making sequels is not just for the sake of making them, it's just like the three witcher games: there were not made just for the sake of making them, so it's not stupid at all,
a sequel for example can be as good as tw3
Except Witcher serie has now a end. So stop things before they start to go down is the better thing to do. Too many studios don't get that. Non necessary sequels always lead to lesser game at some point. It's just a videogame industry fact. So yeah W3 has an end there is no need for a sequel except satisfying fans that just can't get enough and make money.
I don't doubt W4 could be good but fans will call for more sequels that one day will inevitably be not good. So no W4 for me. No need to squeeze this universe to death. And i say that because I truly love The Witcher. Love it to madness lol.
I seriously doubt that. Before W3 became the huge success it is they wanted to be done with the witcher universe. They wanted it for a reason. Now they don't want to drop it because the game is successful. And that's the worst of the reasons.
I want prequels with Geralt that shed more light on the Wild Hunt and what happened before the trilogy. The stuff that Witcher 3 failed to bring to light. For example a game set during the time Geralt followed the Wild Hunt in order to rescue Yennefer and during the time he rode with the Wild hunt.
A prequel might not be a good idea, since there is already a known future and partly known story, it would be rather limited in how it could be written, and there would not really be any point giving story choices or different endings. Expanding on what happened between the end of the books and TW1 could have been done in TW3 with some additional cutscene(s), maybe that was even planned but cut.
Or no Witchers at all. I don't see a point in making another Witcher game without Geralt and the rest of the crew.
I would be OK with no more Witcher games, but since there is a substantial demand for them, if one has to be made, I prefer (and voted) a pre-defined, new character by CDPR.
Geralt is diffrent in the books. I mean, obviously they had to change things for the game to not be total boredom, like in the books he rarely used signs and potions and was carrying one sword, but the most important aspect of book Geralt would be no taking sides and if he would take side, he would only do it for a friend and not "greater good" or something.
Geralt may be slightly different in the games, but he is still largely (in my opinion, too much) pre-defined, and even when there are options to role play differently from "book Geralt", those are often given second class treatment in the game and by book fans. It is also interesting to note how TW3 implements important story choices in ways that try to avoid defining Geralt's character, that is, seemingly insignificant choices have major consequences later that the player most likely cannot predict. Ultimately, a protagonist fully pre-defined by books to the smallest detail is not ideal for an RPG. In the first two games, Geralt's amnesia allowed for some freedom, however, that decreased with each game, so I think ending his story with Wild Hunt was clearly the right decision.
On the other hand, a player created character would in theory allow for the most role playing freedom, but realistically it is unlikely that it could be implemented without sacrificing quality. Even allowing to change the name of the protagonist is not easy considering that "Geralt" is said in about 1300 voiced dialogue lines in Witcher 3 and its expansions. Thus my preference for what I see as the best compromise, a new pre-defined character.
I don't think so. TW1 was better than TW2 in many ways and for me overall is better, and the plot of TW3 (base game) is actually the worst of the series. In technical execution, i.e. graphics, world size, 3D models, voiceovers, added horse riding mechanics, TW3 is the best of the series but not in its main component: the story (since TW3 is a story-driven ARPG).
While I do not agree with some of your (not quoted) points, it is true that the main things that kept continuously improving over the trilogy are production value related, that is, simply much more work and money was put into the newer games and they are technically more advanced. So, they have better graphics and animations, improved combat and more balanced gameplay, a larger world and generally more content, and they are more polished when it comes to dialogues, voice acting, and other aspects of production. But not necessarily better main story, and they seem to be losing originality. In my opinion, a Witcher 4 as a continuation of the saga would probably be well made, but stale. And fans would still keep demanding a Witcher 5 anyway.
I seriously doubt that. Before W3 became the huge success it is they wanted to be done with the witcher universe. They wanted it for a reason. Now they don't want to drop it because the game is successful. And that's the worst of the reasons.
I've got to disagree with you, there. If you look at the TW4 thread (Link in my signature.), you'll notice that two years before TW3 came out, they were already saying that Geralt's story is over, but the Witcher franchise's isn't. It's actually recently that they've started saying that they're not sure if there are going to be future titles.
Disagree. I mean, the most critical choices (5-7 of them - that's how many choices are imporant for the ending) that determine the ending are the choices Geralt would not do. So how is that second class treatment? How outcome and end of the story can have second class treat?
I mean, Geralt is basically Revan, and I don't remember anyone complaining about him when the game came out. You still have freedom, a lot actually.
Also, I want to say that @Maerd is kinda right - vanilla Witcher 3 plot is worst of the entire series, but that's because they decided with 3 to make sexchange for Alvin with Ciri and change Triss character for Yen, living Triss being a new one, which led to many things that did not click in the entire trilogy and pretty weak enemy.
To me, what saves Witcher 3 are the DLC - Hearts of Stone destroys completely vanilla, and so far from what I played so does Blood and Wine - that's what saves 3 from being the worst.. Without those DLC I would agree, with DLC, Assassins of Kings is worst.
I've got to disagree with you, there. If you look at the TW4 thread (Link in my signature.), you'll notice that two years before TW3 came out, they were already saying that Geralt's story is over, but the Witcher franchise's isn't. It's actually recently that they've started saying that they're not sure if there are going to be future titles.
I meant how those paths are implemented in the game, for example, quoting from your earlier post:
"but the most important aspect of book Geralt would be no taking sides" - well, one of the often criticized parts of the game is the Radovid assassination plot, which essentially consists of two mediocre secondary quests. However, I see this being defended with the argument that book Geralt would never take part in such plot, so it is OK to be poorly done. I guess in that case one should not have high hopes regarding a well developed political plot in a future game with Geralt as the protagonist.
"In TW3, he wouldn't take payment for finding Ciri and give her away, for example" - which the game treats as a bad choice, and it also presents the empress ending as worse than the witcher one.
"You also have a choice of doing some contracts for free, which book Geralt wouldn't go for" - it is a fairly trivial kind of choice, though, its purpose is to allow the player to choose either money or XP as the reward, so it is more about gameplay than story.
"just like he wouldn't go for Triss" - see the first example about politics above.
"I mean, obviously they had to change things for the game to not be total boredom, like in the books he rarely used signs and potions" - which are still present in the game mainly to support sword fighting, would not using swords at all be a viable way to play ? I doubt it. And then more different approaches to gameplay like stealth are not even included.
Now I am not arguing whether these (and possible other examples) are right or wrong within the context of TW3, but I do think that Geralt's character is becoming a limiting factor while at the same time the game is also being criticized by book fans for not being true enough to the books, so perhaps a different protagonist is indeed the best solution ?
Also, I want to say that @Maerd is kinda right - vanilla Witcher 3 plot is worst of the entire series, but that's because they decided with 3 to make sexchange for Alvin with Ciri and change Triss character for Yen, living Triss being a new one, which led to many things that did not click in the entire trilogy
These changes were made between the first two games. Not that I say that TW1 is bad, but it is the one that differs from the others as far as the above mentioned characters are concerned.
To me, what saves Witcher 3 are the DLC - Hearts of Stone destroys completely vanilla, and so far from what I played so does Blood and Wine - that's what saves 3 from being the worst.. Without those DLC I would agree, with DLC, Assassins of Kings is worst.
I've got to disagree with you, there. If you look at the TW4 thread (Link in my signature.), you'll notice that two years before TW3 came out, they were already saying that Geralt's story is over, but the Witcher franchise's isn't. It's actually recently that they've started saying that they're not sure if there are going to be future titles.
Perhaps they were not sure yet in 2013 and the only thing that was already planned then is ending Geralt's story, and indeed a leaked document from August 2013 shows Geralt's three ending slides already being like in the released version of the game. But the idea of TW4 could end up getting dropped altogether if the new projects (CP2077 and a possible yet to be named AAA RPG) are successful enough and deemed to have more potential for future development.
Personally, I think they should go with a new, original character, or maybe even a duo/group... I'd love the option to switch to, say, a sorceress character with different skills and a new play style. Could be really interesting...
In a new game I wan't to see, well, may be most powerful man in this universe, Vilgefortz z Roggeveen.
Just think about that. Talented magician, powerful enough to block Ciri's gift, he fought agaist High vampire + another magician + witcher and almost won. Gifted swordsman and brilliant man with high intellegence.
We can play him in 2 periods of time^
1) Before fighting against Geralt.
Starting in his childhood we learn magic and other stuff. Also we learn his way of thinking, his life, etc.
2)I don't believe, that such genius man could die so easily. He could make his body to regenerate, just like high vampires. Or mutate his body, or make a "backup" of his soul. So, after first 5-10 hours of a new game, we see his "death". Then he regenerate, but lost almost all of his powers and he need to return it. In this game we can play "evil" or "good" Vilgefortz z Roggeveen, but still hunger for power. 1 / 10 / 50 years after death, nothing changed him.
So why not? It could be most delicious RPG with great intellegence game and nice combat system. Like, he fighting with staff and using his magic gift. He lost his memory about different parts of his life, not all of them, just most bad, like actions of Tissaia de Vries.
What do you think about that? Any chances of this god blessed devs could think about that? (ofc, after they finishing cyberpunk 2077)
Well, I mean, there's really nothing to disagree on. I have a list of facts, every single one backed up by a link to a reputable news source. You're simply telling me that they're not true. :confusion:
Although that would be one interesting game, there are four main reasons why I believe it won't happen.
1. It's tied into Geralt's plot (I.e.: the book's plot.). C.D.P.R. wants a fresh start. She isn't one.
2. She's way over-powered. Her powers are extraordinary. There is zero challenge, even of Death March, during her scenes.
3. Her being the protagonist would mean rendering the biggest decision of the Witcher trilogy meaningless. Her and Geralt's future are what the entire series led up to. This is, in my opinion, the biggest problem with her being the protagonist.
4. She's not really a Witcher,
even with the Witcheress ending
. Besides that, she also can't drink potions or cast signs.
And why this game should called Witcher 4? W4 - it's just a name for a new game in this universe. In a new series i prefer to play human and fight / cooperate with witchers, not to be "another Geralt".
1. It's tied into Geralt's plot (I.e.: the book's plot.). C.D.P.R. wants a fresh start. She isn't one.
2. She's way over-powered. Her powers are extraordinary. There is zero challenge, even of Death March, during her scenes.
3. Her being the protagonist would mean rendering the biggest decision of the Witcher trilogy meaningless. Her and Geralt's future are what the entire series led up to. This is, in my opinion, the biggest problem with her being the protagonist.
/Sign and agree.
She would simply not fit. No matter how you look at it
Additional to that, she is a woman.
Witchers are Males. If they want at least stick to the lore.
And why this game should called Witcher 4? W4 - it's just a name for a new game in this universe. In a new series i prefer to play human and fight / cooperate with witchers, not to be "another Geralt".
And why this game should called Witcher 4? W4 - it's just a name for a new game in this universe. In a new series i prefer to play human and fight / cooperate with witchers, not to be "another Geralt".
You're right. It won't be named "The Witcher 4". C.D.P.R. has even said so, themselves.
Is Eskel just "another Geralt"? Lambert? Vesemir? If your answer is "No." to them, they why can't it be to a new, original Witcher? Or multiple? "another Geralt" means a character that is incredibly like him. Out of the 20+ Witchers we have met so far, none of them are.
One more thing: why call it "The Witcher" if it's not going to be about Witchers. For the sake of branding, it's inevitably going to be in the title. Witchers are the center-point of the universe. If they didn't create a main game about them, then the title would be a misnomer.
You're right. It won't be named "The Witcher 4". C.D.P.R. has even said so, themselves.
Is Eskel just "another Geralt"? Lambert? Vesemir? If your answer is "No." to them, they why can't it be to a new, original Witcher? Or multiple? "another Geralt" means a character that is incredibly like him. Out of the 20+ Witchers we have met so far, none of them are.
One more thing: why call it "The Witcher" if it's not going to be about Witchers. For the sake of branding, it's inevitably going to be in the title. Witchers are the center-point of the universe. If they didn't create a main game about them, then the title would be a misnomer.
Ok, i got your idea. But remember that thing, that devs agreed to make games in Witcher universe. So we can see Nilfgaard / Ofir etc, but we have no need to play only as a witcher. Why don't you get it? It's obviously, that CDPR won't make a new game about person who were close to Geralt. Vilgefortz met him once in his life, so it still can be a new game in WITCHER Universe. Not A Witcher game. Agreed?
PS: "another Geralt" i mean - another witcher, or someone like him. Universe need fresh blood and for me Vilgefortz suits perfectly for this role.
Ok, i got your idea. But remember that thing, that devs agreed to make games in Witcher universe. So we can see Nilfgaard / Ofir etc, but we have no need to play only as a witcher. Why don't you get it? It's obviously, that CDPR won't make a new game about person who were close to Geralt. Vilgefortz met him once in his life, so it still can be a new game in WITCHER Universe. Not A Witcher game. Agreed?
PS: "another Geralt" i mean - another witcher, or someone like him. Universe need fresh blood and for me Vilgefortz suits perfectly for this role.
---------- обновленный 20:26 ----------
So, Vilgefortz - have nothing common with Witcher universe? REALY? Read books, i guess.
Here are some reasons why I don't believe Vilgefortz will be the next protagonist.
1. He's a bad guy. This will be very confusing to your average, mainstream gamer, and they would never connect with the plot. The Witcher series is known for its shades of grey. Vilgefortz is a very dark grey, bordering on black.
2.
He's dead. This limits the room for R.P.G. elements.
.
3. His plot-line is taken care of. You know the who, the what, the where, the when, the why, and the how of his story. There would be as much choice in that game as there are in Call of Duty games.
4. C.D.P.R. likes making original content. If this wasn't true, they wouldn't have made Geralt's adventures original, and, instead, made a remake of the books.
5. The Witcher series is about Witchers. People want to play as a Witcher. The number of people the want to play as a non-Witcher is most likely around 1%. Most fans would be infuriated by this, and refuse to buy the title.
6. It would take out all of the elements of game-play that we love. No signs, no potions, no dedoctions, no bombs, no blade oils, and no blades.
7. Vilgefortz saw little conflict. It would mostly be a talking game, with a few spells here and there.
8. Vilgefortz only did anything of importance on a couple of occasions through-out his life. The game would have to jump around between time periods, and have little to no continuity.
9. Vilgefortz is part of Geralt's plot-line. He's a book character. C.D.P.R. has stated that they're moving away from both of these things.
10. Of all of the threads I've visited, of all the hundreds (If not thousands.) of people who have cast their opinions on this matter, you're the only one who wants to see Vilgefortz as a future protagonist. And, we're talking about fans of the books, here. Most of the people who have played TW3 and liked it haven't read the books, and have no intention to. They won't care for Vilgefortz one bit.
1) Don't forget, that CDPR changed a lot in lore.
2) I'm talking not about another witcher game. I'm talking about game in this universe.
3) Most of gamers who played this game and didn't read books, already heard about Vilgefortz (he killed Regis, wrote a book about Elder Blood, etc.)
4) Vilgefortz is balancing on grey side and close to black and evil, BUT he is still on the grey shade.
5) Well, as i said, i don't believe, that this person were so easy to kill. As one man already mentioned, Philippa should also be dead, but......
6) I'm not heated=)
7) After 4-5 years after Witcher 3 (2-3 years after Cyberpunk) people could still be waiting for wtichers. But not all of them. Perhaps, i'm the only one on this forum full of fanboys, who wants to play such a dark person (but not absolutly evil).
8) We knew Geralt's fate long before game released. So what changed? The beginnig of the game - story of Vilgefortz's life, his powers and wishes. Rest of the game - completely new story. Still don't understand, why you think it can't be realised in a new game in Witcher universe (not game, it's different)
Two wrongs don't make a right. Changing the lore is bad. Changing it again is worse. Using your logic, why not make Geralt a female elven sorceress like C.D.P.R. was originally offered? They already broke the lore once, right?
7) After 4-5 years after Witcher 3 (2-3 years after Cyberpunk) people could still be waiting for wtichers. But not all of them. Perhaps, i'm the only one on this forum full of fanboys, who wants to play such a dark person (but not absolutly evil).
That number may increase from 1% to 2%, but don't expect it to get much higher.
Keep in mind that the Witcher series has been going on for 30 years.
Additionally, if by "fanboy" you mean a male fan of the series, then that makes you a "fanboy", too. If not, then you wouldn't know who Vilgefortz even is, or have an account here.
8) We knew Geralt's fate long before game released. So what changed? The beginnig of the game - story of Vilgefortz's life, his powers and wishes. Rest of the game - completely new story. Still don't understand, why you think it can't be realised in a new game in Witcher universe (not game, it's different)
We still don't know Geralt's fate. Not only did Sapkowski make his story's ending ambiguous, but the games take place before the books. C.D.P.R. could do anything they wanted with the plot. With Vilgefortz, they would be almost entirely constrained.
....
With a new protagonist, the sky is the limit. They could do ANYTHING they want to, as long as it fits into the world. With Vilgefortz, they would be retelling a story that has already been thoroughly examined.
The biggest point that you should take away from all of this, though, is that it simply isn't going to happen. There's quite literally zero chance. Not only does it not fit into C.D.P.R.'s practices, but there is virtually no demand for a Vilgefortz game, and that isn't going to change with time. People don't want Vilgefortz. There are a million games with magicians as the protagonist. People want Witchers, and this is the only franchise that can deliver on that.
