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

[jimmywon34]

Agree those were good parts of this game. I haven't even gotten to the expansions yet so I guess we'll see if they shut me up.
I'd be willing to suck it up though if they did only three things in an Enhanced Edition.

Another 'special' quest with Triss in B&W at the end, like in tw2 where it's just you two or she's helping you out or something with something, something more romantic and fun and memorable like in tw2 and with a better sex scene, not just the repetitive one from the main game, again something artsy and memorable like in tw2, because as far as I've heard there is only a conversation with her at the end of B&W. "The Last Wish' quest was done so well I thought, I wish there would've been something like that for Geralt and Triss in this game.

And bring in the cut content for Iorveth and the scoa'tael. Make it work somehow. There's gotta be a way.



Oh and one last thing something fun with Dandelion and Zoltan after the MQ. drinking with the buddies followed by some fun quest with them.

 

[Sam2305]

@Sam2305 They never said our choices would matter though unlike Bioware. I know Iorveth was supposed to be in TW3 but he was cut alongside a bunch of other stuff (like the Wild Hunt attacking Novigrad).

Right now, I can't assure if they said which of our choices would have mattered but, what it's sure is that many sites were publishing news like this one http://www.ign.com/wikis/the-witcher...ing_Save_Files . That happened a month before the release in many sites: IGN, Meristation... And no one from CDPR denied it. And now we know that this way of simulating a save import is completely useless except for Letho. Also, they never said that Iorveth was finally cut from the game even when the decision was taken a year before the game was in our hands.

As far as I know, in the videogame industry, if you don't deny this kind of statements, you are saying that they are true. In the case of Iorveth it's even worse because those who said it were the guys from CDPR and not any site and we knew of his removal on december

---------- Updated at 08:25 PM ----------

And bring in the cut content for Iorveth and the scoa'tael. Make it work somehow. There's gotta be a way.

Agree

 

[Maerd]

You do not like that they cut down on politics so it's childish? I don't like that a game called WITCHER 2 focused too much on politics and almost forgot about monster hunting. Does that mean that if you enjoyed the political intrigue then you're childish?

If they were cutting down politics it would not have been a problem. The politics is still there but it was dumbed down. Look at the Hearts of Stone: it has no politics whatsoever, and it is awesome. If you cut down politics then cut it (meaning it should be absent), don't make it stupid (what CDPR did).

I LOVED that Witcher 3 finally let me live my fantasy of being a wandering problem solver going village to village taking contracts...

How exactly your fantasies have anything to do with the objective quality of content? Believe me, I also mostly enjoyed the game, and speaking of going through villages, the first 1/3 of the game, which happens in Velen, is great and actually the best part of the game. Shit really hits the fan starting from the battle of Caer Morhen.

---------------------------

Let me give you another example how by removing seemingly unimportant piece you dumb down maturity of the content, which I didn't cover in my original post. CDPR decided not include scoia'tael (likely because they didn't have time for everything). What happend to the whole racial hatred theme? It was dumbed down because now it looks like: there are good elves and dwarves who are oppressed by bad racist humans, racism is bad... period. With scoia'tael it is not that clear cut, it adds depth and another dimension. Because scoia'tael elves and dwarves are not virtuous knights or Robin Hoods, they are terrorists, they kill humans indiscriminately because they hate them (therefore they are racists themselves), they also rape, pillage, and rob people. The idea behind elven freedom is revanchism: reverse the tide and dominate humans as they dominate them now. And now you start to think if human racism towards non-humans is actually not as evil as it seems. Alas, in the game we have teen-friendly version of racism instead of mature one for adults.

 

[sidspyker]

How exactly your fantasies have anything to do with the objective quality of content?

I'm not sure why you're parading around words like objectivity in entertainment media which is subjective to its core nor where you got the idea my witcher fantasy is contesting any 'objective quality' of anything. It's a mere example of differences.

My comment was directed at several comments before appealing to the sense of people to not dismissing things by calling them childish, not that criticism is invalid. That's all it was. Not trying to silence any criticism, want to see it reasonable instead of 1 word dismissals.

 

[Maerd]

I'm not sure why you're parading around words like objectivity in entertainment media which is subjective to its core nor where you got the idea my witcher fantasy is contesting any 'objective quality' of anything. It's a mere example of differences.

