Cerys and Priscilla? Not the best examples imo, i like them but even Ves and Saskia have more depth. ( Even though i would agree with Cerys if in the final game she would have really been the fake Cirilla)
TW3 is not good with complex characters, too much black&white ( Radovid/Emhyr, Yen/Triss, , Hjalmar/Cerys etc...) instead TW2 is basically composed by grey characters only. (Even Loredo is more believable than Radovid)
TW3 is superior only with the "funny characters" like Johnny, the Pellar, prick Lambert and Uma imo. But when things get serious everyone go retarded (Roche/Thaler dealing with Nilfgaard, Dijsktra with that genial ambush, Radovid goes full mad, Avallac'h at the end with his heart made of pure gold, Eredin..... can't even say a thing about him). Sure the Baron is a good written and well developed character but... that's it?
The Baron is the only character of TW3 who is worth mentioning? Because all over the internet i don't read any articles and praises about Crach, Hjalmar, Avallac'h, Cerys, Priscilla, Mousesack, King of Beggars, Clever, Menge, Whoreson Junior, Emhyr, Voorhis, Dudu etc...
I just hear of the Baron, Uma and Johnny. The real stars of this game.
With this i'm not saying that the characters of TW3 are shit, even though some of them don't end well and some are even missing, but they're not at all developed like those of TW2
I was just saying my preference not an "objective" view like many people pretended to do, so it relies only on my personal taste why I liked W3 side characters more than Roche or Iorveth in W2. It's very simple.
And I'm not talking about all the characters in W2, just those I mentioned. Having replayed W2 recently, I agree that Loredo is one of the best examples of grey (but going to black) character.
People keep blaming the size of the open world but I just don't see that as being the problem. There is nothing to suggest a great RPG story is incompatible with an open world. Rather, for me, the problem with The Witcher 3 is unlike the previous two titles, it tried to be too many things for too many people rather than, as the OP says, being it's own thing, and ended up alienating large portions of its own fanbase in the process. It should have been true to itself even if that meant it wasn't true to Sapkowski's books.
People keep blaming the size of the open world but I just don't see that as being the problem. There is nothing to suggest a great RPG story is incompatible with an open world. Rather, for me, the problem with The Witcher 3 is unlike the previous two titles, it tried to be too many things for too many people rather than, as the OP says, being it's own thing, and ended up alienating large portions of its own fanbase in the process. It should have been true to itself even if that meant it wasn't true to Sapkowski's books.
Mh? W3 overall wasn't already. It tried to be its own thing while being faithful to the books, thus allowing rectons and not being that true to the books then. But that wasn't the case earlier.
I mean, the story was already linked by those W2 flashbacks poking at the events from the books, as a direct sequel, long before the game came out many users had already understood Geralt and Yennefer were the baits for the Wild Hunt to find Ciri. And that it was thanks to Ciri that Geralt was freed at the beginning of W1. At that point it was already its own thing, by creating a direct sequel to one of the possible interpretations of the books ending. CDPR was free to create its own thing by following this.
So it was too late to be on its own without having a direct sequel, and all was fine, being its own thing while having connections and no retcons: W1 and W2.
Talking about W3, if it had enchanced those story arcs from the books and considered W2 choices, continuing without retcons, it would still have been its own thing without problems but instead we know which mistakes affected the whole work: by being its own thing some changes that clashed with it being a direct sequel are at fault here.
Why? Literary retcons are here to allow all the people playing the game to understand everything. Same reason for the lack of importance for the previous choices you made in W2 (can we call them retcons as well? I doubt it but... same effect). Example: politics didn't had to be complicated, but at least a bit fleshed out, this has nothing to do with the game being too tied to the books (if it was so, then the Nilfgaard plot would have been different, same for Dijkstra)
But it is not true to the books at all. It screws books lore as much as it screws the decisions of TW2.
I agree, I like TW2 plot more than TW3. I loved the plot CDPR created themselves, I loved that this was entirely fanfick that was far from original and full of original characters or book characters that was not even near the book ones. I loved when CDPR did not go G.R.R.Martin path and killed anyone, there was a real choice to let character live or die, not like in TW3 when the half of them are dead off screen and other half dies later anyways because of reasons.
