Finished The Witcher 3, mixed feelings

+
Finished The Witcher 3, mixed feelings

As the title already says I finished the Witcher 3 yesterday and although I think it is a masterpiece in its own right I do think it has some flaws, which in the end made me stop caring about the outcome.
Now as some of you might be avid the witcher fans who read the books and therefore think everything has made sense you might not understand my arguments, but I have only played the games and do not really care for the books and I think that everything should be contained within the medium you present something ( for instance you don't need to have read the books in lord of the rings to follow the movies), especially when it is such an unknown story as the witcher ( I think the game has surpassed the books in that respect I think).

*Nothing I did in any of the previous installments made any difference, the witcher 1 is too long ago for me to remember anything specific, but in the witcher 2 I distinctly choose Iorveths path and fought along the dragon lady, now I understand that things take their course and that a single individual might not affect the world in a big way, but completely ignoring it is also not the way to go and with all the pointless fetch quests they have made, a significant quest addressing what had happened with Iorveth and the dragonlady would have been better.

*The game is never rewarding :
I could make the Harpy sword before I reached level 5 but because of the restrictions with regards to level ( imho very dumb implementation) I could only equip it at the very end of the game.
I have walked around with some dwarven axe for half of the game which I found in some random chest and was way better than anything I could buy or make for a long time, I once fought a seriously overpowered critter guarding a chest and after dying 5-6 time and opening a chest I got some sword which wasn't more powerful than anything I already had or could buy ...hell sometimes when I beat a random bandit they for some reason when I loot them, have a level 42 club/generic sword which is more powerful than any cool named witcher sword.
Another instance is where in a sidequest ( or a mainquest for that matter) you have to take a side between to factions or possibilities and no matter what you pick the endresult is morally grey as in most cases a lot of people still keep on dying, now it doesn't matter if there are a number of quests like this to keep you grounded but I can't remember any remotely good endings , so in the end most of my choices where in general the ones that took me less effort to get through the mission

*Immersion:
Although the world breathes and lives like no other I have seen, a lot of characters are introduced willynilly with an air that I should know them and have to make choices regarding their fate, yes I understand that I could read the character chart but if you have to do that for every character you meet you become detached.
In the Witcher 2 the game had a imited amount of main characters and gave them enough screentime you could actually form an opinion of them whilst playing the game and therefore your choices mattered
In this game I really couldn't care less if Ciri or Yennefer died on the spot, but I still was very annoyed that I had to work with Philipha to find the sunstone ( because of the grievance she gave me in The Witcher 2)and I only picked Cerys in Skellige because I thought that Hjalmar was an idiot but when their father died it didn't really matter to me and even fighting with the king of the wild hunt was just something I had to do, whilest in the witcher 2 I really wanted to rid the world of that Letho dude
But the most glaring problem to me is that I never really cared about Geralt who still after 3 installments is the same bland and dull character he always was, I read in one of the primers that witchers are detached because of their trials, but if that is the case why should he care about Ciri , Yennefer or Triss or anyone else in the game for that matter.

*Gameplay:
-Talking to a merchant has these annoying cutscenes where there is some annoying back and forth banter before entering the inventory which is a bit annoying after a while
- I feel the scaling of the world is to small or Geralts steps to big but as imho the rolling evade action is the only effective means of dodging ( blocking and that stupid pirouette never did anything against (large) groups or powerfull enemies) I keep rolling out of range and with noonwraiths for instance you have to cast Yrden which is a tiny circle and after one attack you are more often than not out of your circle and the noonwraith starts attacking you.. I actually died more often when figthing noonwraiths than giants or archgriffins or fiends as in the case of the latter your area of movement is bigger.
In most games entering buildings or climbing a staircase goes fluently, as there is some margin in the controls making going up and down go smoothly , the witcher 3 is the only game where I have died numerous times on a staircase because Geralt got his head stuck in the ceiling and after wriggling fell down.
I really think that they should have scaled up tiny area's a bit more or reduce the stepping of Geralt
- I have no idea why the gameplay designers found it important but for some reason there is always a candle present in front of a character so instead of talking to someone geralt is turning lights on and off and because of the aforementioned stepping scaling issues aswell for some strange selecting issues where you have to turn the mouse around forever in order to select a character or chest it is sometimes very frustrating especially in bars/pubs
- Witcher sense should be a toggle instead of a press and hold thing
- Skipped almost all of the horse riding as the damned thing always got stuck on a twig in the woods
-Damned unwanted f**king sliding of mountains or hills really made me want to quit the game a couple of times as it made me walk around mountains, which more often than not directed me right of a cliff resulting in death or being stuck between to steep crests.
This ( at least to me) was only a reall issue for me in Skellige which made me skip a lot of the questionmarks and stick to a need to do only sentiment .
- swimming sucks I died a couple of times because geralt kept getting stuck between a rock and a ship
- The crossbow sometimes takes forever in loading up which made me get hit by harpies or drowners
-Inventory sucks as well and I think usables should be separated from potions and bombs as I sometimes had to sift through a number of redwanian lagers and the likes to find the killerwhale potion of swallow, also being able to have more potions or bombs in shortcuts would have my preference

