I realized another reason why TW2 is superior to TW3

+
Sorry in advance if I may sound a bit rude here but I can't explain myself differently now.
We are having a friendly discussion on a game, so I'd never consider you having a different opinion from me to be offensive.

You are awesome, and I respect and appreciate your opinions.

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 Triss and Geralt relationship was just an example, and I did not come to the conclusion just based on how it was handled. There are many other things that have been said before, and I do not deem necessary to repeat them. I used this certain issue as an example, because CDPR addressed it as well and owned up to it.

I agree there are many plot holes that needed to be addressed, and I hoped that they would although they did not.



It's true: there is much Ciri.

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?
One of my favorite parts of the game was the beginning of the game and seeing Geralt train with Ciri, and another one is their reunion that brought out emotions in me. I was not against Ciri's involvement, but I think she got turned into an annoying filler instead of the important plot device that she had the potential to be.

I preferred a simple dialogue about Ciri's whereabouts instead of having irrelevant flash backs every time Geralt asked someone where she was. The flashbacks could have covered the important events of the book that really highlights Geralt and Ciri's relationship. New comers would have known Ciri and her relationship with Geralt on a deeper level, and the story would have aroused more emotions.

Let me elaborate on why I say the Ciri flashbacks were irrelevant, and why I think CDPR missed a golden opportunity:

Instead of having to play through a boring and irrelevant sequence of Ciri taking a bath in the Skellige isle and so forth which could have been covered by a dialogue line, we could have had a flash back that covered Ciri rescuing Geralt from the Wild Hunt, more flashbacks on how her relationship developed with Geralt as a little girl, or the time she spent with Eredin to get to know Eredin better, and so many other better options that made a real difference ! that's why I got sick and tired of Ciri and her sequences, and it enraged me because I could see what a great opportunity was lost.

This game was going to be about Geralt discovering what had happened to him and learn more about the Wild Hunt, a group of other worldly Elves that had taken away his lover, his daughter, and his memory. Yet We did not even see a glimpse of his time riding with the Wild Hunt. Instead of the game being the Witcher 3 "Wild Hunt" and learning more about the Wild Hunt and its generals, the game turned into the Witcher 3 "good or bad dad edition". There were no real revelations about the Wild Hunt, and the decisions that determined the ending were so ridiculous and simple that it left a really bad taste in my mouth. Anyone could see them from a million miles away. If you let Ciri destroy a lab or see people alone, then you get the "good" ending. Really !?!
I don't know how the people behind the Witcher 2 could have gone so wrong to bring us to these low standards. The Witcher 2's story was complex, intriguing, and evoked thinking.

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.

Let me also make something clear that I should have mentioned before. I myself am a book fan, and I've read all the books. I just think CDPR should have boldly approached the Witcher 3 just like they did in the Witcher 1 and 2. In my opinion the games got overshadowed by the books in the Witcher 3 instead of them having their own identity. That is what I mean, when I say the Witcher 3 was apologetic to the book fans. CDPR tried really hard to keep the fans of the book happy, but they detracted from the game's identity and what they had built in the previous installments by doing so. There were no good twists in the story, because CDPR played it too safe.

I loved the previousgames, because they offered something new. I loved the previous games, because they weren't a rehash of the books. Unfortunately I can't say the same about the Witcher 3.
 
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.

It seems to me like you overreacted upon seeing this topic, complaining about its existence and posting a myriad of gifs.

As has been mentioned before, the reason I brought this up in the first place is because I loved TW1 and TW2 so much that the dip in quality (In certain respects) in TW3 is an issue of some concern for me. As you say, the decay of TW3's plot and storyline has already been discussed ad nauseum in other threads, and that's exactly why I haven't posted in the 'Eredin only says 12 lines' or such threads since last summer.

However, with this thread I didn't intend to just again point out TW3's faults, but I wanted to highlight a factor that I'd realized made TW2 truly great (The confidence to tell its own story), a factor which hadn't even ocurred to me until just recently, as I'd always just assumed the change in writers/the open world had caused the shift in quality. I certainly haven't seen 11-12 threads about this specific issue.


