Last edited:
Is it really? When FromSoftware released Bloodborne, they were able to target the same demographic which played Dark Souls without directly referencing that series. And as a studio, they are far less well known than CDPR.
The same goes for a myriad of other intellectual properties. I'm sure that if Bioware decided to remove "Mass Effect" from their upcoming title and just call it "Andromeda," people would still play it, and the majority of us would still know that it takes place in the same fictional universe.
So, why risk the money?
Because like I said, the title "Witcher" in and of itself restricts the the gameplay and story experiences that are available to the player. It creates the expectation that, at the very least, you are going to be playing as a Witcher - if not Geralt, then someone like Lambert, Eskel, or a custom version thereof - and a lot of people on this forum have expressed ... hesitation to jump into the shoes of anyone other than The White Wolf. If the next entry into Sapkowski's universe was a standalone product, unencumbered by the literary and video game baggage that comes with this franchise, the REDs would have more freedom to experiment, to craft more characters like The Bloody Baron, Master Mirror, and Olgierd, maybe even do something really wacky like visit other planets. We got a taste of that in the "Through Time and Space" questline, but it was just a taste.
Perhaps it would be better to not apply the title "Witcher" to any future game in Sapkowski's universe. The title in and of itself restricts the kind of gameplay and story experiences that one can have. By now, enough people are familiar with the I.P. that I think CDPR can and should branch out into uncharted waters. They don't need to call it "The Witcher 4: <insert pithy colonic title>" in order for me to understand that it is set in the same universe as the three previous entries.
1. A custom character. People keep saying custom characters are bland, but I don't think they're inherently worse than pre-set main characters, who can be just as much of a plain blank slate (Adam Jensen, I'm looking at you).
3. A new pre-defined character. This could turn out alright, but it could also turn out very badly. The point of making Geralt the protagonist of the previous games, in my eyes, was to use his already existing history. A new character would bring nothing like that to the table, certainly not anything that a custom character cannot also provide if done well. Ultimately, both of the previous options can offer far more if handled correctly.
The next Witcher game, unlike Bloodborne, takes place in the same universe as its predecessors. That's a big difference.
Yeah...the majority would know. But a minority wouldn't. And I think the size of that minority would surprise you. So, why risk the money?
Once a brand name becomes successful (Or a character, catch-phrase...anything memorable, really.), you want to capitalize on it. That's just how marketing works.
It depends on how much customization is possible, of course, if it is limited mostly to things like appearance (which is already possible to some extent in The Witcher 3 with hair and beard styles, armor dyes, etc.) and better support for more gameplay styles, then it is not that much of a problem. On the other hand, a fully customizable protagonist does become a limiting factor when it comes to telling a "personal" story. Imagine if customization like in Skyrim was possible in The Witcher 3, and Geralt was replaced for example with a female Khajiit assassin (and obviously no longer called Geralt), would that not have to have a significant impact on interactions with characters like Ciri, Triss, or Yennefer ? Of course, the easiest solution to that kind of problem is to make things more generic and impersonal. Even just allowing the player to change the witcher's name would not be so easy, a choice from 10 pre-defined names (a rather limited selection) would have required recording more than 11000 additional voiced dialogue lines. Again, it is easiest to replace most occurrences of "Geralt" with "you" or "witcher" or similar, but that also makes the conversations more impersonal.
On the other hand, I guess Cyberpunk 2077 might be better suited for experimenting with the idea of a player created character, and the experience gained during the development of that game could be of help later in future titles.
CDPR could also write a history for the new character themselves. I think they are competent enough to be able to create someone at least as good and interesting as Eskel. And the first two games did not use that much of Geralt's history either because of the amnesia. If anything, the fact that so many people doubt CDPR's ability to succeed with this approach is a good reason to prove the doubters wrong, rather than getting branded as developers incapable of writing a good story or characters without having to rely heavily on Sapkowski's work.
I definitely do not think a lot of customization is a good idea. I am not looking for anything Skyrim-like (dear god, no). If we end up having a set protagonist, I think it should go like this:
- We get to choose the appearance. This wouldn't affect the story in any way but would still please a lot of players.
- We get at least a bit more freedom in deciding the character's personality and ideals than we did in the trilogy. I wouldn't want to play Geralt 2.0, personality wise. And this would actually provide more freedom in terms of stories that can be told: there wouldn't be any weird cases like TW2, where Geralt has little to no reason to care about any of the political drama that makes up the bulk of the story.
- No name selection. Character should use a default name. Choosing the name doesn't add anything substantial and, like you said, makes the story more impersonal.
- The character should have a set background, or a few set backgrounds we can choose from a la Dragon Age: Origins. No generic, blank slate background like in Bethesda games. Here we can get exactly the same as with a pre-defined character, but with some extra player input. It's an all around better choice.
- No race or class selection. Playing a witcher would be drastically different from playing anything else, both gameplay and lore-wise. Same with being a human or an elf.
- Allow players to choose the character's gender, if possible. This would be the most difficult part, since NPCs ought to react differently to a female PC. A female witcher might also take some more background explanation. But in the end, it is a choice a lot of people would appreciate and it would be interesting. As for the character's name, they can either record a different one for each gender or, if they're smart, they'll just a choose one that's gender neutral.
It's not that I doubt that they're good enough to make a new character; it's that I think it's a wasted effort. Love it or hate him, Geralt was not even close to the most interesting character in the game, and he didn't need to be. A custom character can still have a compelling background and personality, if pulled off well.
But as I said, I want to see how CP2077 turns out before giving my final opinion on this matter.
"female Witchers: Oh, please no. Nothing could be more lore breaking. This is the ultimate form of "pandering". It's one of the very few things C.D.P.R. could do that would lead to me not buying the game.
Take it you're not a fan of theending thenCiri as Witcheress
I know this will never happen, but I've always thought it would be a fun idea to have a fourth game that centers around the adventures of Lambert and Keira Metz. That would make for some salty and hilarious repartee. Maybe even have them take a detour to Corvo Bianco and let Geralt pop in for a cameo. One can dream. One can dream ...
ciri as witcheress is ok for the tw3 ending, but not for protagonist for another game, nor any other character from tw trilogy, if it's not geralt, then it must be a custom character, through character creation we can make our own witcher, choose school as class, etc
but male only, for there are no female witchers
See, I think that is equally problematic. I mean, any Witcher that we play is going to pale in comparison to Geralt. He's The White fucking Wolf
Thousands of pages and hundreds of hours of gaming have taught us that he is at the pinnacle of his profession, that all other Witchers pale in comparison to him.
I really doubt that some generic, customizeable character which I make is going to match up to that.
I still think the only way forward for this franchise is to branch out, to experiment with other protagonists that are not Witchers.
The next Witcher-protagonist's deeds might make Geralt look like a chump.
The next Witcher-protagonist doesn't have to be generic or customization. Why can't he be awesome, like the book characters, or any of the other character's C.D.P.R. has created? If you really doubt that C.D.P.R. can't make an awesome and amazing character, after everything they've put out, then I'm quite surprised.
Not only is that not the only option, but it's also one of the least likely (Due to popular opinion.).
That kind of game design doesn't work in my opinion, though. Bioware does the same thing with their protagonists, at least that's the way it feels with the Dragon Age series. In the first game you play as the Warden, the slayer of the menacing Dark Spawn hoard, the savior of the world, etc etc etc. Then the third game comes along and they have to trump the previous protagonists, so they create the mighty Inquisition. You thought you were a bad ass before? Think again! This time you will command armies, kings will bow before you, and the woman that you romanced in the first game? Now she's your lapdog, carrying out the wishes of this new clandestine organization!
I don't want a fourth game that trivializes Geralt's accomplishments and makes me feel like all of the hours which I spent playing as him was merely a stepping stone to the "new hotness."
I was specifically referencing what @cyberpunkforever said when he/she stated, "if it's not geralt, then it must be a custom character." It's not CDPR's abilities that I doubt, but rather mine I don't like customizeable characters because I never feel vested in them, and I prefer it when the developer creates the backstory for protagonists.
How exactly do you judge what the "popular opinion" is? By reading this forum, visiting gaming websites and places like Reddit? No offense, but over six million people bought Wild Hunt in its first couple weeks of release. I don't think it's possible for any of us to really gauge how consumers would respond to a less traditional protagonist.
Also, if CDPR were only to cater to popular opinion (by that I take it you mean the communis opinio on this forum), they wouldn't be making CP 2077. They would be churning out a third, fourth, and fifth expansion to Wild Hunt, then direct their attention to Red Kit 2, then an Enhanced Edition of Wild Hunt.
While I DO agree with a number of things you said, two stuck out, to me, like sore thumbs.
"Geralt 2.0": I responded to this concept a couple times a page or two back. You might consider checking it out. Sorry...I'm far too lazy to link to it or rewrite it.
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.
"female Witchers: Oh, please no. Nothing could be more lore breaking. This is the ultimate form of "pandering". It's one of the very few things C.D.P.R. could do that would lead to me not buying the game.
That kind of game design doesn't work in my opinion, though. Bioware does the same thing with their protagonists, at least that's the way it feels with the Dragon Age series. In the first game you play as the Warden, the slayer of the menacing Dark Spawn hoard, the savior of the world, etc etc etc. Then the third game comes along and they have to trump the previous protagonists, so they create the mighty Inquisition. You thought you were a bad ass before? Think again! This time you will command armies, kings will bow before you, and the woman that you romanced in the first game? Now she's your lapdog, carrying out the wishes of this new clandestine organization!
I don't want a fourth game that trivializes Geralt's accomplishments and makes me feel like all of the hours which I spent playing as him was merely a stepping stone to the "new hotness."
I was specifically referencing what @cyberpunkforever said when he/she stated, "if it's not geralt, then it must be a custom character." It's not CDPR's abilities that I doubt, but rather mine I don't like customizeable characters because I never feel vested in them, and I prefer it when the developer creates the backstory for protagonists.
I think when the vast majority of people across a number of websites show a want for a future Witcher as the protagonist, and/or a dislike of the concept of having a non-Witcher, that's fairly indicative of the public's thoughts. And, keep in mind what most people are fans of this game for...Witchers. They are the unique aspect of the game's universe. Everything else is an amalgamation of all of the famous fantasy worlds and folk tales, or is common throughout other works. For example, there are a ton of games that let you play as a sorcerer, a soldier, a knight, etc. (The things that you mentioned, previously.). How many let you play as a Witcher? The series' lore isn't what makes it specially. It's the series' protagonist; the Witchers.