You are right about that. This thread is in the spoiler free section, so spoiler tags are very much appreciated.
That's when the game series found itself, establishing a powerful narrative separate from the books and creating new characters and themes. They should have followed up on TW2 instead of destroying all of it for the sake of Darth Eredin and Super Ciri.
In terms of the story itself it definitely was a huge stepup from TW1, which was more on fanfiction level than a standalone. But in a lot of other aspects it had much less identity than TW1 and felt like a normal action game. I mean it focused much less on the discovery by the player, but most explanations were given to you by the NPCs where to go next so that you never felt much motivation on your own. This was especially ridiculous as it featured a detective mainquest, where you should feel like it's you who has to figure out things. Together with the less open hubs and the lesser focus on some good old witchering, it didn't feel that much like I was actually playing a witcher game, but instead a typical action CYOA game, where the developers pride themselves in their own story and characters like almost all Bioware games, except that it had a story of value.
The extensive usage of cutscenes, QTE's, a bad UI, lame combat (so same as in TW1
) really didn't feel good to me. Oh and the crafting was as uninspired as it gets, TW1 with it's meteorite ores and limited inventory showed much better design directions. ( Maybe the negative things came in, because they created their own engine, so I wouldn't put too much fault on them.)
I definitely think that TW3's well realized open world alone was a much better addition to the series compared to what TW2 introduced, because you could "breathe" the world again and were less railroaded. Some bad concepts like crafting and lame twitch combat were unfortunately carried over though.
I definitely agree with you that Eredin was lame and Ciri was just as lame a McGuffin to keep the story going ( a nice continuation from the books
). But it's obvious they just did that to create a well-rounded finale for Geralt's journey, that was already heavily implied in TW2.In case I got slightly off-topic: I think Ayyub was definitely right, that TW2 went in a wrong direction, but not in terms of story; rather everything else.
Not really, W2 for all its improvements from the first game felt the "messiest" game in terms of ideas and gameplay mechanics, but I would agree that the game (like the first one) did not whitewash your decisions like the third game does to an extent.
As for the book characters "destroying" the series, it was the book characters that CDPR destroyed due to the lack of time and changed storylines, unfortunately.
Although TW2 is in some sense also the game that prepared the way for the book centric narrative of its sequel, even if those book characters only appeared in flashbacks. In any case, if more Witcher games are to be made in the future, they will hopefully involve a different cast of characters and will not be constrained as much by the books.
Reading this stuff is hilarious. No wonder the devs are just like, "Fuck it. We'll do what we want to do." Fans are always telling them completely contradictory things.
That's the first comment i see about TW2 being "the beginning of the end" tbh. But sure, sometimes devs should just do whatever they feel to be the right thing.
Since the devs have done both - departed from the books in TW2 and then tried to be more faithful, it shouldn't come as a surprise.
I guess it's all those trashy books that made Eredin the primary antagonist who wants to capture Ciri through kidnaping Yennefer and later Geralt. Not TW2.
Also, it's the books that introuced Geralt's recovery from amnesia and his desire to search for Yennefer. Not TW2.
Likewise, disintegration of the Lodge of Sorceresses and the 3rd Nilfgaardian invasion happened at the end of books. Not TW2.
Damn those poisonous books that forced CDPR to abandon their original plans for TW2 sequel and instead make this game that follows the story of Lady of the Lake. Not TW2. :laughing:
Also, it's the books that introuced Geralt's recovery from amnesia and his desire to search for Yennefer. Not TW2.
Likewise, disintegration of the Lodge of Sorceresses and the 3rd Nilfgaardian invasion happened at the end of books. Not TW2.
Damn those poisonous books that forced CDPR to abandon their original plans for TW2 sequel and instead make this game that follows the story of Lady of the Lake. Not TW2. :laughing:
Of course not, what I said is that the main plot of TW3 didn't come from nowhere, it was already heavily foreshadowed by the ending of its predecessor. CDPR didn't abandon anything, they continued with what was left unresolved. All the things I mentioned are basically the only events that happened in everyone's playthrough of TW2. Because of this, it's logical to base the sequel around Wild Hunt and Ciri.
The problems with the White Frost, Eredin, politics are not because CDPR decided to blindly follow the books. Had they actually stayed true to them:
- White Frost wouldn't be a magic phenomenon, but a climate change meant to happen in a very distant future, Ciri wouldn't even be the one stopping it
- Eredin was supposed to be cunning and charismatic, not the witcher version of Shao Kahn
- Dijkstra shouldn't be a megalomaniac with suicidal tendencies. AFAIK, no one in the books believes that being someone's vassal and being independent aren't the two mutually exclusive terms, like Roche and Thaler believes in TW3
Last edited by a moderator:
Could you please point me where in this thread it was said the opposite?
'Cause really, that post you made "books vs TW2" made totally 0 sense to me.
It's clear that TW3 continues from the events of his predecessor, sometimes in an awful way and sometimes not at all. The problems don't come from anywhere, the main plot was simply handled badly.
But nor the books, Witcher 2, the open world, new players, consoles blah blah blah should be blamed for this and many other reasons. Because it's CDPR who decides in the end.
Last edited:
All I've said is when CDPR tried to do Sapkowski's work for him, that's their weakest writing. It's clear when they distanced themselves from the books their characters and plots were stronger. Expansions included. A lot of TW2 fans - most of which are gone now - didn't even want Ciri to be central to the narrative. But we all know that such a character, even if she's bland, has wide spread appeal.
Last edited:
Hopefully that appeal will not be considered enough to make sequels with Ciri as the protagonist. In any case, it will be possible to show CDPR's own writing in future games, the Witcher saga is said to be over. I have to admit, if I had a choice between CP2077 and a continuation of Geralt's or Ciri's story, and only one of them was to be made, I would choose the former right now.
It's perfectly fine if you didn't want or like Ciri-centered narrative. Such is your taste, it's pointless to debate about it.
It is wrong, however, to slam CDPR for abandoning their own plotlines when it's their own (TW2) plot that set the stage for the re-introduction of Ciri and confrontation with the Wild Hunt.
As much as I liked the expansions, they are not entirely original either - HoS was heavily inspired by Pan Twardowski, BaW by The Lesser Evil. In case of BaW, Im' not sure their own characters (Dettlaff and Syanna) are better written than Sapkowski's (Regis and AH). On the contrary...
As I see it, the direction the main game's story took was fine, TW3 continued what TW2 introduced and left unresolved. The weak final act likely happened due to time/budget constraints rather than CDPR desire to finish Sapkowski's work for him. Not like he left it unfinished, anyway.
Last edited by a moderator: