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

+
I can't give you exacly same situation, is just impossible, I can ony show you something simmilar...

Radovid goes trough the mountains in the middle of winter then conquers these hardened northern people used to cold, kills their king, in less than three months, and they agree to fight and die for his northern empire, without fuss, without rebellions. While being under the threat of invasion of a much much larger empire. Not believable. Bad logic, bad world-building.

You mean clouthing and accents means different culture?

Yes they were portrayed as very different. Watch the video Oodrin linked and you will see the designers intentions with them.

Yep, and all events in TW1 and 2 are small size compared to TW3

How small was the battle of Vergen really if two different kingdoms and armies were involved in it. It was enough to end Henselt which is about half of Radovids territory in the next game. Scoiatel were a factor in the last games, were a plot point and a factor in the books. They should have gotten a few quests in this game, and if that wasn't achievable than at least some dozens of lines of dialogue and exposition
 
Last edited:

Guest 3847602

Guest
Radovid goes trough the mountains in the middle of winter then conquers these hardened northern people used to cold, kills their king, in less than three months, and they agree to fight and die for his northern empire, without fuss, without rebellions. While being under the threat of invasion of a much much larger empire. Not believable. Bad logic, bad world-building.

Funniest thing is - there wasn't even a reason to do it. Kaedwen wasn't some neutral country, so by conquering it Radovid somehow gained an army which previously sit idly by. Henselt was kinda asshole, but certainly wasn't inept military leader.
Kaedweni were already fighting a common enemy. Radovid attacked them, both armies must have suffered some losses, and the end result was - even fewer men could face the numerically superior invaders than before the R-K war.
 
Easy: because they said that the narrative was going to be mature

I don't want to dwelve if Witcher 3 is mature or not, because concept of maturity shouldn't be measured by how many women Geralt can sleep with etc. but many themes were simplified. Mage hunt in Loc Muinne was more brutal and fitting than most of what we have in Witcher 3, politics are dumbed down, and so on.
While i love this game the further it goes after Novigrad the less gritty it becomes. Sure, there are small things here and there and while I really like Novigrad, and Skellige arcs something is missing.


Sorry for editing so many times, but it seems that site is having some problems?
 
Last edited:
Mage hunt in Loc Muinne was more brutal and fitting than most of what we have in Witcher 3, politics are dumbed down, and so on.

I was precisely thinking about this. I agree with you on the sex thing but I had prefer that the scenes were developed, at least, with the same explicity of TW2

---------- Updated at 07:40 PM ----------

While i love this game the further it goes after Novigrad the less gritty it becomes. Sure, there are small things here and there and while I really like Novigrad, and Skellige arcs something is missing.

Well, I cannot say that I love this game (too many things were promised, few has been delivered exactly as they said) but I agree with you that the game begins to fall apart in act 2 an so on
 
Radovid goes trough the mountains in the middle of winter then conquers these hardened northern people used to cold, kills their king, in less than three months, and they agree to fight and die for his northern empire, without fuss, without rebellions. Not believable. Bad logic, bad world-building.

Hitler didn't die in bomb attack, cause table...
Hitler attack Poland and France and England soldiers don't attack but dropping leaflets on Germany cities. Hitler have less than half forces in the west than France and England.
Next he grab France cause they think The Maginot line protect them.
Before war he build army but treaties did not allow him to do this.
When Italy want capitulate and go to side of Allies, he send his army and grab more than half country and army (and it's when in east his army fall back and loses almost all battles)...

It's unlogicial and bad writting, someone favors him...


Radovid army do the same what do Hitler, in Ardennes, when he win with France. As I said if Radovid have support of the Kaedwen nobility, no one can forbid him this. And why Kaedven should rebel against him in middle of war against Nilfgaard? Who know whats happened few years after?


When Aleksander grab Phoenicia and Egypt, Phoenician ships go to his side and help him to grab biggest city in their country. In this logic it's more stupid than Kaedwenian helping Radovid to win war against Nilfgaard.

Our history is full of "stupid" situations, where few men (Officers, politicians, etc.), change world cause they think they decisions are good (Roche eg. he see in Nilfgaard hope to rebuild Temeria, similar was in TW2 with Redania).

Yes they were portrayed as very different. Watch the video Oodrin linked and you will see the designers intentions with them.


again very different it's not mean different culture. I don't need watch Dev Diary i speak what I saw in books and games, and there they are similar to Temeria and Redania, but more predatory. As I said, they even with Roche want to kill his king...


How small was the battle of Vergen really if two different kingdoms and armies were involved in it. It was enough to end Henselt which is about half of Radovids territory in the next game. Scoiatel were a factor in the last games, were a plot point and a factor in the books. They should have gotten a few quests in this game, and if that wasn't achievable than at least some dozens of lines of dialo

And Henselt don't get full army on this battle. He have only 3000 of men, and many of them just killed cause they conspired against him.
And Aedirn was protect by militia, cause Stenis don't have army...
And finally if they win with them, than Redania army (probably biggest in the North) should have no problems...

And they have few (two?) quests... and hard be more if they are no side in this conflict.
 
I was precisely thinking about this. I agree with you on the sex thing but I had prefer that the scenes were developed, at least, with the same explicity of TW2

Can't disagree there. While I don't particularly care for sex scenes why change something that was already well recieved?


Well, I cannot say that I love this game (too many things were promised, few has been delivered exactly as they said) but I agree with you that the game begins to fall apart in act 2 an so on

I don't know if it's true that most writers from W1 and W2 were busy with Cyberpunk but it's strange decision to dismiss them in most important game for CDPR.

By the way I fully agree: Bring back Iorweth!!. Damn, I miss this guy. Would be fun to have him at Kaer Morhen.
 
Last edited:
Radovid army do the same what do Hitler, in Ardennes, when he win with France.

France were not his natural ally. The French didn't all join him and he didn't really have any bigger armies. He had to station soldiers everywhere to keep rebellions down, all he could do was steal their art, money , gold etc. This conversation is really getting silly

And really obstuse. Scoi'atel made key differences. You're saying they can't make a difference because the armies are bigger but you're ignoring there are several different fronts, they can make a big difference.

They can't make a differnece, yet Geralt a single low power level outcast can basically decide the fate of the entire continent just by turning on his witcher senses or something.

---------- Updated at 08:11 PM ----------

Funniest thing is - there wasn't even a reason to do it. Kaedwen wasn't some neutral country, so by conquering it Radovid somehow gained an army which previously sit idly by. Henselt was kinda asshole, but certainly wasn't inept military leader.
Kaedweni were already fighting a common enemy. Radovid attacked them, both armies must have suffered some losses, and the end result was - even fewer men could face the numerically superior invaders than before the R-K war.

Yes, this also. I can think of several reasons why they did it but all of them are dumb. They either just wanted a simplified political map where it's just Radovid vs Emhyr (although neither character really has enough screentime to be developed or make you care). Or they wanted to portray Radovid as this tactical genius he made a tactical genius move (which was really dumb move)
 
France were not his natural ally. The French didn't all join him and he didn't really have any bigger armies. He had to station soldiers everywhere to keep rebellions down, all he could do was steal their art, money , gold etc. This conversation is really getting silly
But Italy was... and you ignored that. As I said, it's impossible to find exactly the same situation, Napoleon is bad cause something (where his army grown with all conquests), Hitler is bad, Stalin too... yep it's silly... cause I do not convince you, cause it's not exactly like in game, even in all this events we clearly see similar situations (like capitulation and change side, conquests in few months or go through mountains like Hannibal).
And really obstuse. Scoi'atel made key differences. You're saying they can't make a difference because the armies are bigger but you're ignoring there are several different fronts, they can make a big difference.
<br><br>And you ignore that, they don't fight on this fronts, cause they don't have allies... <br>
 
But Italy was... and you ignored that.

Italy? Look I'm not gonna pretend to be a WW2 expert, but didn't Hitler save Mussolini from imprisonment? You think that might have something to do with it? It's not at all like the. Maybe if Kaedwen was invaded by Nilfgaard but then Radovid saved Henselt, then it's similar situation where the Kaedweni are motivated to fight allied with Redenia against common enemy and invader.

Here Radovid was not only the invader but a backstaber, which is worse. There is no logic where his armies suddenly grew stronger by invading and backstabbing Kaedwen. Not in that short amount of time. Just like there's no logic with Radovid invading a hardened northern people in the middle of winter, by crossing mountain passes.
 
Last edited:
With all due respect, it's not a paradox. If just someone trying to justify one of the many things that TW3 didn't do well just because they still want to believe in them. It's a respectful position, but I can't share it
I understand. :yes
 
read this entire thread and it's pretty good, well I'm glad it exists even though i don't agree with OP on half the stuff. But in story/script/dialogue department this was definitely weakest in tne series, ranged from good to mostly mediocre to bad, thought that since release and I didn't get the praise it got. It deserves praise in some other areas, but not that.

you expect this from video games but i was so excited about this game I and decided it was my favorite game before it was out lol. Witcher but with huge budget - what Witcher 1 was missing- and long development cycle - what Witcher 2 was missing- , what can go wrong...

first I found excuses that it's the open world that limited the story, but I thought the outline of the story was pretty good and it had a lot of potential, but they failed to realize that potential and what I got was very disapointing game.
 
The only real evil the witcher universe ever had is Vilgefortz
And even him could be considered to have purpose. (the purpose of ultimate power and shits n giggles^^)
And maybe we could mention Leo Bonhart in the same categoryfor being such a sick fuck^^


OFC Gaunter O'Dimm^^. But technicaly he's dependent on the people's own hubris so I'd even argue he's not evil but apropriate ahah

But Hey

That is why it's such a MATURE and great universe in books and in game.
People are not evil, they have purpose, agendas, they change their mind and can forgive or forget.
Relationships are realistic and not idealized or turned into quests (looking at you Bioware).

And therefore it's mature and realistic

Let's look at some of the "evils" available:

Radovid is an ass that's got serious daddy issues and a VERY big bone to pick with the lodge and the other northern kings for humiliating him and his dead dad during the last war. And most notably he has a bone to pick with Phillipa for messing with his ascent to power.
He's a madman but also a genius strategist (years of vengeance planning make you that I guess^^)

It is not the obvious choice to kill him in the witcher 3 as it is mentioned in the game several times that he is actually winning the war.

So according to you OP it's obvious to kill the North's best hope at winning a full war just because he's an ass and could be mean to Triss & friends? (the biggest traitor the lore has ever seen btw). NOPE. He's a mad king on the rise with an insatiable lust to prove to himself that he's better than his dad and everyone else.

He SEEMED more "reasonable" in the TW2 but i'd put that on the fact that he wasn't in power yet so unable to go "full retard" on his little inquisition. That doesn't mean that it wasn't already in the works!^^ Great character still

Dijkstra? The guy who DID save the entire Northen kingdoms during the last war by negotiating the money from Kovir to pay for all those mercenaries that served at Brenna (someone had to fund this eh!)? Only to end up betrayed by his partner and lover (at the time at least) Philippa forcing him into hidding and becoming such a lowclass criminal? NOPE. He's a diehard patriot whose out for revenge. 100% motivated

Philippa? Surely after the last sentences she's a giant bitch right? Nope. Her purpose is to have magic rule the world and more specifically sorceress magic (magical feminists ftw^^). So yeah her methods are shit. But then again her purpose is clear.

Then who do we have; Eredin? The guy trying to save his entire RACE from extinction? Yeah right. OFC he's a huge monster his entire ppl is counting on him^^ The only reason yennefer + geralt survived their time with the hunt was ONLY because he tried to get to Ciri thorught them. The end. The Hunt is not evil, the hunt is just 200% extremist^^

Emhyr trying to satisfy his empire's guilds (the true power in Nilfgaard) who claim he needs his true heir to save his throne all while avoiding assassination attempts by said guilds? Nope again. I'd be in his shoes? You're all dead eaten by nekkers!^^

We could go on for pages.


Bottom line is:

There is no real evil in the game, only strong characters with deep agendas colliding. And Geralt (just like in the books) is forced to navigate all those mixed spheres just to get his one desire: Ciri. And as the player it's up to you to pick choices depending on how you like the npc or how you think Geralt would have acted.

Even if the game had to dumb down some of the "mature" content (thinking about those sweet sweet Belleteyn semi orgies^^) to get access to our homes it didn't sacrifice its soul.
The ambivalence is here.
The adult themes are here. Violence. hardship. discrimination. Sexism & Cie
Every character is justified. Liking them or not is up to you and 100% your freedom.
But there is no "forced" choice for quests. Only what you feel is right.



And that is why this is prob the best game I ever played,
And that is why I can never thank CDPR enough for giving to my favorite fantasy series the best third game it could hope for.