So, you're saying that there's no objective evaluation of qualities in entertainment media possible? Let me disagree with you. Well developed deep plot will always be objectively better in storytelling than "My little pony" plot, even though the latter has its use too. Of course, qualities are subjective but you can compare similar qualities in the storytelling in different games and you most of the time see very clear that this component is better quality than that. It's a donkey tail problem: how many hairs you need to pick off a donkey's tail that you could say it's bald now. If you compare visually two donkeys you can sometimes say that one donkey's tail is clearly more fluffy than another even though you didn't count the amount of hair on them. Thus, CDPR picked off enough hair from their donkey to become noticeable because we all remember their donkey being fluffy.

Also, literature exists for centuries and we have plenty of background to judge what humans perceive as a quality plot. Shakespear wrote his plays centuries ago and we still consider them quality writing despite different age and different tastes nowadays, Iliad is still interesting to read despite being few thousand years old.

 

[sidspyker]

So, you're saying that there's no objective evaluation of qualities in entertainment media possible?

No.

The exact opposite, that I'm not arguing that, never argued that and will not respond to any such argument either because they have 0 to do with what I said. That's the end of it.

 

[Tangsta]

Wow, I had no idea this thread existed until now. Interesting conversation/discussion going on here. I recall my rant on the watering down of the Wild Hunt's story and characters. Haha, my viewpoint on the matter still remain mostly unchanged but the rage has certainly subsided.

In regards to your criticisms, Maerd, I can't say they're entirely wrong, but I honestly think you're barking up the wrong tree. Morally grey choices/characters and side stories are aplenty in the Witcher 3, they're just not as noticeable since they don't feature as much in the main story branch. As for the 'dumbing' down of politics, I would prefer to describe it as 'streamlining' the story a bit. Politics for the sake of politics can easily bog down the pacing of both the gameplay and story, I can see CDPR only included what was necessary in relation to Geralt's journey to find Ciri, why do we need to know anything else? Geralt is not a politician, I see no issues with bypassing the intricacies of the political game in order to put more focus on the story and characters at hand.

If you're comparing the game's writing to Andrzej Sapkowski's novels and lore, of course they're going to come up short - one has a pure literary focus whilst the other has a million and one things to account for and so the writing will inevitably be affected in terms of priority. Compare them to your average 'RPG' these days, e.g. Fallout 4, and it is a literary masterpiece.

That said, there is plenty to improve on and CDPR is still a fairly young company, learning lots every time they release a game and still nowhere near their full potential.

Also, literature exists for centuries and we have plenty of background to judge what humans perceive as a quality plot. Shakespear wrote his plays centuries ago and we still consider them quality writing despite different age and different tastes nowadays, Iliad is still interesting to read despite being few thousand years old.

I think the bigger issue here is that you're comparing literature to a video game with very little understanding of how a story in a video game is different than what is written for a book. In short, there are many factors that limit a story told virtually in a video game world vs one with almost limitless boundaries in text form.

 

[ilayoeli]

Wow, I had no idea this thread existed until now. Interesting conversation/discussion going on here. I recall my rant on the watering down of the Wild Hunt's story and characters. Haha, my viewpoint on the matter still remain mostly unchanged but the rage has certainly subsided.

In regards to your criticisms, Maerd, I can't say they're entirely wrong, but I honestly think you're barking up the wrong tree. Morally grey choices/characters and side stories are aplenty in the Witcher 3, they're just not as noticeable since they don't feature as much in the main story branch. As for the 'dumbing' down of politics, I would prefer to describe it as 'streamlining' the story a bit. Politics for the sake of politics can easily bog down the pacing of both the gameplay and story, I can see CDPR only included what was necessary in relation to Geralt's journey to find Ciri, why do we need to know anything else? Geralt is not a politician, I see no issues with bypassing the intricacies of the political game in order to put more focus on the story and characters at hand.

If you're comparing the game's writing to Andrzej Sapkowski's novels and lore, of course they're going to come up short - one has a pure literary focus whilst the other has a million and one things to account for and so the writing will inevitably be affected in terms of priority. Compare them to your average 'RPG' these days, e.g. Fallout 4, and it is a literary masterpiece.

That said, there is plenty to improve on and CDPR is still a fairly young company, learning lots every time they release a game and still nowhere near their full potential.



I think the bigger issue here is that you're comparing literature to a video game with very little understanding of how a story in a video game is different than what is written for a book. In short, there are many factors that limit a story told virtually in a video game world vs one with almost limitless boundaries in text form.

We aren't comparing the literary work to TW3, we're comparing it to the previous Witcher games and other game writing work and, well, in both cases the game falls Zoltan's short.