Can't believe I am saying this but I liked the witcher 2's gameplay a lot better, it required more thought and strategy and was more rewarding

*Narrative:
Instead of stuffing the world full of generic content with interchangeable characters of a forgettable nature, I had rather seen more sidesteps to the world of the Wild hunt elves or worlds where the white frost is coming or has past in order to gather more in game knowledge about the subject, also more sidequest regarding any of the main characters would be a lot better.
My main beef with The witcher 3 is essentially more or less the same as it was with The Witcher 2 and that is that the main storyline is strangly developed and not in a good way.
In the witcher 2 my main focus was on helping non humans fight their oppressors and help them have a sanctuary of their own and in the end through some short revelations all of a sudden I have to start caring about Ciri or Yennefer, there were no cameo's of either of them and the regaining of Geralts memory wasn't acted out in the game ( maybe dreamsequences where Geralt slowly sees more of them and you as a player gets invested and actually feel betrayed by Triss in the end) it was just in some cutscene.
The same problem is present in the witcher 3 where in the end Ciri has to jump in some portal to visit a snowworld to do something to a a glowing white sphere ( never explained what she did , but apparently because i played a snowball fight with her everything turned out great) and in my case had a short epiloque where radovid slaughtered a lot of people, that nilfguardian dude which I hated died and Ciri got a sword from me and I was sitting in a bath somewhere with Yennefer.

I had rather had some missions where I found out about the white frost and how to combat it so I could prepare Ciri for what's to come and help her survive or any mission which makes me connect with main characters in teh world, than any of the pointless witcher contracts I had to do..

Now after reading my own post it might seem that I really hate the game, I can honestly say I don't hate it and find it a very great achievement especially keeping in mind that CD projekt red is relatively small, but there is also for me no reason to do a playover whereas with the witcher 2 I really wanted more as it pulled me in.
 
A preliminary quick comment:
you have very valid points, especially about the leveling, looting, combat, object interaction. To a lesser extent npc interactions, traveling, story unbalances (for lack of a better word).

However the rest denotes an objectively wrong assumption on your part. Geralt not being able to successfully influence events, lack of choices, his "blandness", etc. are NOT PROBLEMS. In fact they are key components of the Witcher trilogy.
 
Unfortunately, a large part of your issues stem from your unfamiliarity with the novels. The struggle for nonhuman independence is, indeed, something which the last two games have had plenty of material on but is immaterial to the Nilfgaard Invasion. Likewise, Geralt has regained his memories and is now laser-focused on trying to get back his wife and daughter.

I think the flashbacks to Ciri did a good job of making you care for her, though, starting with the scene in Kaer Morhen.

But if you didn't play the Tutorial, I think you might have missed that.

As for the issue of nonhuman independence, you might have also noticed the previous game strongly set up Nilfgaard's invasion as a threat to all people both great and small.
 
I agree that no book knowledge should be needed to fully appreciate the game. If anything it should be the other way around, you play the games, like the universe and then go read the books or learn more about the world. (I did that)

And yes, storywise W1 and W2 are better. W3 prioritizes random stuff that you might or not do for interactions with main characters that you would definitely do.

I share your pain with the noonwrairts, the one S of Novigrad is a great PITA.

Agree also with many of your other issues. Be glad that you didn't choose Triss though, your experience would have been worse.
 
Of course, part of the problem is the Witcher 3 is much more novel-influenced than the previous games.

The Scoia'tael don't have a big role in the books and got expanded a great deal by the games.

They're unsympathetic evil racist bastards in the novels.
 
Hi Gerald, My point is not the lack of choices or the fact that my choices didn't alter the game world profoundly, but the fact that I had to choose between factions without getting the proper grounding as with whom I would like to align, one of the few times I really went after someone was with Whoreson jr. as it was clear to me that I didn't want him to live, but choosing between Roche and Dijkstra vs Radovid I basically helped them but didn't get involved as none of these characters were fleshed out prior to the choice in order for me to stand behind them

---------- Updated at 02:46 PM ----------

Unfortunately, a large part of your issues stem from your unfamiliarity with the novels. The struggle for nonhuman independence is, indeed, something which the last two games have had plenty of material on but is immaterial to the Nilfgaard Invasion. Likewise, Geralt has regained his memories and is now laser-focused on trying to get back his wife and daughter.

I think the flashbacks to Ciri did a good job of making you care for her, though, starting with the scene in Kaer Morhen.

But if you didn't play the Tutorial, I think you might have missed that.

As for the issue of nonhuman independence, you might have also noticed the previous game strongly set up Nilfgaard's invasion as a threat to all people both great and small.

Well you kind of confirm my point in that you have to read the books in order to make the sensible choices and as said before it is probably very hard to understand if you have read them what I am griping about ;), but in short:
In the witcher 2 Geralt wanted to regain his memory but looking at the core game it was more about which side you picked Iorveths or Roche's and who won the battle and killing Letho to avenge Foltest and cleanse your name if Ciri and/or Yeneffer were that big of a deal they should have introduced them in a dream sequence instead of an afterthought and the invasion of Nilfgaard was introduced in the end and I thought it would mean that my choice mattered and I could fight along dragonlady and Iorveth against them at some point, but they aren't even mentioned which is just bad narrative.
Even from a standalone perspective it is strange as you are expected to know certain people so if this is your first Witcher game you are probably going through the motions with regards to story

---------- Updated at 02:47 PM ----------

Well I do agree with the point about stories respecting their medium... but with this part you really lost me :(

With not really caring for the books I meant I will probably not read them

---------- Updated at 03:00 PM ----------

I agree that no book knowledge should be needed to fully appreciate the game. If anything it should be the other way around, you play the games, like the universe and then go read the books or learn more about the world. (I did that)

And yes, storywise W1 and W2 are better. W3 prioritizes random stuff that you might or not do for interactions with main characters that you would definitely do.

I share your pain with the noonwrairts, the one S of Novigrad is a great PITA.

Agree also with many of your other issues. Be glad that you didn't choose Triss though, your experience would have been worse.
Well I have no inclination to read them as I find Geralt the most boring protaganist and can't really relate to him in any way ( always had to get used to him when he started talking with his Batman voice)
If I have to choose I would say The Witcher 2 was the best as it required more skill and was actually rewarding when you fought above your level as the loot was either high value in money or use
All of the wraiths were a pain, but not because they were that strong, but more because the controls are so awkward in small spaces( I used Yrden to be able to hit the damned things which is a small space and after every hit or step I was miles away and had to start rolling until I could cast Yrden again

---------- Updated at 04:13 PM ----------

Of course, part of the problem is the Witcher 3 is much more novel-influenced than the previous games.

The Scoia'tael don't have a big role in the books and got expanded a great deal by the games.

They're unsympathetic evil racist bastards in the novels.

I have no problem with basing things on a book or story but it should still connect within the trilogy and the main plotlines should be told through the main game and as they apparently found time to introduce those horseraces (I can't imagine anyone actually wanted to finish them) and a lot of pointless sidequests I can honestly not understand why this hasn't been done, the only reason I can think of is that everyone on the team is already so into the story/game that it was clear to them and they couldn't step back and look from an outsiders perspective ( which happens a lot when making something).