There is only ONE thing wrong with the witcher 3 and that's you don't get to see Yarpen or Borsh or any dragon again : )
But that is like arguing that to make you favorite cake better you'd need more of the same cake!


Cheers.
Love u all

Except that guy that uses adrenal rush + commander horns in Gwent.
grrrr
 
Last edited:
OP what do you mean they became prudish with naked bodies? Seriously I must have missed something but we saw pretty much the same level that we did in the witcher 2. The politics are actually harder in some ways. Djikstra may make a better king then radovid but you have to do that by killing ves and roche which are characters you actually meet and know rather then radovid's hundreds or thousands are killed but we don't know of any of them. Emphyr is bad guy in so many ways but isn't in other ways. And as for the "ugly" thing Where did you get that from. Djikstra was never good looking and radovid wasn't a looker either though he did get uglier in the witcher 3 but he is a leader who is fighting for his life. That ages people fast. Emphyr is just an older guy not ugly or good looking. Truthfully there are no "good" choices and the witcher is known for that.
 
I think it was obvious from TW3's initial marketing campaign that it was changing from a PC and adult-specific demographic to the AAA-space demographic which means mainstream and bringing in as many modern and common gamers as possible and it paid off, so kudos to you CDPR. I'm still happy I can talk to so many friends and they know The Witcher thanks to this game and they love it, in fact most say it's one of the best games they have ever seen.

I do agree though. They abandoned, not their integrity, but at least some of their worth in my eyes because it's no longer a game designed for people like me. It still is to some extent but TW2 intrigued me on many levels while Witcher 3 patronized me in some areas.

And regarding politics, I think it's telling that even the main writers seemed to promote NOT focusing on politics after they "dabbled a lot in politics" in TW2 was telling of their stance on writing a political plot. They changed writers ever so slightly even though Marcin Blacha was always a big influence on all 3 games, but clearly he dislikes anything that goes too in depth about minutiae -- he's one of THOSE kinds of writers I guess, so he decided, as Lead Writer, to cut away from that and emphasise a more universal set of themes like family, bonding and love which is good for sure and even TW2 could sometimes be self-indulgent for the worse, so the change is give and take.

That said, I think the fact that they both talked down on politics in interviews and the characters reiterate the exact same things in the games after TW2's plot made the game feel slightly immature, and EVIL contributed to that as well. The absolute weakest part of the narrative of all things was how they bastardized Radovid. Yes, he was crazy and radical in TW2 when he started executing all sorceresses out of hatred and bigotry, but he was not "Mad" the way Witcher 3 depicts him. They deliberately went with a nonchalant "Hey this character makes no sense and that's by design". Way to go. You just dumbed down the narrative to a whole differnet level. I mean this is the entire backdrop of the setting; the war with Nilfgaard and Redania, and all of Redania is influenced by a king who has a malfunctioning brain apparently, and they also deliberately made an entire subplot about killing that king after you spent all of TW2 cleaning your reputation of being a "Kingslayer".

And then there's the ending. Fuck the ending. It was poorly paced, confused in tone and rushed to shit for 3 generic conclusions. At least they focused on a main theme that had been there from the start, but the way it glosses over so many things in the climax took all momentum out of the story, and no denoument about the Hunt itself or Avellac'h's confrontation with Geralt and the choice/consequence between Geralt and Ciri was completely vague and not depending on causality. It was meh.
 
First of all, I would like to admit to being a teen, and also admit that The Witcher 3 is the first Witcher game I have played, on account of my relatively young age.

1. The concept of evil
You spend three paragraphs emphasising this point. I would advise that you cut it down to zero because it makes no sense.

"The villains are uglier than the heroes."

Well, this is true. Geralt is arguably the only really attractive male in the main game, with the possible exception of Roche, Avallac'h and at a stretch, Lambert. In the DLCs, Olgierd von Everec is quite attractive, but I think Hearts of Stone was released after this comment. There aren't many female villains in the game at all. Of course, Triss, Yennefer, Ciri, and Lil Bleater are all very attractive too.

But it is ridiculous to argue that Radovid is less attractive than Emhyr. Emhyr is old, aged with wrinkled, darkened eyes. His face lacks structure and his hair looks greasy and unpleasant. On the other hand, Radovid has a good facial structure, and his lack of hair is not as displeasing as Emhyr's hair. You mention a facial asymmetry, but I never noticed one.