 

[Tangsta]

Yeah, I've heard that one too. Witcher 2 had more detail in the politics and more accurate to Sapkowski's lore, right? That's fine and all, but as much as I enjoyed the game, I can't recall the details of the story for the life of me. That to me is inferior writing to W3, because I do remember the stories and characters in W3.

Phillip Strenger (bloody baron), Mislav the hunter, Olgierd von Everec, Regis, Detlaff, Priscilla, Yenefer, Eskel, Vesemir - so many great characters! They all stand out a lot more than any character than the previous two Witcher games. Why? Because CDPR have learnt to enhance their humanity (both the good and dark sides to human nature), making them far more relatable and memorable. Details are only important if it enriches the story and characters in significant ways. Radovid is far more interesting as a villainous psychopath than he is as a King and ruler of Redania, I don't care for his family background or his political status, but I do care about who he tortures and why he is torturing them, especially with how that relates to Geralt's story with Ciri. So yes, W2 has a more detailed plot, but it doesn't have the quality. I personally felt like the dialogue in W2 was subpar, like it was cut and paste straight from a book to the game, which just doesn't work or didn't fit. W3's dialogue and voice acting is immensely superior as conversations, despite being quite wordy, feel a lot more natural and better paced.

I'm not saying W3's writing is anywhere perfect (I'll be the first to admit it has plot issues), but to call it "childish" is grossly simplifying its issues and to overlook the remarkable achievement it is as a complete package. They've plenty of refinements to make, but CDPR are definitely heading in the right direction with W3.

 

[HarelMor]

Radovid is far more interesting as a villainous psychopath than he is as a King and ruler of Redania, I don't care for his family background or his political status, but I do care about who he tortures and why he is torturing them, especially with how that relates to Geralt's story with Ciri.

In my opinion radovid's character as portrayed in the witcher 3 is weaker then in the previews games, the witcher 1 gave hints to radovid's plotting, he seemed like a smart and dangerous king. In the witcher 2 the massacre that he created was scary, he seemed like a wolf in sheep's clothing, in the witcher 2 radovid was genius and insane, the player had the ability to see both. The witcher 3 show radovid as a military genius and insane, in the game all I've seen was the insanity. The mages seemed as not too clever too, at the Battle of Sodden Hill twenty two mages came victorious over about one hundred thousand Nilfgaardians, of which at least thirty thousand were either killed or wounded. The battle ended in a disgraceful defeat for Nilfgaard. In the witcher 3 mages like Philippa Eilhart, Fringilla Vigo and Síle de Tansarville cowered in fear from the mage hunters. Mages with the power to destroy this organization in seconds.

 

[Tangsta]

Radovid's portrayal in Witcher 2 was the weak portrayal for me. He had decent screen time but he seemed like just another King/political player to me, nothing at all that fascinated me, which goes to show how little care was taken to make him a major player in the story, I barely remember Radovid at all in W2. In W3, Radovid has less screen time but what little he had was used very efficiently, for I have come to fear him more than any other villain in the main game. He makes both Eredin and Emhyr look like polite gentlemen. Now that is what I call establishing presence!

 

[HarelMor]

I wanted to see his strategic genius, i wanted to see him create of a plan that will render the mages useless, a plan that will cause the downfall of nilfraaard.
In the witcher 2 summit talk radovid was able to dictate his terms to other kings, he destroyed the conclave and mascaraed every mage after he was able to gain their trust and the level headed king who ask the right questions.
In the witcher 3 radovid's screen time was good i will never forget the heartbeat of the chess pawn, but it only portrait his madness.

The witcher 3 have some week spots that could be addressed with some minor tweaks, but the witcher 3 is greater then the sum of its parts.

 

[ilayoeli]

Yeah, I've heard that one too. Witcher 2 had more detail in the politics and more accurate to Sapkowski's lore, right? That's fine and all, but as much as I enjoyed the game, I can't recall the details of the story for the life of me. That to me is inferior writing to W3, because I do remember the stories and characters in W3.

Phillip Strenger (bloody baron), Mislav the hunter, Olgierd von Everec, Regis, Detlaff, Priscilla, Yenefer, Eskel, Vesemir - so many great characters! They all stand out a lot more than any character than the previous two Witcher games. Why? Because CDPR have learnt to enhance their humanity (both the good and dark sides to human nature), making them far more relatable and memorable. Details are only important if it enriches the story and characters in significant ways. Radovid is far more interesting as a villainous psychopath than he is as a King and ruler of Redania, I don't care for his family background or his political status, but I do care about who he tortures and why he is torturing them, especially with how that relates to Geralt's story with Ciri. So yes, W2 has a more detailed plot, but it doesn't have the quality. I personally felt like the dialogue in W2 was subpar, like it was cut and paste straight from a book to the game, which just doesn't work or didn't fit. W3's dialogue and voice acting is immensely superior as conversations, despite being quite wordy, feel a lot more natural and better paced.

I'm not saying W3's writing is anywhere perfect (I'll be the first to admit it has plot issues), but to call it "childish" is grossly simplifying its issues and to overlook the remarkable achievement it is as a complete package. They've plenty of refinements to make, but CDPR are definitely heading in the right direction with W3.

I can't comment on this in any productive way expect saying that if you found the character of Radovid in TW3 but complete garbage then we just have a very different idea of the term "quality"

 

[jj284b]

I wanted to see his strategic genius, i wanted to see him talk and think of a plan that will render the mages useless, a plan that will cause the downfall of nilfraaard.
radovid's screen time was good will never forget the chess pawn heartbeat, but this only portrait his madness.

The witcher 3 have some week spots that could be addressed with some minor tweaks, but the witcher 3 is greater then the sum of its parts.

He was actually being played by Emhyr from the start... whole anti-sorceress policy, practically made Northern Kingdom weaker.. Mages stopped Nilfgaard invasion on the Sodden hill... that is why Emhyr used Letho to manipulate Lodge into killing kings... he killed two birds with one hit - removed Foltest who was a decent military commander, while Mages and Sorceresses lost their influence, therefore were no longer threat for Nilfgaard.. plus, in W3, he made deal with Yennefer, to provide shelter to Lodge - he did that not because Yennefer influenced him... NO, he did that to strip North of mages, so nobody could challenge Nilfgaard in the future, while those Sorceresses and Mages would be now vassals of Nilfgaard and grateful for their life....

He stole one of strongest weapon Northern Kingdom could have in fight against Nilfgaard, and he did it in a most clever way, so Northern Rulers (Kovir and Povis excluding) didnt even realized whats going on....

---------- Updated at 07:08 PM ----------

Yeah, I've heard that one too. Witcher 2 had more detail in the politics and more accurate to Sapkowski's lore, right? That's fine and all, but as much as I enjoyed the game, I can't recall the details of the story for the life of me. That to me is inferior writing to W3, because I do remember the stories and characters in W3.

Phillip Strenger (bloody baron), Mislav the hunter, Olgierd von Everec, Regis, Detlaff, Priscilla, Yenefer, Eskel, Vesemir - so many great characters! They all stand out a lot more than any character than the previous two Witcher games. Why? Because CDPR have learnt to enhance their humanity (both the good and dark sides to human nature), making them far more relatable and memorable. Details are only important if it enriches the story and characters in significant ways. Radovid is far more interesting as a villainous psychopath than he is as a King and ruler of Redania, I don't care for his family background or his political status, but I do care about who he tortures and why he is torturing them, especially with how that relates to Geralt's story with Ciri. So yes, W2 has a more detailed plot, but it doesn't have the quality. I personally felt like the dialogue in W2 was subpar, like it was cut and paste straight from a book to the game, which just doesn't work or didn't fit. W3's dialogue and voice acting is immensely superior as conversations, despite being quite wordy, feel a lot more natural and better paced.

I'm not saying W3's writing is anywhere perfect (I'll be the first to admit it has plot issues), but to call it "childish" is grossly simplifying its issues and to overlook the remarkable achievement it is as a complete package. They've plenty of refinements to make, but CDPR are definitely heading in the right direction with W3.

thats because story of Witcher 2 was not supposed to be that important in the end... even without Wicher 3, there was clearly Nilfgaardian invasion happening at the end, therefore that whole political squable they did, was totally unimportant, and had one single purpose - weaken Northern kingdoms so they will be easy prey for Nilfgaardian army... that is also why i think those who criticize W3 for the story that kinda ignores W2 political squable, just didnt understood it in term of bigger picture... i would compare it to a situation on political scene before WW2.. come pretty ridiculous things were considered important to politics in 1937-38, but war made all that total and utter nonsense...

 

[Tangsta]

I wanted to see his strategic genius

Well as you've kept pointing out, his genius was on display in W2, so you actually have seen it.