Well the Scoia'tael looked like an oppressed race to me like black people, jews and palestinians ( amongst many others) in the real world at some point were and understood why they were that harsh and killed and asked questions later.
In fact ( and I hope I don't get a lot of backlash from it) they remind me of the Polish plight where a number of brave soldiers fought in WW2 to help liberate us ( the Netherlands) in exchange for help in liberating their own country but never got that help from the allied forces nor the recognition they deserved until ( imho) it was much to late and that one of your greatest heroes died in anonymity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanis%C5%82aw_Sosabowski)
If the Scoia'tael were not significant in the bigger view of things then why make them so big in the game and if I recall there were other groups of people in past games which died a silent death ( order of the flaming rose/salamandra) and never had continuity .
The only people who were in all 3 parts were Dandelion and Zoltan most of the rest of them were a lot of interchangeable nobodies never fully developed, I rather had a smaller game wanting more than a big open world ( which it really isn't, aside from being big) which became a drag in the end.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, the Scoia'tael in the books basically represent those who let ancient hatreds fester and boil. Yarpen the Dwarf represents the voice of those who want peaceful coexistence with humans.

Here's a scene where he explains why he's fighting the Squirrels with King Henselt.

“We have to live next to each other,” Yarpen continued. “We and you, humans. Because we simply don’t have any other option. We’ve known this for two hundred years and we’ve been working towards it for over a hundred. You want to know why I entered King Henselt’s service, why I made such a decision? I can’t allow all that work to go to waste. For over a hundred years we’ve been trying to come to terms with the humans. The halflings, gnomes, us, even the elves – I’m not talking about rusalkas, nymphs and sylphs, they’ve always been savages, even when you weren’t here. Damn it all, it took a hundred years but, somehow or other, we managed to live a common life, next to each other, together. We managed to partially convince humans that we’re not so very different—”

“We’re not different at all, Yarpen.” The dwarf turned abruptly. “We’re not different at all,” repeated Ciri. “After all, you think and feel like Geralt. And like… like I do. We eat the same things, from the same pot. You help Triss and so do I. You had a grandmother and I had a grandmother… My grandmother was killed by the Nilfgaardians. In Cintra.”

“And mine by the humans,” the dwarf said with some effort. “In Brugge. During the pogrom.”


It gets worse because King Henselt betrays him because he thinks he's working with the Squirrels.

In the end, the Scoia'tael murder countless innocent humans in hopes of getting their own land back and when they do, they murder all of the humans in it. And it does them absolutely no good because all it does is turn every human against the elves in Human-controlled lands, triggering pogroms, racism, and worse after 200 years of peaceful coexistence.

The Witcher books is very much on the side of, "can't we get along." Which makes sense because Sapkowski grew up in Eastern Europe where those kind of ancient blood feuds are not remotely good but led to massive atrocities on both sides.

Of course, the games have a much more heroic view of the Scoia'tael as people who are just resisting oppression.

And you know? I THINK BOTH SIDES ARE ENTIRELY VALID.

Which is what makes the Witcher-world awesome as it reflects the ambiguities of real life.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, this is one of the shortcomings of TW3. New players still need to read the books/play previous games to get a better understanding of the world, characters and events, but at the same time CDPR wanted to make a game accessible without it, and so they greatly simplified characters and their motivations, and made practically all TW2 end states irrelevant. One of the strongest features of TW2 got thrown out - not good. As a result, they did not really satisfy either group. Some characters are so different from TW2, for example, as if they had lobotomy between two games. I wish CDPR just took another 3-6 extra months to flesh our a main story more. My hope is still on EE though.
 
I found Wild Hunt to be very accessible to a new player. I hadn't read any of the novels, and while I owned the Witcher 1 and 2, I never played them because my PC's were always poo.

Wild Hunt made me want to learn more about the universe, though, and now that I have beaten the game, I plan to go back, play the first two installments, and read the novels. Also might do a Yennefer playthrough at some point, since my "canon" romanced Triss.

As for the game's loot "never being rewarding," I disagree. There were a lot of solid relics scattered throughout the world, some with interesting and/or hilarious backstories (e.g. the sword which you receive at the end of the "Trial of the Cheeses"), and I had a blast collecting witcher gear and upgrading items. The mastercrafted Wolf set was particularly nice, and the game felt challenging on Death March.

Too lazy to read the rest of the complaints. I'll just agree to disagree and say "to each their own."
 
