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

[Sephira]

Indeed there are no complaints there because the representation was made in mature way. In TW3 sexual encounters were made for people who giggle when they hear the word 'sex'.

What. Before, it was not sexually mature because there are not enough sex scenes, and now it's because they aren't well represented (?) I fail to see where this leads. If you want that anyway, mods are at your service, you can easily see an exploit.

What lovers? Are you sure you paid attention to dialogues? They were not his lovers at all, he just getting from them either help or information trying to charm them and that's it.

Very sure. One of them makes even a reference to 50 shades of Grey in his diary so...

Not 'just because'. My list of reasons why is pretty long, you're trying to blow one point out on dozen out of proportion. It's not mature game because of ALL those reasons, not because if just this one.

I am not trying to blow anything out of nothing. Because we were talking about those mentioned mature sex themes. What I didn't like, and on what I agreed about, I explained in my first post. I am starting to think you don't even pay attention on what I write, thing I do with your posts. So it's better to stop it here, for both. Peace.

 

[Rawls]

I saw that in the game. And how does it make Eredin a deep character?

I didn't say he was a deep character. I was arguing that your claim that he was portrayed as "evil for the sake of evil" was factually incorrect. He has motivations that are explicitly stated, but his motivations are irrelevant to the main characters of the game because of what he wants to do.

I agree with those who believe that Eredin could have been portrayed better. However, making him more complex is a tricky thing to do within the context of TW3 story since the point of view characters don't have a lot to talk about with him. It's more of a fight or flight situation. I am glad they did not opt to treat him like DA:I did with Corephius where he decides to chat with the Inquisitor instead of just killing him when he had the chance at their first meeting.

As I stated before (most thoroughly here http://forums.cdprojektred.com/thre...tures-Thread?p=1771788&viewfull=1#post1771788), the only way that really makes sense to get a deeper look at Eredin is in a flashback mission through Ciri's eyes so that it is in a time where he would sit and talk with a POV character. They chose not to get bogged down in all that for whatever reason - it could be pacing, technical difficulties, legal issues, or any number of other reasons. I can respect that. It isn't really necessary to understand the story they wanted to tell anyways ... but it would have been awesome to see. I don't think that design decision makes the game "immature."

 

[Andreson]

The first thread in the OP was well written, albeit a little overblown. The criticism was fair, harsh sometimes too picky but very accurate and I hope devs read this.

What I do not agree with:

The game is just as mature in the evil vs good department, with exceptions in different acts:
- Witcher 1 had the problem in Act 1 with the village in Outskirts Vizima being full of douches and the witch being the good person.
- The obvious example that neutrality is kinda, somewher the better choice than siding with Order or Scoia'Tael in Witcher 1. Despite the fact that the Order choice leads to a pleasant encounter with Sigfried.

Thing is that in other regards such as story wise, looks like the game was indeed cut and rushed for release.

Can't write a lot now, but bottom line - if CD Projekt doesn't make an Enhanced Edition ( I don't believe they can't hire people or don't have money at this peak of popularity) then I won't buy any of the DLC's or future games. This trilogy is exactly that. A trilogy, not a standalone Witcher 3 game with no connection to the previous ones. A free update with an EE is in order to satisfy those who are disappointed.
I'm not asking to bring everything from Witcher 1 and 2 back, but Witcher 3 is still far from perfect, despite side quests being brilliant. The main story was just... not doing justice to the great legacy left by Sapkowski.
Right now just better to read Sezon Burj and call it a day.

Thanks for still letting constructive criticism here.

---------- Updated at 04:15 PM ----------

I didn't say he was a deep character. I was arguing that your claim that he was portrayed as "evil for the sake of evil" was factually incorrect. He has motivations that are explicitly stated, but his motivations are irrelevant to the main characters of the game because of what he wants to do.

I agree with those who believe that Eredin could have been portrayed better. However, making him more complex is a tricky thing to do within the context of TW3 story since the point of view characters don't have a lot to talk about with him. It's more of a fight or flight situation. I am glad they did not opt to treat him like DA:I did with Corephius where he decides to chat with the Inquisitor instead of just killing him when he had the chance at their first meeting.