For real, original characters CDPRojekts nails better, than book ones, IMO, because they have a freedom to express themselves, they do not need to follow instructions and create characters they are biased to. I loved the more book characters in game, really, but all of them have flaws character wise (Sile the dead, Philippa the old hag, e t.c.) or with their relationships with another characters (Yen vs Ciri) e.t.c.
Well... (I love being that guy) So, why can't we establish that Witcher, Witcher 2 and Witcher 3 are good ( if not great ) games and start enjoying playing them hmm? I know some people are getting their kicks by proving one thing or the other ( Internet right?!) but it really starting to get tiring for some people now.
But don't mind little old me and my useless blabbing...
And it screws with the book lore more than the previous games combined
I loved when CDPR did not go G.R.R.Martin path and killed anyone, there was a real choice to let character live or die, not like in TW3 when the half of them are dead off screen and other half dies later anyways because of reasons.
Well... (I love being that guy) So, why can't we establish that Witcher, Witcher 2 and Witcher 3 are good ( if not great ) games and start enjoying playing them hmm? I know some people are getting their kicks by proving one thing or the other ( Internet right?!) but it really starting to get tiring for some people now.
They are, absolutely. I loved these games so much that maybe I was more inclined to find what I didn't like as much as what I did like for real. I enjoyed playing these games, admitting they had cons as well.
Well... (I love being that guy) So, why can't we establish that Witcher, Witcher 2 and Witcher 3 are good ( if not great ) games and start enjoying playing them hmm? I know some people are getting their kicks by proving one thing or the other ( Internet right?!) but it really starting to get tiring for some people now.
But don't mind little old me and my useless blabbing...
I wouldn't take the criticisms or negativity to heart. Most of the people on the forums that tear the games to bits do so because they care deeply about the franchise, the books, the characters and/or all of the above. They also hold CDPR to higher standards than other developers because, frankly, they are better than other studios or at least strive to be. Well, at least that's what I tell myself whenever I read a post by Holgar or Zyvik I jest I jest!
I've already played all of them to death and i have 600+ hours (and even more counting the hours i was offline) in TW3. Do i need to play them another 20 times before saying something ?
I wouldn't take the criticisms or negativity to heart. Most of the people on the forums that tear the games to bits do so because they care deeply about the franchise, the books, the characters and/or all of the above. They also hold CDPR to higher standards than other developers because, frankly, they are better than other studios or at least strive to be. Well, at least that's what I tell myself whenever I read a post by Holgar or Zyvik I jest I jest!
Well, look I'm just tired of seeing same kind of threads poping out here and there... I get it, everybody wants to get perfect game right? But the sad truth is... there never be one, because not everybody think/read/write/listen and enjoy the same things. Is Witcher 1 alchemy the best? Sure. Is TW2 focus on politics and main "villain" great? Yeah. Is TW3 combat system better than other two? For me it is.
But I really don't need to hear about it 2177381763471827362174 times a year to confirm it's true or mostly agreeable... and look all three are subjective.
Perfect games don't exist and never will, and so far I liked what I saw last 3 times CDPR released a game.... Also TW 3 third act sucks from story point of view and somehow TW3 is still for me best game released in 2015.... ok, rant over.
I've already played all of them to death and i have 600+ hours (and even more counting the hours i was offline) in TW3. Do i need to play them another 20 times before saying something ?
But it is not true to the books at all. It screws books lore as much as it screws the decisions of TW2.
I agree, I like TW2 plot more than TW3. I loved the plot CDPR created themselves, I loved that this was entirely fanfick that was far from original and full of original characters or book characters that was not even near the book ones. I loved when CDPR did not go G.R.R.Martin path and killed anyone, there was a real choice to let character live or die, not like in TW3 when the half of them are dead off screen and other half dies later anyways because of reasons.
For real, original characters CDPRojekts nails better, than book ones, IMO, because they have a freedom to express themselves, they do not need to follow instructions and create characters they are biased to. I loved the more book characters in game, really, but all of them have flaws character wise (Sile the dead, Philippa the old hag, e t.c.) or with their relationships with another characters (Yen vs Ciri) e.t.c.