The main reason your argument makes so little sense is that almost EVERY male character, and many females, in The Witcher 3 looks shit. All of them have puckered, dirty faces and look thoroughly disgusting. All of them look like the Nilfgaardian ambassador in the first chapter. That does not imply that they are villainous at all. It is just that CDPR typically put more detail into making the women attractive than the men.

The Wild Hunt, while not handsome as such, are not ugly either. They just have pale, menacing faces. This makes some sense too because we only see them when they are about to engage in mortal combat with Geralt. Whoreson Junior looks like a rat, but he is definitely not the ugliest of the Big Four. That honour is claimed by Dijkstra. Dijkstra himself says many times he's ugly as shit, and I agree.

Like I have said, I have not played the previous games nor read the books so I shall not comment on character in depth. However, to me, it is "blindingly obvious" why Geralt does not kill Emhyr. Emhyr is the ruler of the most powerful empire in the Witcher world, and Geralt is not out to declare war on all of Nilfgaard.

Even throughout the quests to kill Radovid, he repeats that he does not want to be the hand that strikes the blow, and often tries to distance himself from the plot. Geralt does try to remain neutral, but there are big factors involving those he knows. Radovid has persecuted witches - one of the main quests is helping Triss escape Novigrad. Geralt is close friends with Roche, who is determined to kill Radovid for Temeria as it was. Not to mention Radovid's attack on non-humans, which affects people like Zoltan and Dudu. Honestly, from what I have seen in the Witcher 3, Geralt has far greater cause to despise Radovid than Emhyr. Emhyr is just a prick.

2. Not enough meaningful choices.

To be honest, I have to agree with this point. For an inexperienced gamer, it was refreshing to see any choices in the Witcher 3, and even better to see meaningful, difficult choices. I do wish there had been more choices like that which had a greater impact. I dislike the argument that side quests are meaningful too. They're not. You deal with a bunch of peasants and decide whether one lives or one doesn't. The werewolf quest you mentioned was interesting (I let him kill her) but typically they're just peasants. I don't really feel any guilt in accidentally making the wrong choice.

There are a few choices that allow you to make choices that are downright evil though. For example, you could have chosen to let the stableboy burn at Crow's Perch. That is perhaps unexpected of a game.

3. Politics is dumbed down
Again, I don't know enough about the Witcher world to comment in full. What I gleaned from playing is that Radovid is leading a Redanian uprising against the crushing might of Nilfgaard. Radovid promises to restore the sovereignities like Temeria but probably won't. Nilfgaard are favourites to win the war. The Blue Stripes are guerrilla fighters prepared to do anything for Temeria.

I have read replies about why the complexity of the politics was changed. Overall, I just think that politics is not necessary in the Witcher 3. The Witcher 2 was about political intrigue and movement. The Witcher 3 is not. It is understandable that you preferred the shadowy, intricate backgrounds in the Witcher 2. But that is not the type of story The Witcher 3 is trying to tell. The Witcher 3 is, as many have said, a personal story. It is not CDPR's fault that you prefer the former. They have crafted a Witcher game that is as authentic as the previous ones.

4. Sex is not sexy enough
The women expose breasts. A lot.
There aren't actually many films that actually show the actual genitals in action, despite carrying the 18 certificate. CDPR certainly didn't need to tone down the sex, but it's not meant to be pornographic either. The biggest sin here is the copypaste of sex scenes. It is a little bit disappointing that the actual sex was all one set. Even worse, the moan every female makes is the same voice clip. Ghastly. Couldn't the sex have been more romantic with Yennefer and Triss? They could perhaps have been a bit different for when Geralt is making love to his soulmate and when Geralt is having fun with a prostitute.

The Sabbath - I'm not really concerned. I didn't even read that text anywhere in the game. Human flesh. Yum, whatever. We went there to kill Imlerith and the Crones.


The most irritating flaw in this part of the argument is the complaint that CDPR did not do non-sexual nudity. Yes, they did. Whoreson Junior. That was very disturbing and they included nudity in that section to great effect. Although I do agree that the sauna scene was a disappointment. I find Ciri to be the most attractive female in the game. I'm 99% sure CDPR just added that as a cocktease. Pricks.

​​​​​​









 
Top Bottom