This game was going to be about Geralt discovering what had happened to him and learn more about the Wild Hunt, a group of other worldly Elves that had taken away his lover, his daughter, and his memory. Yet We did not even see a glimpse of his time riding with the Wild Hunt. Instead of the game being the Witcher 3 "Wild Hunt" and learning more about the Wild Hunt and its generals, the game turned into the Witcher 3 "good or bad dad edition". There were no real revelations about the Wild Hunt, and the decisions that determined the ending were so ridiculous and simple that it left a really bad taste in my mouth. Anyone could see them from a million miles away. If you let Ciri destroy a lab or see people alone, then you get the "good" ending. Really !?!
I don't know how the people behind the Witcher 2 could have gone so wrong to bring us to these low standards. The Witcher 2's story was complex, intriguing, and evoked thinking.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Yes, TW1 and TW2 set up a final confrontation with the Wild Hunt, but it did not have to be presented in the way in which it was. What's more, it did not have to be the main concern of the plot, just as it wasn't in TW1, where the Wild Hunt could potentially be the final boss.
 
Last edited:
(@Damariel , Hmmm. . . I've warned you about your smoking near barrels of flammable stuff before now. . . .)

And a moderator's reminder to all: If people wish to compare Assassins of Kings with Wild Hunt, and discuss the relative strengths and weaknesses of the two games, they're free to do so. If other members are weary of seeing such threads, however, it is not absolutely necessary to state your disapproval publicly. In the interest of civility, we ask that members, please, respect the opinions and interests of others, even if they may not agree, nor approve of them personally. Therefore, please, keep on the topic, and refrain from further disruptive skirmishes. Thank you. Carry on.
 
It seems to me like you overreacted upon seeing this topic, complaining about its existence and posting a myriad of gifs.

I don't complain about it's existence... its contents are what concerns me.

As has been mentioned before, the reason I brought this up in the first place is because I loved TW1 and TW2 so much that the dip in quality (In certain respects) in TW3 is an issue of some concern for me. As you say, the decay of TW3's plot and storyline has already been discussed ad nauseum in other threads, and that's exactly why I haven't posted in the 'Eredin only says 12 lines' or such threads since last summer.

To be fair I don't care about Eredin one bit... there is a lot of other plot holes and storyline inconsistencies that I would like to talk about. But as you said it's not the right thread for it.



However, with this thread I didn't intend to just again point out TW3's faults, but I wanted to highlight a factor that I'd realized made TW2 truly great (The confidence to tell its own story), a factor which hadn't even ocurred to me until just recently, as I'd always just assumed the change in writers/the open world had caused the shift in quality. I certainly haven't seen 11-12 threads about this specific issue.

Did I somewhere mentioned that your post made me rant yesterday?.... Because it wasn't your post that did that. Also your argument is worth having, I never said otherwise. The thing is that thread goes other ways sometimes,and it's sad when we go in the same direction most of the time.

So to summarize I don't have any problems with thread itself... I just want more originality in its content. And to add something on topic yes TW3 is more connected to the books than other two but it's not as bad for me than others may think it is for them.

I don't know if doing so nessecarily reduces my enjoyment of a given game, but I just enjoy discussing games and their strengths and weaknesses. At that, I find TW2 and TW3 comparison to be very good base material for discussing and analyzing good writing and bad writing

That's the feeling I get when I check threads on the forum sometimes, totally subjective feeling I know. And I might disagree that for good/bad writing we should move on to some story based thread but that just my opinion... also as I said later, I don't mind good argument to take place.
 
Last edited:
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 don't know if doing so nessecarily reduces my enjoyment of a given game, but I just enjoy discussing games and their strengths and weaknesses. At that, I find TW2 and TW3 comparison to be very good base material for discussing and analyzing good writing and bad writing
 
TW2 had the confidence to strike out on its own, using the source material as a base, and it created a unique story that everyone can agree is the best-written in the series - a whole blog has been written just about TW2's politics and characters. The game dealt with rape, 'terrorism', nationalism and revenge in a more mature way than a game could ever be expected to. Even TW1 had more of its own story, regardless of the Ciri stand-in that was Alvin or Triss's strange attitude.