As I stated before (most thoroughly here http://forums.cdprojektred.com/thre...tures-Thread?p=1771788&viewfull=1#post1771788), the only way that really makes sense to get a deeper look at Eredin is in a flashback mission through Ciri's eyes so that it is in a time where he would sit and talk with a POV character. They chose not to get bogged down in all that for whatever reason - it could be pacing, technical difficulties, legal issues, or any number of other reasons. I can respect that. It isn't really necessary to understand the story they wanted to tell anyways ... but it would have been awesome to see. I don't think that design decision makes the game "immature."

Despite not being in mood for talk I will debate.

Eredin is a rough edge in the end of the story because he is totally not the complex, real king of the Elves we saw in the Books who preceeded him, who talked with Ciri, who had Machiavellian methods but also something deeper inside.
Eredin is just a downgrade of all that. But... just a scene with explaining the connection of the books with the game, some 2D flashback of the story Eredin, Ciri and Geralt had (esp. after Geralt died) would clear a lot of mud.
Think about how confusing it is for those who are in their first encounter with the Witcher saga. This is an urgent red flag that needs fixing.

Totally agreed with the opinion you gave in the link in regard to the Lady of the Lake sequence and making it in Witcher 3 somehow.
Once more - a simplistic 2D narration like in Witcher 1 would be sufficient! No need to cramp millions of dollars on story leaks. It's 2016 after all.

 

[Rawls]

Eredin is a rough edge in the end of the story because he is totally not the complex, real king of the Elves we saw in the Books who preceeded him, who talked with Ciri, who had Machiavellian methods but also something deeper inside.
Eredin is just a downgrade of all that. But... just a scene with explaining the connection of the books with the game, some 2D flashback of the story Eredin, Ciri and Geralt had (esp. after Geralt died) would clear a lot of mud.
Think about how confusing it is for those who are in their first encounter with the Witcher saga. This is an urgent red flag that needs fixing.

I agree. Did you see my post I linked above? I think it would have done a great deal to clear things up. They didn't do that. C'est la vie. It's still literally my favorite open world video game story I've ever encountered. So while imperfect, I can't really complain to much.

 

[Andreson]

I agree. Did you see my post I linked above? I think it would have done a great deal to clear things up. They didn't do that. C'est la vie. It's still literally my favorite open world video game story I've ever encountered. So while imperfect, I can't really complain to much.

I'm on the naive plain of dreaming that they are not head over heels in popularity and still acknowledge how Witcher 3 could be so much more complete with mere clarifications of the main story. As you suggested, the final book in the saga contains some pretty crucial things that doesn't tie well into Witcher 3.
Also, here's hoping that with some updates the game will be at least somewhat as moddable as Skyrim (Witcher 2's RedKit never saw the light of day).

Probably will get the DLC's in the following years after a rig upgrade but, I would have more incentive if the base game was better frankly.

 

[jj284b]

I posted the exact quote a few pages back. Here it is again:



Here's a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyEVBGW0Y40

The specific quote starts around 1:45 into the clip.

yep, only if people who complain about it, were actually paying more attention to details in the game itself... its all there guys... the fact you did not see it, doesnt make it CDPR's fault..

---------- Updated at 04:29 PM ----------

Despite not being in mood for talk I will debate.

Eredin is a rough edge in the end of the story because he is totally not the complex, real king of the Elves we saw in the Books who preceeded him, who talked with Ciri, who had Machiavellian methods but also something deeper inside.
Eredin is just a downgrade of all that. But... just a scene with explaining the connection of the books with the game, some 2D flashback of the story Eredin, Ciri and Geralt had (esp. after Geralt died) would clear a lot of mud.
Think about how confusing it is for those who are in their first encounter with the Witcher saga. This is an urgent red flag that needs fixing.

Totally agreed with the opinion you gave in the link in regard to the Lady of the Lake sequence and making it in Witcher 3 somehow.
Once more - a simplistic 2D narration like in Witcher 1 would be sufficient! No need to cramp millions of dollars on story leaks. It's 2016 after all.

since when was Eredin machiavelistic king of elves??? Auberon was the king of Aen Elle elves, Eredin was nothing but a commander of his personal guard...

 

[Andreson]

yep, only if people who complain about it, were actually paying more attention to details in the game itself... its all there guys... the fact you did not see it, doesnt make it CDPR's fault..

---------- Updated at 04:29 PM ----------




since when was Eredin machiavelistic king of elves??? Auberon was the king of Aen Elle elves, Eredin was nothing but a commander of his personal guard...

Yes, and killed by Eredin, who subsequently became king and took his place (a much more primitive evil character than Auberon from the books). That's how I saw it.

Edit: Phrased it incorrectly.
Auberon is the machiavellian complex character
Eredin is the one-sided primitive doctor evil.

 

[jj284b]

Yes, and killed by Eredin, who subsequently became king and took his place (a much more primitive evil character than Auberon from the books). That's how I saw it.

sorry, misunderstood you originally, now i see what you meant

 

[Maerd]

- Witcher 1 had the problem in Act 1 with the village in Outskirts Vizima being full of douches and the witch being the good person.

Abigail was a lesser evil, she's not that good as you may think. She definitely summoned the Beast when some villagers killed her puppy. The Beast was killing all people regardless of their guilt. There's nothing good in it. Also, she helped the merchant to kill his brother, therefore, she was an accomplice. And as a cherry on the cake, she was a priestess of Lionheaded Spider cult .

- The obvious example that neutrality is kinda, somewher the better choice than siding with Order or Scoia'Tael in Witcher 1. Despite the fact that the Order choice leads to a pleasant encounter with Sigfried.

Neutrality is not a better choice. It's just a choice. It has its advantages and disadvantages, which I really liked.

Right now just better to read Sezon Burj and call it a day.

:like:

---------- Updated at 02:03 AM ----------

I agree with those who believe that Eredin could have been portrayed better. However, making him more complex is a tricky thing to do within the context of TW3 story since the point of view characters don't have a lot to talk about with him. It's more of a fight or flight situation. I am glad they did not opt to treat him like DA:I did with Corephius where he decides to chat with the Inquisitor instead of just killing him when he had the chance at their first meeting.

As I stated before (most thoroughly here http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threa...=1#post1771788), the only way that really makes sense to get a deeper look at Eredin is in a flashback mission through Ciri's eyes so that it is in a time where he would sit and talk with a POV character. They chose not to get bogged down in all that for whatever reason - it could be pacing, technical difficulties, legal issues, or any number of other reasons. I can respect that. It isn't really necessary to understand the story they wanted to tell anyways ... but it would have been awesome to see. I don't think that design decision makes the game "immature."

There's always possible to make a situation where you could talk with Eredin. For example, Geralt could have ran into him in Tir Na Lia, where he was not in the position to kill him and neither Eredin due to the presence of Avallac'h. But even if that was out of question it could have been done by cut scenes where Ereding is discussing his plans with his generals, where no Geralt or Ciri is present.

---------- Updated at 02:47 AM ----------

What. Before, it was not sexually mature because there are not enough sex scenes, and now it's because they aren't well represented (?) I fail to see where this leads. If you want that anyway, mods are at your service, you can easily see an exploit.

You are imagining too much. I've always have insisted on quality and only quality. Suddenly reducing Geralt's promiscuity in combination with other factors shows that content is not for mature audience. Quantity that is just right makes quality. When you eat you want to eat enough to satisfy yourself but you also don't want of overeat till the point you start to feel uneasy or vomiting, right? Here's the same thing. In TW2 all sexual encounters made sense, the situations depicted were believable and smoothly intervened within the story.

Very sure. One of them makes even a reference to 50 shades of Grey in his diary so...

That reference doesn't imply the they were lovers, Dandelion was just approaching them by flirting. All the women explicitly said the he disappeared as soon as he got what he wanted from them (items or information). When he needs the loan he also explicitly says he didn't have sex with that woman. Dandelion character was whitewashed, no doubt about that.

I am not trying to blow anything out of nothing. Because we were talking about those mentioned mature sex themes.

You are, you are. Quoting you: "you force Geralt's promiscuity because he is sterile sooo he surely HAVE TO BE a sex machine with every female character he meets."
Geralt should have been given an option to have reasonable amount of side sex encounters, which should have been well-written. It's up to the player to roleplay whatever they feel is right. If you think Geralt should be a girl's dream man, then why not, shape him in such character in your playthrough, just don't assume that all other people ought to share your vision.

 

[Sephira]

You are imagining too much. I've always have insisted on quality and only quality. Suddenly reducing Geralt's promiscuity in combination with other factors shows that content is not for mature audience. Quantity that is just right makes quality. When you eat you want to eat enough to satisfy yourself but you also don't want of overeat till the point you start to feel uneasy or vomiting, right? Here's the same thing. In TW2 all sexual encounters made sense, the situations depicted were believable and smoothly intervened within the story.

Jee again. See below.