Gonna break this response apart, so bear with the extra wall of text along with your wall of text.
Now as some of you might be avid the witcher fans who read the books and therefore think everything has made sense you might not understand my arguments, but I have only played the games and do not really care for the books and I think that everything should be contained within the medium you present something ( for instance you don't need to have read the books in lord of the rings to follow the movies), especially when it is such an unknown story as the witcher ( I think the game has surpassed the books in that respect I think).
I would normally agree, but the Witcher games are not adaptations of the books. They are continuations. So they're building upon events that already occurred in the series, not recreating those events. The games do a great job of standing out on their own though. Reading the books only adds on to the experience for The Witcher 3, it isn't necessary.

*Nothing I did in any of the previous installments made any difference, the witcher 1 is too long ago for me to remember anything specific, but in the witcher 2 I distinctly choose Iorveths path and fought along the dragon lady, now I understand that things take their course and that a single individual might not affect the world in a big way, but completely ignoring it is also not the way to go and with all the pointless fetch quests they have made, a significant quest addressing what had happened with Iorveth and the dragonlady would have been better.
The Witcher 3 is more disconnected from the previous Witcher games. Nilfgaard invades by surprise in a time of turmoil. Aedirn is understandably wiped off the face of the map because of all the shit that happened in The Witcher 2. You can liberate or help invade Aedirn, but either way you weaken it for the empire to take. Actually, that's really what The Witcher 2 was about. Watching the North weaken for Nilfgaard. So it makes sense that your choices don't carry over. But I am displeased about how Iorveth and Saskia got the short end of the stick so far along with the rest of the Scoia'tael. But it does make sense for your choices to have no impact in The Witcher 3 considering the events and location of the game.

*The game is never rewarding :
I could make the Harpy sword before I reached level 5 but because of the restrictions with regards to level ( imho very dumb implementation) I could only equip it at the very end of the game.
I have walked around with some dwarven axe for half of the game which I found in some random chest and was way better than anything I could buy or make for a long time, I once fought a seriously overpowered critter guarding a chest and after dying 5-6 time and opening a chest I got some sword which wasn't more powerful than anything I already had or could buy ...hell sometimes when I beat a random bandit they for some reason when I loot them, have a level 42 club/generic sword which is more powerful than any cool named witcher sword.
Another instance is where in a sidequest ( or a mainquest for that matter) you have to take a side between to factions or possibilities and no matter what you pick the endresult is morally grey as in most cases a lot of people still keep on dying, now it doesn't matter if there are a number of quests like this to keep you grounded but I can't remember any remotely good endings , so in the end most of my choices where in general the ones that took me less effort to get through the mission
I'm not a fan of the level restrictions either, but they make sense in an open world like this. Say you had made that Harpy sword at level 5. Now the game is a cakewalk thanks to the high damage of that sword.
On the topic of generic swords, yeah. They can be powerful, but only in regards to damage. Think about status effects and potential other bonuses and they will fall flat every single time. The loot system does need some work, you're right. But this is something that has the potential to be fixed. Even if it isn't fixed though, it shouldn't largely effect how the game is.
And yeah...there are a lack of "good endings" in a the world of The Witcher. There's a war going on. People are dying, mages are living in fear, nonhumans are struggling more to get by, and bandits are running rampant. Plentiful good endings doesn't make sense in a world that has gone to shit. This isn't really Dragon Age where you're the hero out to save everyone. You're a Witcher looking to find his daughter.

*Immersion:
Although the world breathes and lives like no other I have seen, a lot of characters are introduced willynilly with an air that I should know them and have to make choices regarding their fate, yes I understand that I could read the character chart but if you have to do that for every character you meet you become detached.
In the Witcher 2 the game had a imited amount of main characters and gave them enough screentime you could actually form an opinion of them whilst playing the game and therefore your choices mattered
In this game I really couldn't care less if Ciri or Yennefer died on the spot, but I still was very annoyed that I had to work with Philipha to find the sunstone ( because of the grievance she gave me in The Witcher 2)and I only picked Cerys in Skellige because I thought that Hjalmar was an idiot but when their father died it didn't really matter to me and even fighting with the king of the wild hunt was just something I had to do, whilest in the witcher 2 I really wanted to rid the world of that Letho dude
But the most glaring problem to me is that I never really cared about Geralt who still after 3 installments is the same bland and dull character he always was, I read in one of the primers that witchers are detached because of their trials, but if that is the case why should he care about Ciri , Yennefer or Triss or anyone else in the game for that matter.
I strongly disagree with this. There aren't actually a lot of new characters introduced if you played through the series. The characters that are introduced are introduced in such a manner that you get an idea of their backstory and Geralt's past with them. The characters closest to Geralt get a lot of screen time, enough to formulate an opinion on them and learn who they are.
And this is where my main issue with your argument is. Your idea that Geralt is a bland character and completely emotionless absolutely boggles my mind. You either glossed over the wiki instead of playing the game or closed your eyes and covered your ears whenever Geralt opened up around his friends. The games very clearly make it known that Geralt isn't a robot, but it seems you failed to pick up on that throughout not one, but three individual titles. The games also make it very clear each character's connection to Geralt and their relationship, something you also seemed to failed to pick up on. I guess the real issue isn't actually the game, but that you failed to pick up on every single character building moment the games had.

*Gameplay:
-Talking to a merchant has these annoying cutscenes where there is some annoying back and forth banter before entering the inventory which is a bit annoying after a while
- I feel the scaling of the world is to small or Geralts steps to big but as imho the rolling evade action is the only effective means of dodging ( blocking and that stupid pirouette never did anything against (large) groups or powerfull enemies) I keep rolling out of range and with noonwraiths for instance you have to cast Yrden which is a tiny circle and after one attack you are more often than not out of your circle and the noonwraith starts attacking you.. I actually died more often when figthing noonwraiths than giants or archgriffins or fiends as in the case of the latter your area of movement is bigger.
In most games entering buildings or climbing a staircase goes fluently, as there is some margin in the controls making going up and down go smoothly , the witcher 3 is the only game where I have died numerous times on a staircase because Geralt got his head stuck in the ceiling and after wriggling fell down.
I really think that they should have scaled up tiny area's a bit more or reduce the stepping of Geralt
- I have no idea why the gameplay designers found it important but for some reason there is always a candle present in front of a character so instead of talking to someone geralt is turning lights on and off and because of the aforementioned stepping scaling issues aswell for some strange selecting issues where you have to turn the mouse around forever in order to select a character or chest it is sometimes very frustrating especially in bars/pubs
- Witcher sense should be a toggle instead of a press and hold thing
- Skipped almost all of the horse riding as the damned thing always got stuck on a twig in the woods
-Damned unwanted f**king sliding of mountains or hills really made me want to quit the game a couple of times as it made me walk around mountains, which more often than not directed me right of a cliff resulting in death or being stuck between to steep crests.
This ( at least to me) was only a reall issue for me in Skellige which made me skip a lot of the questionmarks and stick to a need to do only sentiment .
- swimming sucks I died a couple of times because geralt kept getting stuck between a rock and a ship
- The crossbow sometimes takes forever in loading up which made me get hit by harpies or drowners
-Inventory sucks as well and I think usables should be separated from potions and bombs as I sometimes had to sift through a number of redwanian lagers and the likes to find the killerwhale potion of swallow, also being able to have more potions or bombs in shortcuts would have my preference
Can't believe I am saying this but I liked the witcher 2's gameplay a lot better, it required more thought and strategy and was more rewarding
Agree about the merchants and the cutscenes.
Disagree about blocking and dodge. Blocking and parrying is very effective in managing large groups, notably humans and wolves. Monsters cannot really be blocked so it's obviously useless there. Dodging however, keeps Geralt in the action, has a quick animation, has a quick recovery, and doesn't impede stamina regen. I think you're problem is that you're most likely using to to dodge away, when it's best used to dodge around. Also, noonwraiths can be made corporeal with a Moon Dust bomb. That's something you could have found out if you looked at the bestiary (which the game actually reminds you of fairly regularly).
Never had any problems on stairs.
I've also never had any problems with taking to characters and lighting candles. Do you have Hardware Cursor on? Because it sounds like you don't. Geralt turns absolutely fine for me, but I've heard having it off can lead to some problems.
Disagree about the toggle thing. Witcher sense slows down Geralt so that he can observe his surroundings, making it a toggle would be more annoying than just letting go of the button.
I honestly don't understand the people have with the horse. I've rode him from Crookback to Novigrad multiple times without any issues at all. He's responsive and is fast. Some people have mentioned that he gets stuck a lot, but I've never encountered this issue. Others have mentioned they dislike how he stops before cliffs and such, but this just makes sense to me. Horses have brains and they understand the dangers of cliffs and large falls.
Disagree about the sliding because most of the time Geralt slides down something, it's obviously too steep or it's obvious the developers didn't plan on where you're going to be a valid path.
Swimming is okay and the crossbow is fine to me, but I agree with you on the inventory. Make a separate area for books and consumables and I'll be happy.