I personally enjoyed the Witcher 2 a lot more than The Witcher 3, and The Witcher 3 left me disappointed on many levels.
The main and probably the biggest issue that I had with the Witcher 3 was the apologetic tone that it reflected.
The game seemed like a long apology letter to the book fans that had issues with Triss replacing Yen and the absence of Ciri. Our choice of going after Triss in the Witcher 2 did not make a slight difference, and as we all know the Triss romance in the Witcher 3 was a disaster on release before the patch. It was even never properly explained what happened between Geralt and Triss.
The worst aspect of the Witcher 3 was forcing too much Ciri into the story. Geralt was turned into a puppet that only served the purpose of getting orders from Yen and look for Ciri. Searching for Ciri took way too long, and it did not stop after Geralt found her. The whole story became about Ciri, and I got sick and tired of even hearing Ciri's name by the end of the game. Geralt's story and the Wild Hunt's were negatively affected as a result, and the Wild Hunt became just an undeveloped villainous force without any breakthroughs. The game was called the Witcher 3 "WILD HUNT" for God's sake, and instead of seeing more of the Wild Hut we had to play through Ciri sequences that had no implications on the actual story. We really did not need to see what exactly happened in the Skellige village such as Ciri taking a bath and flirting with the village boy and so forth. One simple conversation line was enough to describe the whole thing, and that was "she was here but now she's gone" ! Instead CDPR could have focused their resources and time on the more important and interesting aspects of the story like the Wild Hunt and its riders.
Geralt became insignificant, and it was even pointed out in the game. Ciri told Geralt "Let me finish my story". At that moment the whole thing hit me, and I was left asking myself one question: what was the point of Witcher 1&2 and why were we playing as Geralt !
The Witcher 3's story had too many fillers (Ciri fillers to be specific), and CPDR played it really safe for the sake of the book fans. CDPR did not take any risks with the Witcher 3, and that is what hurt it the most.
The game seemed like a long apology letter to the book fans that had issues with Triss replacing Yen and the absence of Ciri. Our choice of going after Triss in the Witcher 2 did not make a slight difference, and as we all know the Triss romance in the Witcher 3 was a disaster on release before the patch. It was even never properly explained what happened between Geralt and Triss.
The worst aspect of the Witcher 3 was forcing too much Ciri into the story. Geralt was turned into a puppet that only served the purpose of getting orders from Yen and look for Ciri. Searching for Ciri took way too long, and it did not stop after Geralt found her. The whole story became about Ciri, and I got sick and tired of even hearing Ciri's name by the end of the game. Geralt's story and the Wild Hunt's were negatively affected as a result, and the Wild Hunt became just an undeveloped villainous force without any breakthroughs. The game was called the Witcher 3 "WILD HUNT" for God's sake, and instead of seeing more of the Wild Hut we had to play through Ciri sequences that had no implications on the actual story. We really did not need to see what exactly happened in the Skellige village such as Ciri taking a bath and flirting with the village boy and so forth. One simple conversation line was enough to describe the whole thing, and that was "she was here but now she's gone" ! Instead CDPR could have focused their resources and time on the more important and interesting aspects of the story like the Wild Hunt and its riders.
The Witcher 3's story had too many fillers (Ciri fillers to be specific), and CPDR played it really safe for the sake of the book fans. CDPR did not take any risks with the Witcher 3, and that is what hurt it the most.
The game seemed like a long apology letter to the book fans that had issues with Triss replacing Yen and the absence of Ciri. Our choice of going after Triss in the Witcher 2 did not make a slight difference, and as we all know the Triss romance in the Witcher 3 was a disaster on release before the patch. It was even never properly explained what happened between Geralt and Triss.
Sorry in advance if I may sound a bit rude here but I can't explain myself differently now.