Lastly, I would even argue that the absence of characters like Ciri or Yennefer - while this may have been unintentional in TW1 - really helped Geralt shine as a character. In the books beyond the first one, his life practically revolves around Ciri and protecting her, and he's locked into a toxic relationship with Yennefer. While this may have been okay in the books, the change of pace in TW2 - travelling with Triss and Roche, having a goal that has nothing to do with Ciri (Finding the Kingslayer), really showed me that Geralt was capable of being in far more interesting stories. In TW3, other than in HoS and (most) side-quests, he reverts back to his character from the novels. Again, this may be find for some, but it hardly allows for character versatility. If any future games are made in the setting of the Witcher, I hope that CDPR lets go of Geralt, Ciri, and the Witcher Saga and simply tells its own story.

Hmmmm ... I'll bite. I rather enjoy the fact that the Witcher 3 finally refocuses on the characters and themes from the books. I much prefer the story in the Witcher 3 than the Witcher 2 because it's a personal story about Geralt and the relationships he cares about most. I personally find that more interesting that politics, assassinations, the Lodge of Sorceresses and etc. I agree that TW2 strikes out and does it's own thing, and I very much enjoy it. However, if your asking me which I prefer, I prefer TW3. The Witcher 3 also handles some pretty mature themes better than other games as far as I can remember - i.e. spousal abuse (family matters & HoS), the loss of children (family matters), supporting children by letting them make their own decisions (all of the choices that lead to Ciri's fate), destiny & free will (The Last Wish), the ends justifying the means (Namesless - a bunch of other quests) and etc etc. I think Geralt actually shows more range in the W3 than W2. TW2 doesn't really change Geralt all that much, other than getting his memories back, which just restores him to his old self rather than really changing him. The entire point of TW3 is Geralt transcending from being a protector like he was in the books, to being a supporter of his child. Indeed if you constantly make choices where you are overly protective and paternalistic, you are more likely to get the "bad" ending. The story rewards Geralt for evolving away from the protector he used to be. I like it a lot.

So I guess the bottom line is I will agree to disagree with your assessment. Having said that, I'm still giving you a redpoint for a well reasoned position.
 
Last edited:
However, if your asking me which I prefer, I prefer TW2.

Think you may have had a typo there :)

I have mixed feelings. I preferred the main storyline in TW2 as I like the political stuff, but the sidequests in TW3 were a whole let better in my opinion. I also liked the fact that in TW2 there were multiple replay options for the different choices, whereas in TW3, replays are verrrry long (and, after a while I was space-barring through the main story dialogues). On the other hand, TW3 gives you a lot of options to replay on speedruns, on different builds, on "personal" challenges using your own rules (main quest only, main quests and contracts only, no fast travel, stuff like that).

So I have pluses and minuses on both.
 
Last edited:
and CPDR played it really safe for the sake of the book fans.
He's not saying nonsensical things. CDPR played it too safe, for the books fans? Not really. Just look at fake Cirilla aka Cerys, instead of a complex character we have "hey, choose between the best of the best woman of entire Skellige and her retarded brother and you'll complete the quest"

CDPR tried really hard to keep the fans of the book happy, but they detracted from the game's identity and what they had built in the previous installments by doing so. There were no good twists in the story, because CDPR played it too safe
I agree with this sentence instead. This game seems more a sequel of The Lady of the Lake/Beginning of TW1 instead of a sequel of The Witcher 2.
 
I do not know where you got this ridiculous notion :what3: As a hardcore book fan I was terrified about book lore rape. The game is cool and everything, but I, as a book fan, should close my eyes a bit more often than I wanted.

Maybe the word "rape" is a bit too much (imo), but yeah...let's not pretend that W3 is super true to the book lore..far from it actually..lol
In many aspects
 
Maybe the word "rape" is a bit too much (imo),
Honestly I did not made it, it was widely used around the forums some time ago =) Okay, I will tell "lore twist".
But still I prefer when REDs make their own characters, like Iorveth, Saskia, Baron, Von Everecs etc. In that case TW2 was more appealing to me, that was total fanfick with totally made-up story, where they had freedom. TW3 was rather bad nod to the books, too far from book lore and too far from their own story interpretation. Some kind of weird hybrid was born. IMHO of course.
 