*Narrative:
Instead of stuffing the world full of generic content with interchangeable characters of a forgettable nature, I had rather seen more sidesteps to the world of the Wild hunt elves or worlds where the white frost is coming or has past in order to gather more in game knowledge about the subject, also more sidequest regarding any of the main characters would be a lot better.
My main beef with The witcher 3 is essentially more or less the same as it was with The Witcher 2 and that is that the main storyline is strangly developed and not in a good way.
In the witcher 2 my main focus was on helping non humans fight their oppressors and help them have a sanctuary of their own and in the end through some short revelations all of a sudden I have to start caring about Ciri or Yennefer, there were no cameo's of either of them and the regaining of Geralts memory wasn't acted out in the game ( maybe dreamsequences where Geralt slowly sees more of them and you as a player gets invested and actually feel betrayed by Triss in the end) it was just in some cutscene.
The same problem is present in the witcher 3 where in the end Ciri has to jump in some portal to visit a snowworld to do something to a a glowing white sphere ( never explained what she did , but apparently because i played a snowball fight with her everything turned out great) and in my case had a short epiloque where radovid slaughtered a lot of people, that nilfguardian dude which I hated died and Ciri got a sword from me and I was sitting in a bath somewhere with Yennefer.
I had rather had some missions where I found out about the white frost and how to combat it so I could prepare Ciri for what's to come and help her survive or any mission which makes me connect with main characters in teh world, than any of the pointless witcher contracts I had to do.
I think the Wild Hunt was expanded on enough throughout 1-3. The White Frost needed some more attention though, so I agree with you on that. But the story is developed very differently than The Witcher 2 was. I think that once again you failed to understand the main character's motivations because The Witcher 2 was not about fighting for the oppressed in any sort of way. Geralt was driven by his desire to not be a wanted man and to find Triss. This is made clear in the Prologue and is further enforced in Chapter 1. Geralt regaining his memories was actually occurring throughout the entirety of The Witcher 2. I'm astounded you managed to miss that too because it happened exactly as you described it: Geralt has a series of flashbacks that leads to him confronting Triss about Yennefer who is wasn't really aware of before.
Ciri visits the world where the White Frost originated from and stops it using her Elder Blood. This honestly doesn't need much explanation because it's made known from very early on that she's the most powerful being in existence (probably). I always assumed she just sort of absorbed its power like she did when the Wild Hunt attacked Kaer Morhen and she lost control of her powers. The entire point of the snowball fights and various moments spent with her was to build up her confidence and help her control her emotions. This is important because you can see how easily she can lose control of her powers when she gets emotional and how dangerous she can be to others and herself. That's the keyword by the way: herself. She's walking through this freezing world trying to stop this unrelenting power that has already consumed multiple worlds. She's under a lot of stress and a significant part of learning to control her powers is learning to control her emotions. So it makes sense to help her learn to control her emotions in a healthy way and become more responsible/confident in herself. She's been coddled and controlled pretty heavily prior to the games. So essentially The Witcher 3 is about helping her prepare for the White Frost like you said.

Now after reading my own post it might seem that I really hate the game, I can honestly say I don't hate it and find it a very great achievement especially keeping in mind that CD projekt red is relatively small, but there is also for me no reason to do a playover whereas with the witcher 2 I really wanted more as it pulled me in.
I'll just end with saying that The Witcher 2 was a game that actually needed to be played over multiple times to get the full experience. This is because the game was broken into two halves. You can only experience those two halves by playing it twice. The Witcher 3 is a full experience that can be completed once and be done with it. This isn't bad because that one experience can easily pack in 200 hours of content (essentially 10 Witcher 2 playthroughs).
EDIT: Added spoilers for more condensed post
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom