Realistically, wouldn't Geralt skip nearly every side mission?

[Death132]

Realistically, wouldn't Geralt skip nearly every side mission?

Geralts motive is to find Ciri. Throughout much of the game you are hot on Ciris trail but you always find yourself just a few steps behind her. So logically Geralt wouldn't be taking WItchers contracts or helping random peasants. Each contract he takes is wasting more of his own time allowing Ciri to get further and further away.

To the people who have known Geralts character from the books, what would Geralt do? Would he refrain from any and all Witchers work to get to Ciri as fast as possible? Or would he still find ways to prioritize his duties as a monster slayer? What about helping random peasants? If someones family member went missing would he really spend a bit of his precious time scouring the nearby forests instead of tracking Ciri?

 

[hedop]

Geralts motive is to find Ciri. Throughout much of the game you are hot on Ciris trail but you always find yourself just a few steps behind her. So logically Geralt wouldn't be taking WItchers contracts or helping random peasants. Each contract he takes is wasting more of his own time allowing Ciri to get further and further away.

To the people who have known Geralts character from the books, what would Geralt do? Would he refrain from any and all Witchers work to get to Ciri as fast as possible? Or would he still find ways to prioritize his duties as a monster slayer? What about helping random peasants? If someones family member went missing would he really spend a bit of his precious time scouring the nearby forests instead of tracking Ciri?

Being on his own he would realistically need money so he would take the Witcher contracts. In Novigrad he probably wouldn't because he could live off Dandelion but since he is missing for large chunks of the game again... he would need money.

 

[huseyin18mart]

The thing is game clearly seperates quests into main, side, contracts, treasure hunts. It's up to the player to decide which quest(s) s/he will do. Option is given to you if you don't want to waste your time with side quests or contracts you can just do the main quests and find Ciri as soon as possible. Even if you don't do extra quests I don't think leveling system(or money) will be a problem. Such as I was able to do lvl 20 quests when I was 15-16 and after lvl 20 it even got easier since I gained access to higher lvl skills and armors.

 

[Willowhugger]

It's all brought up by the Griffon hunt. The Nilfgaard commander believes Geralt would leave the villagers and the soldiers to their fates to go after Yennefer.

And Geralt is DISGUSTED with him by the very IDEA.

Because at the end of the day, Geralt is a WITCHER and this is his JOB.

Also, finding Ciri seems to be a months long thing. He's following up rumors, gathering coin for travel, supplies, and so on. He's going to be in specific zones for weeks anyway so why not?

 

[fluffybuffy]

Imo all open world games have this "problem".
"You have 5mins to save the world, but take your time to explore it first."

 

[Willowhugger]

But yes, I can't imagine Geralt would ignore the child-eating ogre.

 

[moonknightgog]

Uhm...yeah. This is why I have not taken most of the side quests in Skellige.

 

[mmasc4492]

In the books he barely did any witcher contracts (the book series not the short stories), he even at one point considered himself to not be a witcher anymore. The only thing that mattered to him was finding Ciri. So yes I think realistically he would not be doing all these side quests and witcher contracts, besides the ones that get him closer to Ciri and the ones that involves the people close to him like Dandelion, Zoltan, Triss, etc.

 

[onionshavelayers]

SPOILERS!

Emperor Emhyer (or even Yennefer) should have given him all the coin he needed for his task. Geralt should never need to earn money since the Emperor wanted him to find Ciri desperately, so why would he not give Geralt the means to do so? This make ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE!

Emhyr also denies Geralt soldiers during the attack on Kaer Morhen, WTF! What if Ciri died during the battle, would Emhyer just shrug his shoulders and say "well, I did all I could"?

 

[Riddlin]

Imo all open world games have this "problem".
"You have 5mins to save the world, but take your time to explore it first."

And loot every barrel, box, sack and chest within witcher sight!

---------- Updated at 11:48 AM ----------

In the books he barely did any witcher contracts (the book series not the short stories), he even at one point considered himself to not be a witcher anymore. The only thing that mattered to him was finding Ciri. So yes I think realistically he would not be doing all these side quests and witcher contracts, besides the ones that get him closer to Ciri and the ones that involves the people close to him like Dandelion, Zoltan, Triss, etc.

^^^THIS^^^

This is why I've thought from the beginning, the way Act 3 is 'structured'...an EXTENDED epilog or give us an active post end-fight world to work through all the remaining quests/contracts. Heck, Empress Ciri might have a few new witcher quests or whatever. I would like there to be a way to do a LOT of that stuff after the world is saved and those who are still around, populating it!

 

[Willowhugger]

In the books he barely did any witcher contracts (the book series not the short stories), he even at one point considered himself to not be a witcher anymore. The only thing that mattered to him was finding Ciri. So yes I think realistically he would not be doing all these side quests and witcher contracts, besides the ones that get him closer to Ciri and the ones that involves the people close to him like Dandelion, Zoltan, Triss, etc.

The Book universe is not the game universe as monsters are not a mostly-extinct nuisance but an ever-common ever-present threat which destroys entire lives.

Also, Geralt is not the Book Geralt but Book + Game Geralt. He's not a static character.

 

[DeGorro82]

Geralt's realistic sidequest. -> Dandelion in distress & Damsel in distress. Other quest ... go to hell, "I'm not a god!" ... or "What ? 200 orens for Ogre ?". Skipped !

 

[mmasc4492]

The Book universe is not the game universe as monsters are not a mostly-extinct nuisance but an ever-common ever-present threat which destroys entire lives.

Also, Geralt is not the Book Geralt but Book + Game Geralt. He's not a static character.

I am aware that he is not a static character and the book universe differs from the game universe, the original post used the word "Realistically" which implies he is talking about Book Geralt, so I am hypothetically talking about what Book Geralt would do in this situation.

 

[inanimate_object]

This is part of the never-ending problem with open world games. Meandering about an open world with fetch side quests is not becoming of a story, yet it is the only way to make the design of an open world even worthwhile. So when push came to shove, story and pacing are sacrificed for the "allure" of this new fad of open-world design - which I hope is short-lived.

 

[Randomdrowner2015]

This is part of the never-ending problem with open world games. Meandering about an open world with fetch side quests is not becoming of a story, yet it is the only way to make the design of an open world even worthwhile. So when push came to shove, story and pacing are sacrificed for the "allure" of this new fad of open-world design - which I hope is short-lived.

It is a problem that can be avoided. All you have to do is proper story integration of exploration and side quests. There are basically two ways to do it, and they are not mutually exclusive:

1. Make exploration a choice with consequences.
Let´s say someone is in trouble but your character decides to go off treasure hunting or exploring some other region instead of rushing to rescue.
The consequence is that the character in danger suffers from that neglect and your character will have to face the consequences of not prioritising the rescue. Another variation that can be added is that you are rushing to the rescue through investigating leads or alternate routes, all with their own unique pros and cons. This require that the character in distress is in an unknown location, needs something special or similar.

2. Construct the narrative in a way that it includes opportunity for non-neglecting exploration.
Once the urgent threat to someone is dealt with, the storytelling should communicate that there is now time for optional exploration and so on. That is, the initiative is with the protagonist. (Our enemy have fortified themselves in their mountain castle and we control the mountain paths. Shall we attack or gather more resources? Alt. Our enemy will not find us in the castle until we will use the magic that they can track us with)

 

[inanimate_object]

It is a problem that can be avoided. All you have to do is proper story integration of exploration and side quests. There are basically two ways to do it, and they are not mutually exclusive:

1. Make exploration a choice with consequences.
Let´s say someone is in trouble but your character decides to go off treasure hunting or exploring some other region instead of rushing to rescue.
The consequence is that the character in danger suffers from that neglect and your character will have to face the consequences of not prioritising the rescue. Another variation that can be added is that you are rushing to the rescue through investigating leads or alternate routes, all with their own unique pros and cons. This require that the character in distress is in an unknown location, needs something special or similar.

2. Construct the narrative in a way that it includes opportunity for non-neglecting exploration.
Once the urgent threat to someone is dealt with, the storytelling should communicate that there is now time for optional exploration and so on. That is, the initiative is with the protagonist. (Our enemy have fortified themselves in their mountain castle and we control the mountain paths. Shall we attack or gather more resources? Alt. Our enemy will not find us in the castle until we will use the magic that they can track us with)

I don't think this solves the ultimate problem that open-world design kills pacing. If there is an open world, the world is consistently open for exploration, and the game all but demands that you explore or else they would not have been justified in all the development time it took to make such a feat. You can't pace a story appropriately if at any given time, the player can simply wander off. Scenes and missions don't flow together and the urgency necessarily dissipates. Story and open-world design do not mix. It's something Bethesda studios figured out long ago, which is why their open-world games are by far the best.

 

[Randomdrowner2015]

I don't think this solves the ultimate problem that open-world design kills pacing. If there is an open world, the world is consistently open for exploration, and the game all but demands that you explore or else they would not have been justified in all the development time it took to make such a feat. You can't pace a story appropriately if at any given time, the player can simply wander off. Scenes and missions don't flow together and the urgency necessarily dissipates. Story and open-world design do not mix. It's something Bethesda studios figured out long ago, which is why their open-world games are by far the best.

Did you read and ponder what I actually wrote?

 

[almostfaceman]

Yup, he'd skip every side mission. But the game is so much fun I don't care. Putting too much thought into the ridiculousness of the whole concept of a Witcher (it's a cool idea, doesn't hold up though) or anything else can be a real drag. Sometimes, you just gotta have fun.

 

[inanimate_object]

Did you read and ponder what I actually wrote?

I did and nothing you wrote addresses the issue of Witcher 3 being an open-world game. What you write is essentially a tribute to the game design of Witcher 2 where there is no open-world, but merely sections of the game where there is sufficient exploration during cooling down periods of the story. But Witcher 3's open world is a massive undertaking. It is not reasonable to create such a world only to restrict it to open up to the players at key moments. Limiting the open-world means it's no longer an open world game. The whole concept of open world is there is absolute freedom to explore. So your suggestion has worked in other games, but it does not fix open-world games unless the fix is not to make open world games.

 

[Randomdrowner2015]

I did and nothing you wrote addresses the issue of Witcher 3 being an open-world game. What you write is essentially a tribute to the game design of Witcher 2 where there is no open-world, but merely sections of the game where there is sufficient exploration during cooling down periods of the story. But Witcher 3's open world is a massive undertaking. It is not reasonable to create such a world only to restrict it to open up to the players at key moments. Limiting the open-world means it's no longer an open world game. The whole concept of open world is there is absolute freedom to explore. So your suggestion has worked in other games, but it does not fix open-world games unless the fix is not to make open world games.

Of course they could have opened up it to choice-oriented exploration.
Wanna head out in the wilderness when Triss is getting arrested? Sure do that but she will be dead when you get back and when friends ask why, Geralt would either have to answer that he 1) Didn´t care what happened to Triss, 2) Didn´t understand that she was in danger or 3) My reasons are my own. Strained relations with friends follows.

The game could have been designed so that side-questing and exploration could have been all about preparing for the attack on Kaer morhen (finding artefacts, resources, building alliances), if they had managed to sneak her of the Island of Mists- (Or something similar). The player would have had absolute freedom after they found and brought Ciri into safety. That is: a story that encourages logical behaviour and punishes irrational behaviour.