Radovid isn't a major character in Ciri and Geralt's story, therefore he was relegated to a background character in W3, in fact, we were lucky to get the scenes we did with him, I was only expecting him to be "mentioned" in W3, but he ended up almost stealing the show (but that might be just because of how pathetically the Wild Hunt had been treated in W3).

I can't comment on this in any productive way expect saying that if you found the character of Radovid in TW3 but complete garbage then we just have a very different idea of the term "quality"

Well, sure, that's your prerogative. But with numerous GOTY awards and a massive following, a lot of which are new to the franchise, your viewpoints on this matter would be in the minority, unfortunately.

 

[jj284b]

Well as you've kept pointing out, his genius was on display in W2, so you actually have seen it.

Radovid isn't a major character in Ciri and Geralt's story, therefore he was relegated to a background character in W3, in fact, we were lucky to get the scenes we did with him, I was only expecting him to be "mentioned" in W3, but he ended up almost stealing the show (but that might be just because of how pathetically the Wild Hunt had been treated in W3).

Wild Hunt/ Aen Elle were just not explained in more detail... thats the main issue. there is a lot of background info about whats happening and why they are after Ciri (both Avallach and Eredin) but game never actually links these up for players, but leaves it for speculation. Eredins intentions are clear, so are Avallach's.. but a lot of players didnt understood it completely, because they could easily missed some books and other evidence planed in the game... it was way too obscure...

I think its due to CDPR switched focus.. they wanted to tell the story from Geralts perspective, so he only knows what he can find himself, or what somebody tells him. Thats why we didnt see Ciri's struggle against the White Frost, we dont know what exactly she did.. (and i dont believe she "destroyed it", personally i think she just helped Avallach to relocate to a different world through huge portal, as Tir na Lia was way past saving..)

 

[Tangsta]

I want more than just their intentions, that was pretty well established from the get go, and frankly not that interesting to me. I wanted to understand Eredin as a person/character, what makes him tick, his management style in leading the Wild Hunt etc,. I wanted to know more about the other Wild Hunt members, their background stories, what they think of their leader and why they follow him so loyally. I wanted to know all of this in relation to Geralt and Ciri, because this is the primary focus for W3.

As far as I'm concerned, lack of Wild Hunt character development is the only major flaw with the writing, everything else is mostly dragged out nitpicks.

 

[jj284b]

I want more than just their intentions, that was pretty well established from the get go, and frankly not that interesting to me. I wanted to [/understand/] Eredin as a person/character, what makes him tick, his management style in leading the Wild Hunt etc,. I wanted to know more about the other Wild Hunt members, their background stories, what they think of their leader and why they follow him so loyally. I wanted to know all of this in relation to Geralt and Ciri, because this is the primary focus for W3.

As far as I'm concerned, lack of Wild Hunt character development is the only major flaw with the writing, everything else is mostly dragged out nitpicks.

But look at it from Geralt's perspective - it is his story.. it would make no sense at all if he was interested in actual intentions of a person who wants to kidnap and possibly kill his daughter (they only need her dna)... Avallach's approach was opposite, as he wanted to ask Ciri to help, consciously, without pressuring her or using her...

It all makes more sense if you also read the Sapkowski novels.. both Eredin and Avallach are in there...

 

[Tangsta]

It would make sense, because Geralt knows there is no such thing as pure 'evil' or pure 'good' in this world. This is why we are given options during quests, to allow Geralt to either be ignorant and kill first or to use his head and explore the story more to find out the 'real' truth. W3 trivialised the Wild Hunt characters to predictable 2D villains. But almost every other character gets explored properly, go figure!

 

[jj284b]

It would make sense, because Geralt knows there is no such thing as pure 'evil' or pure 'good' in this world. This is why we are given options during quests, to allow Geralt to either be ignorant and kill first or to use his head and explore the story more to find out the 'real' truth. W3 trivialised the Wild Hunt characters to predictable 2D villains. But almost every other character gets explored properly, go figure!

yes, but that would require Eredin to stop chasing against Ciri, and actually talk.. yet, even then, i really doubt his plan to invade with whole Aen Elle Army into their world, subjugating and enslaving all humans (as they did countless times before to other worlds inhabited by humans btw..) would be something Geralt would consider open for discussion ... Eredin was never clever.. he was soldier, and got outsmarted by 16.years old Ciri (and defeated in combat even..)

actually, there is one thing CDPR kinda skipped... there is not a single mention what happened to Unicorns who were at war with Aen Elle on Tir na Lia... but i guess they considered that a bit goofy for the game..