You are, you are. Quoting you: "you force Geralt's promiscuity because he is sterile sooo he surely HAVE TO BE a sex machine with every female character he meets."
Geralt should have been given an option to have reasonable amount of side sex encounters, which should have been well-written. It's up to the player to roleplay whatever they feel is right.

He has that option, it's you who hadn't satisfaction on that. If you say you want "quantity that is just right makes quality" but you're ok with W2 and not with W3, then yes you're forcing a character, even out of that role-playing.

And don't start about "I mean quality" because ha-ha not even passing in your mind that you are repeating the same things about quality and quantity depending on the post, but when confronted about that you say you talk only about quality. Your problems with sex scenes in W3 are only about "I haven't seen enought tits to my taste", not quantity of occasions. That's it. Because you cannot really speak about quantity, it's the same you find in W2. Quality depends on your taste.

If you think Geralt should be a girl's dream man, then why not, shape him in such character in your playthrough, just don't assume that all other people ought to share your vision.

:rofl:

Lol, going again on personal. Yes, because it's me who is forcing some kind of vision based on some kind of male/female strategy that little forums doc Freud developed. As if there isn't the option to do that in the game. Melitele's sake I am talking about role playing since the beginning. It's a role-playing. And if payed attention to my previous posts you will find

It's something a player can do, that's all. Geralt can be both, but saying he is 100% into promiscuity and not having the slightest idea it can diverge from this point, it's like not considering the original character at all

Anyway, W3 has enough sex encounters to satisfy this aspect, so I can't really see where your problem is. Muh more sex scenes W2 had even less of that, but I cannot find any complains on that.

If you're going to quote that "100% promiscuity" again go check others posts I wrote to see what I mean. Do that for one time. If you force more quantity if W2 was enough for you, yes you're forcing the character in W3 as well. (oh no, I said that! Damn...)

You're pushing the discussion too far in "you female and me male" and first, while if I talk about "quantity" you reply saying you mean quality because there were less scenes in W2 but they were satisying and had sense, while then if I mention quality you again go with quantity. You to make your mind up.

I didn't like "quality" of sex scenes in W3 > fair enough. Movements are all the same.
I didn't like quantity of sex scenes because Geralt had to have the option of reasonable sex encounters but W2 same quantity scenes and had sense so no complaining about that > what?

Quantity is just right for you then, quality is not. It's that simple. You also find more sense in how those scenes in W2 are triggered, fair enough about that as well. I haven't never complained about it.

I repeat, go to Nexus Mods and find those nice mods you'll like. You'll have more tits to watch during the encounters, maybe that will enhance quality content.

Just drop the strategies theme, drop the edgy theme, it's ridicolous how far this is going on for not having payed attention and pushing some kind of Polygon agenda quality posts.

In conclusion, again I repeat: quantity is just right for you then, quality is not. No need to have this circling argument. No need to say "muh immature sexual audience, you're all a bunch of teens" or going personal.

 

[Rawls]

There's always possible to make a situation where you could talk with Eredin. For example, Geralt could have ran into him in Tir Na Lia, where he was not in the position to kill him and neither Eredin due to the presence of Avallac'h.

This seems implausible to me. The presence of Avallac'h would not have prevented Eredin from attacking. Eredin has already cursed Avallac'h and fought him in TW3. His presence would not stay Eredin's hand. Geralt and Avallac'h would be under threat of fighting the entire force of the Anne Elle by themselves. They would run. It's the only logical conclusion. There would be no conversation.

But even if that was out of question it could have been done by cut scenes where Ereding is discussing his plans with his generals, where no Geralt or Ciri is present.

IMO this is not good story telling and is worse than the way the story is now. TW3 is told through the eyes of Geralt and Ciri. Why tell the players something that the protagonists don't see and won't know. It's not a good narrative device, and is unnecessary. Eredin discussing his plans with his generals wont make him a deeper character, we already perceive him as the King of the Anne Elle. To make him a deeper character you would need to see him in a situation where you can relate to the struggle he is facing. Ordering troops around to abduct Ciri isn't going to do that. You would need go back to before his goal was to take her. Which means a flashback is the best option.

 

[Maerd]

This seems implausible to me. The presence of Avallac'h would not have prevented Eredin from attacking. Eredin has already cursed Avallac'h and fought him in TW3. His presence would not stay Eredin's hand. Geralt and Avallac'h would be under threat of fighting the entire force of the Anne Elle by themselves. They would run. It's the only logical conclusion. There would be no conversation.

It is quite plausible. Avallac'h can put some magic barrier through which they could have had a talk and then teleported away before Eredin could break it. There're other ways, need just some creativity on the writing team.

IMO this is not good story telling and is worse than the way the story is now. TW3 is told through the eyes of Geralt and Ciri. Why tell the players something that the protagonists don't see and won't know.

Well, in TW2 there was a section from the eyes of king Henselt or prince Stennis, if I'm not mistaken. That was one of my favorite sections actually. So, it works.

 

[Rawls]

It is quite plausible. Avallac'h can put some magic barrier through which they could have had a talk and then teleported away before Eredin could break it. There're other ways, need just some creativity on the writing team.

I will agree to disagree with you about the quality and practicality of such a scene.

Well, in TW2 there was a section from the eyes of king Henselt or prince Stennis, if I'm not mistaken. That was one of my favorite sections actually. So, it works.

Oh they definitely did this in TW2. They also had the opening scene with Letho and the Letho / Iorveth conversation after La Vallette Palace. I'm personally glad they got away from this. It breaks up the story. They could have done the Henselt / Stennis section from Geralt's point of view quite easily. But really this is all a matter of preference. I prefer stories that keep within limited points of view. It adds to the sense of limited information and increases narrative immersion. If you like it the other way in order to get a more complete picture of what is going on, I do not hold that opinion against you.

 

[jj284b]

It is quite plausible. Avallac'h can put some magic barrier through which they could have had a talk and then teleported away before Eredin could break it. There're other ways, need just some creativity on the writing team.

Avallach could not protect himself when meeting Eredin at Skellige... kinda really doubt he would be able to protect himself and Geralt in Tir na Lia, with all his Navigators around...

 

[Sephira]

Having a Ciri flashback straight from the books, basically chapter 5 of Lady of the Lake, could have helped. I mean all the Ciri parts, before meeting Geralt are flashbacks, here to help the players who don't know Ciri to have a snippet of her behaviour and about how she acts.

 

[Maerd]

Having a Ciri flashback straight from the books, basically chapter 5 of Lady of the Lake, could have helped. I mean all the Ciri parts, before meeting Geralt are flashbacks, here to help the players who don't know Ciri to have a snippet of her behaviour and about how she acts.

That would have been a sexual content involving attempted rape of a minor. And you complained that asking for adding regular sexual encounters for Geralt is somehow not appropriate. hmm... I see where your priorities are. lol

---------- Updated at 07:42 PM ----------

Avallach could not protect himself when meeting Eredin at Skellige... kinda really doubt he would be able to protect himself and Geralt in Tir na Lia, with all his Navigators around...

Nobody knows what happened in Skellige besides some fighting. You can always make some circumstances, which will make sense. If Eredin will be without his armor (because he's at home) it would be too risky to attack Geralt, for instance. And Geralt won't be able to reach Eredin too because Eredin will be staying on the balcony, out of reach. There're million circumstances you can put in that make sense.

 

[jj284b]

so, imagine this... a man that wants to kidnap your daughter.. you meet him somewhere.. and you would talk to him instead of beating the crap out of him???? do you really want to suggest it would be normal reaction to discuss his motives with him???

if there were no guards, Geralt would say "f**k, i'm gonna kill you right now" instead of conversing... problem solved...

 

[Maerd]

so, imagine this... a man that wants to kidnap your daughter.. you meet him somewhere.. and you would talk to him instead of beating the crap out of him? do you really want to suggest it would be normal reaction to discuss his motives with him

Understanding motives is not obligatory by methodical explanation of sombody's mind. You could understand motives by carefully thought out exchange of threats.

 

[jj284b]

Understanding motives is not obligatory by methodical explanation of sombody's mind. You could understand motives by carefully thought out exchange of threats.

sorry, but if there was a way, how to get to Eredin without his guards... they would do that and killed him, like they killed Imlerith... no discusions, no explanations....


your whole premise is faulty.. you dont dispute reasons of the murderer who treathens your loved ones.. you dispose of the threat.. thats what is rational behavior..

and even Eredin would be more interested in capturing both Geralt and Avallach, than to dispute with them... they would be perfect bait to get Ciri....

 

[Maerd]

sorry, but if there was a way, how to get to Eredin without his guards... they would do that and killed him, like they killed Imlerith... no discusions, no explanations....

Do you understand the difference between planned attack and accidental encounter?