I do not know where you got this ridiculous notion :what3: As a hardcore book fan I was terrified about book lore rape. The game is cool and everything, but I, as a book fan, should close my eyes a bit more often than I wanted.
I never said they succeeded. I merely said that they tried to merge the books and the games, and in doing so they ironically ended up with a rehash that wasn't true to neither the the books nor the games.

You actually pointed out my issue with the Wild Hunt.

And when I say CDPR played it too safe for the book fans, I mean not taking any risks with the story. For example if it turned out that Yennefer was after Ciri to kill her, or Ciri being the force that would end the world and not save it; then the book fans would be enraged and they'd say it is impossible: Yennefer would never hurt Ciri in the books, or wait a minute Ciri cannot be bad or evil. Ciri wasn't evil in the books. Take this as an example, and I'm not saying that these things should have happened.

CDPR feared the same reaction that they got when Triss replaced Yen in the Witcher 1, and we even had many point out that Triss's hair should be chestnut and not red. But these were the things that gave the games their own identity.
 
Last edited:
This is why I'm excited for their upcoming projects, like Cyberpunk. CPDR has proven through TW2 that they CAN write interesting stories, create memorable characters and hated antagonists. (Vernon Roche, Iorveth, fucking Letho of Gulet). So it's not that they showed incompetence in writing the story of TW3, but with all the things they decided to add, I would have to say their creative freedom when it came to forming characters was a bit more limited. Seeing how they were working with characters with pre-established personalities, (Yennefer, Triss, Ciri, Emhyr, Eredin) CDPR couldn't just write their scenes the way they would like to cater towards the plot, they had to try and mimic their book-like personas. Which, as has been vocally expressed on these forums, hasn't exactly gone very well.

Which leads to my next point. Although the Witcher trilogy has been absolutely fantastic, from the beginning, CDPR has been working with assets that were already formed. Things like the world, its characters, the lore and mythology was already pretty well-fleshed out by Sapkowski in is books. Sure, the Reds have expanded on his universe, but it doesn't change the fact that a ton of stuff was already there for them to use. They didn't have to come up with the world, didnt have to think up Temeria, what a witcher is, what's Kaer Morhen, or even what kind of person Geralt of Rivia is.

Now, with Cyberpunk, their next project coming up, all that will be gone. There will be no pre-established universe or characters to work on. No characters they have to cater to or "get right". No, they will have the complete freedom to make up whatever kind of world or characters they want, basically go ham, and we know this is where CDPR is best. TW2 is an example of that. :cheers3:
 
We are having a friendly discussion on a game, so I'd never consider you having a different opinion from me to be offensive.

You are awesome, and I respect and appreciate your opinions.
Thanks, I really appreciate it, it's good to see there are still people you can discuss with.

One of my favorite parts of the game was the beginning of the game and seeing Geralt train with Ciri, and another one is their reunion that brought out emotions in me. I was not against Ciri's involvement, but I think she got turned into an annoying filler instead of the important plot device that she had the potential to be.

I preferred a simple dialogue about Ciri's whereabouts instead of having irrelevant flash backs every time Geralt asked someone where she was. The flashbacks could have covered the important events of the book that really highlights Geralt and Ciri's relationship. New comers would have known Ciri and her relationship with Geralt on a deeper level, and the story would have aroused more emotions.

Let me elaborate on why I say the Ciri flashbacks were irrelevant, and why I think CDPR missed a golden opportunity:

Instead of having to play through a boring and irrelevant sequence of Ciri taking a bath in the Skellige isle and so forth which could have been covered by a dialogue line, we could have had a flash back that covered Ciri rescuing Geralt from the Wild Hunt, more flashbacks on how her relationship developed with Geralt as a little girl, or the time she spent with Eredin to get to know Eredin better, and so many other better options that made a real difference ! that's why I got sick and tired of Ciri and her sequences, and it enraged me because I could see what a great opportunity was lost.

This game was going to be about Geralt discovering what had happened to him and learn more about the Wild Hunt, a group of other worldly Elves that had taken away his lover, his daughter, and his memory. Yet We did not even see a glimpse of his time riding with the Wild Hunt. Instead of the game being the Witcher 3 "Wild Hunt" and learning more about the Wild Hunt and its generals, the game turned into the Witcher 3 "good or bad dad edition". There were no real revelations about the Wild Hunt, and the decisions that determined the ending were so ridiculous and simple that it left a really bad taste in my mouth. Anyone could see them from a million miles away. If you let Ciri destroy a lab or see people alone, then you get the "good" ending. Really !?!
I don't know how the people behind the Witcher 2 could have gone so wrong to bring us to these low standards. The Witcher 2's story was complex, intriguing, and evoked thinking.
I agree to disagree on the first part. A flashback or a cutscene is more important than a simple discussion, so seeing in flesh and blood the girl you're talking about is better.

About the Wild Hunt I couldn't agree more, but I can't say the same about "good dad bad dad" because yes, to me that was an important choice to estabilish the daughter-father relationship, to show his softer side. At the same time yes I think this alone shouldn't have influenced the whole ending, rather only a part of it. While you alone can't do much in the very White Frost ending (we don't even know what Ciri did, my recently I've thought that she never stopped the White Frost but if so, how?)
Your decisions still could have changed where the battle should have been or which allies you had brought (same with Kaer Morhen) and how all the plan was to be built, or how certain things played out in Undvik, even with Ciri, apart from the Dad decisions.

To me, the game hold your hand too many times.

Let me also make something clear that I should have mentioned before. I myself am a book fan, and I've read all the books. I just think CDPR should have boldly approached the Witcher 3 just like they did in the Witcher 1 and 2. In my opinion the games got overshadowed by the books in the Witcher 3 instead of them having their own identity. That is what I mean, when I say the Witcher 3 was apologetic to the book fans. CDPR tried really hard to keep the fans of the book happy, but they detracted from the game's identity and what they had built in the previous installments by doing so. There were no good twists in the story, because CDPR played it too safe.

I loved the previousgames, because they offered something new. I loved the previous games, because they weren't a rehash of the books. Unfortunately I can't say the same about the Witcher 3.
I see, you're very clear. However, retcons willl never make book fans happy. It's good for everyone to see old friends, old characters, old memories and reference... these make all happy... but retcons can be bad enough to wash all that was good. I still disagree with this part of your sentence, the apology letter. So both "fans" got disappointed in that aspect. ;)
I said before that if CDPR followed the book by verbatim for some story arcs, for the nilfgaardian politics, things would have been different, and even some facts (like Dijkstra surprised that Ciri was back. How? If he believed, among others, that she was the emperor's wife?). As I said in my previous post

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.

All because it would have been a story that allowed plot twists if better handled on those aspects.

But as I said before this game had a larger audience than before, so they had to go through this to...uhm... maybe satisfy that very large audience. Thinking about it...This is indeed the very problem that affected all: watering down some aspects in order to approach a larger audience. I'm not talking only about the plot now, but I think I made clear that in my previous posts.

EDIT: I saw this.

Holgar82 said:
This game seems more a sequel of The Lady of the Lake/Beginning of TW1 instead of a sequel of The Witcher 2.

I never said they succeeded. I merely said that they tried to merge the books and the games, and in doing so they ironically ended up with a rehash that wasn't true to neither the the books nor the games.
Yep. This is a pain to say but when I finished the game I didn't consider it as sequel to the books or to the games.
 
Last edited:
So both "fans" got disappointed in that aspect.
Exactly !

This is what I've been trying to say all along. CDPR's failed attempt to merge the book and the games resulted in both fans getting disappointed. Wild Hunt lacked the good aspects of the books, and it also lack the good aspects of the games.

Wild Hunt was an incredible game with great atmosphere, location and gameplay (I like the combat personally), but the story became a bland rehash that never lived up to the source material or the games that it succeeded.

The story was the most important thing to me, and that is why I am very disappointed.
 
a little detail: in tw2 geralt has to find the man who killed the king, but he has all the time in the world to do it, beacuse the king can't be killed again, so there is no pressure like in tw3, "find ciri before the wild hunt does" and in the third part of the game there are mostly only main quests because of that urgence that the wild hunt will find ciri at any moment,
i know all this feedback means nothing, because they will not make the game again nor an enhanced edition, so, i hope all this is useful for the next expansion
 
Top Bottom