Geralt-Triss breakup fits in the category of plot holes/inconcistencies, you think it's also an apology to books fans? Oh no... I'll make a list:
1. in W2 the fourth assassin was completely erased from the memory flashbacks
2. If in relationship with Shani the game would have provided a small excerpt from the diary telling it didn't work and now Geralt was with Triss
3. Anais and John Natalis
4. Iorveth and Saskia
5. How did Geralt manage to escape Avallach island?
Luckily Geralt-Triss breakup isn't the worst one. Since it was said in W2 ending that Geralt was going to search Yennefer knowing she was a captive in Nilfgaard, so maybe something happened during the trip. But yeah we haven't much info other than that, it's a plot hole.
The worst aspect of the Witcher 3 was forcing too much Ciri into the story. Geralt was turned into a puppet that only served the purpose of getting orders from Yen and look for Ciri. Searching for Ciri took way too long, and it did not stop after Geralt found her. The whole story became about Ciri, and I got sick and tired of even hearing Ciri's name by the end of the game. Geralt's story and the Wild Hunt's were negatively affected as a result, and the Wild Hunt became just an undeveloped villainous force without any breakthroughs. The game was called the Witcher 3 "WILD HUNT" for God's sake, and instead of seeing more of the Wild Hut we had to play through Ciri sequences that had no implications on the actual story. We really did not need to see what exactly happened in the Skellige village such as Ciri taking a bath and flirting with the village boy and so forth. One simple conversation line was enough to describe the whole thing, and that was "she was here but now she's gone" ! Instead CDPR could have focused their resources and time on the more important and interesting aspects of the story like the Wild Hunt and its riders.
Geralt became insignificant, and it was even pointed out in the game. Ciri told Geralt "Let me finish my story". At that moment the whole thing hit me, and I was left asking myself one question: what was the point of Witcher 1&2 and why were we playing as Geralt !
The Witcher 3's story had too many fillers (Ciri fillers to be specific), and CPDR played it really safe for the sake of the book fans. CDPR did not take any risks with the Witcher 3, and that is what hurt it the most.
But you're Geralt, and this girl is the most important thing in his life so... yeah totally a puppet with no goal or... maybe Geralt cared about finding Ciri as well as Yennefer did? Or maybe... as all the other characters? I won't make a list since we've all played the game.
You as the player make things done, it's said you're one of the best hunters and trackers expecially if you know what Ciri is for you: Bloody Baron cutscenes, as well as Geralt-Ciri reunion in that hut, would have convinced you of that, without Geralt no one would have accomplished anything at the beginning, it's after you find Ciri that things changes. Wild Hunt wanted Ciri and used Geralt and Yennefer as baits, so it was totally predictable this would have played a major role into the story, even if we know that was messed up in the 3rd act.
Ciri flahsback stories served to let the players know who Ciri is. To not see her only when you find her. It took very little time in contrast to the overall hours you spent into the game. The whole Dandelion quest was longer than all the flashbacks put together.
Wild Hunt depiction is a joke. We agree on that. What went wrong was how act 3 was handled, politics, Eredin, and White Frost. And believe me that wasn't absolutely an apology letter to the book fans. Again, how does this barely resembles an apology?
Can't believe this, I hope this isn't slowly turning into what I fear. Don't turn this into something "book fans vs game fans" because it isn't, or into something even worse that plagued these forums for months.
You're tired of seeing people discussing of certain matters... you serious? that really bothers you? I mean, no one is forcing you to come here and read every single post and reply. If there was a shitstorm going on here and you'd see the "Activity" section full of posts coming from here for a week i would understand but... ?? Where is it?
If i understoord correctly, you basically say that you don't need any other "2177381763471827362174" confirmations of the same arguments and that this things were already discussed several times before. That's true what you're saying, but then why the Story section is not closed/locked already? Everything has already been discussed after 10 months and there's no point in posting comments here anymore, right? Awesome. 8)
Oh noes, i forgot something tho, this section could still be useful for those comments which are posted once every 2 months about secret things which no one even care judging by the posts and views. And also useful for waifu wars, they never ends :hai:
You're tired of seeing people discussing of certain matters... you serious? that really bothers you? I mean, no one is forcing you to come here and read every single post and reply. If there was a shitstorm going on here and you'd see the "Activity" section full of posts coming from here for a week i would understand but... ?? Where is it?
If i understoord correctly, you basically say that you don't need any other "2177381763471827362174" confirmations of the same arguments and that this things were already discussed several times before. That's true what you're saying, but then why the Story section is not closed/locked already? Everything has already been discussed after 10 months and there's no point in posting comments here anymore, right? Awesome.
First of all, facepalm fest was to state my point (if someone don't get it, I'll say that @shawn_kh post was so embarrassingly bad that I had only one answer for it).
Let's focus on your reply now dear @Holgar82 shall we? You state that if I don't want to see the same arguments I should not check them and leave them be because qoute no one is forcing me to do it.... For that I can say that I care for this forum (been here for 7,5 years now so I guess I like it a bit)and I like to see a good argument plays itself out before my eyes. (sometimes even take part in it) What I don't like is seeing the same argument being brought up in 11-12 threads, and that was my concern from the very begining. [ For the record to any mod that will read this I don't plan to start "new vs old" war here again]
To bring something of merit to my post I will add that argument about plot holes in TW3 which @Sephira mentioned before me, would be very nice to my eye since some of them started already in TW2. But I will not see it since we need more drama filled posts from other people.
PS: Yes I ignored part about waifu wars. (PPS: Taiga-chan for the win)
First of all, facepalm fest was to state my point (if someone don't get it, then I'll say that @shawn_kh post was so embarrassingly bad that I had only one answer for it).
It was obvious, but why did you use all those gifs for 1 post? I found that a bit hilarious, just wanted to point out that for you with the same amounts of gifs
For that I can say that I care for this forum (been here for 7,5 years now so I guess I like it a bit) and I like to see a good argument plays itself out (sometimes even take part in it) before my eyes.
After a year? Fresh and new arguments? Only two things can "hypothetically" happen by what it seems to be your wishes:
- We "hypothetically" lock all the threads regarding story related things, because i think that the real "new and fresh" arguments are over (even though i'd like to start a few really unique threads about some things but... who would really care? And also i would not like to get too pissed by them, i tend to get pissed when i discuss extensively about this game, so i just avoid ) so you won't be annoyed anymore by the repetitive comments/arguments.
- Some members have a brilliant flash, and will start 10 totally new and fresh threads about... whatever they want. And you'll be happy.
11-12? This is a very generic thread, and so here we can put almost every arguments we want, but are there really 11-12 for each topic discussed here? Where? Isn't that an exaggeration?
11-12? This is a very generic thread, and so here we can put almost every arguments we want, but are there really 11-12 for each topic discussed here? Where? Isn't that an exaggeration?
Well, I'm not 100% sure if it's 11-12 but agruments about which one is better than the other tend to show up in other threads (Sometimes even not connected to any of them), at least I tend to notice it in other threads.
After a year? Fresh and new arguments? Only two things can "hypothetically" happen by what it seems to be your wishes:
- We "hypothetically" lock all the threads regarding story related things, because i think that the real "new and fresh" arguments are over (even though i'd like to start a few really unique threads about some things but... who would really care? And also i would not like to get too pissed by them, i tend to get pissed when i discuss extensively about this game, so i just avoid ) so you won't be annoyed anymore by the repetitive comments/arguments.
- Some members have a brilliant flash, and will start 10 totally new and fresh threads about... whatever they wants. And you'll be happy.
See that's where we disagree, because as I said before I would like to see in depth discussion about plot holes and other storyline based problems that TW3 and earlier games have.... and I don't see it. Before I hear "Want to do something right, do it yourself" though I'll add that I might run out of patience one day and collect all topics I want to talk about and flood forum with them, but I want someone to surprise me and do it before me since I know some people think the same things I do.
See that's where we disagree, because as I said before I would like to see in depth discussion about plot holes and other storyline based problems that TW3 and earlier games have.... and I don't see it.
So it's about the depth of the arguments that you'd like, and not really new arguments, maybe with facts which are analyzed from "unexplored" Points of View etc.. ok, got it.
Before I hear "Want to do something right, do it yourself" though I'll add that I might run out of patience one day and collect all topics I want to talk about and flood forum with them, but I want someone to surprise me and do it before me since I know some people think the same things I do.
