunstone one just has to use all three mirrors. Although The Sunstone is in a part of the game where corners had to be cut to be able to release on time, it could have been a longer and more complex quest, as it only uses a part of the elven ruins.
 
Don't forget the number one dumb-down for minors: primitive hand-holding quest design
Both in TW1&2 you had quests that you either needed to initiate some self-promoted exploration or actually THINK. In The Witcher 1 you had some interesting quests in which you had to think to get best results like Adda's quest and Vizimia Confidential. In The Witcher 2 to complete every contract you had to explore the areas all by yourself and a lot of side quests (and some main quests) demanded you think, quests like Death: Symbolized, Liles and Vipers, The Gargoyle contract and more - they had puzzles you need to solve.
In TW3 all elements of thinking were stripped out of quests and they were practically boiled down to PRESS WITCHER SENSE AND FOLLOW TRACKS. There is one exception with Caleb Menge dialogue (and VERY few VERY basic puzzles in one or two dungeons) but that is it.

The game design that structures activity for each quest is severely lacking. You're spoon fed instructions to get from A to B to C, in various forms, be it the big yellow prompts on your minimap, witcher senses or Geralt himself just flat out telling you what to do. The end result is something that feels ingratiating and puts the player in the passive role of spectator rather than participant. Good game design gives tools to the player and then says, 'solve this'. TW3 rarely does so, and for a game centered around investigative sequences - we are playing as a kind of hard boiled detective after all - this design choice rivaled my disappointment of the main story. I can only speculate it was the sheer amount of content required to fill up the map that forced a reversion to such simplistic design, rather than distrust on the developer's part in the player's intelligence. At least I hope it is.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom