Roleplaying in Witcher 3 is very limited. Far too limited for a 2015 game than needs a GTX970 and a quad core.

+
Yes, naturally, it would make complete sense (sarcasm, naturally) for a Witcher to ride a Griffin and destroy a Nilfgaardian little army on his own just because they are cruel to the populace and have killed the Griffin mate. Because, you know, Geralt is some sort of Superman completely devoid of its context, someone that can do whatever the hell he wants without repercussions.

Also if Geralts is very strong as a mutant he STILL has to play by the rules of the context he lives in. He is just a man, ffs. Who do you think is he, a God? Do you know what would have happened in reality if he did something like that? He would have had ALL the Nilfgaardian army against, he would have had to run for all his life trying to survive and inevitably be killed in the end. And for what? For an act of cruelty that happens every time in the world he lives in and for the killing of an animal that killed itself many innocents before? Acting like an hero can be fine depending on the circumstances, acting like an idiot is just being an idiot and, frankly speaking, with your "choice" you would have made Geralt act like one.

The world made by Sapkowski is NOT a complete fantasy world where every rule of humanity is suspended, all the contrary, in fact. It is cruel world, where Geralt is just a lone man (with some friends) trying to get by with what life offers. As a man you cannot change the world and you are constricted by the settings you are in, no matter what your intentions (good or evil) are. The world of a pseudo medieval setting, with cruelty going on at all turns with no absolute good or absolute evil and Geralt HAS to live inside that context. You cannot decide where and when you will be born in and the rules of the world you will live in, nor can you magically do whatever you want without consequences and responsibilities attached to your actions (the meaning of the word "responsibility" for many of a SJW is missed in this day and age it seems).

The "RPG" you want is more a fantasy fairy tale where your imagination is the supreme rule outside the context more than anything else. But that's not what role playing is. Role playing is taking the rein of a character (whatever that character is) but that character is STILL constrained by the context, as everyone else inside it.
 
Last edited:
Geralt then crafts a special saddle for the Griffin so that he can mount it and fly.

I spat some of my bourbon when I read that. It was good bourbon too.

---------- Updated at 07:06 AM ----------

Sadly This game doesn't respect my right to choose to not kill or to choose at all. I felt like shit after being forced to kill the Griffon. How hard would it be to offer me a choice not to kill the Griffon

Damn it... more good bourbon goes to waste.
 
Last edited:
Your example would be as game driven as the actual ones. The game already has many paths, you are just describing a new one.

BTW, a prove that the game is amazing is that I saw everything with different eyes than yourself. You say the soldiers were horrible humans because they killed the gryph mother and eggs... but they are monsters who kill humans, not cute animals. They did what Geralt would have done himself. And the captain? he is strict, btu I don't see him as a bad person. He punished a bit too hard, but he also demanded less food than he could ask for, and he explains how he is just trying to mantain order.

So, the game is an excelent RPG, since you already reached different conclusions than myself about the story and characters.
 
... the point of the game is that everything is shit and you have to play by their rules. you're roleplaying a particular person within the contrains of his character and the constrains of the shithouse world he inhabits.

this isn't a sandbox and imo you'd enjoy it more if you had read the books and realised that riding a griffon into the sunset is OOC on a comedic level. and being clear here -- you seemed to have some set expectations about the third installment of the witcher games, and you'd invested your money into a newer graphics card and everything on the basis of these beliefs.

this is your choice, by the way, CDPR did not make you purchase the graphics cards and IMO didn't even set up those expectations. they clearly advertised what the witcher 3: wild hunt was all about -- and even if a potential customer who was so seemingly invested in the idea of the game as you somehow missed it, there's PLENTY of information about what the game would probably be like still available. For example, the entirey of the book series, the wiki's that cover those things, the two games that made you make these sorts of choices and this entire community who would have been perfectly willing to describe these things to you well before. you sound like you were pretty emotionally invested in this game prior to release and so i'm a little surprised that you had //apparently// missed all the advertising and other content in regards to the series.

as CDPR says time and time again, wait for reviews and other people's opinons before buying. i'm a little apologetic that you cannot appreciate this game the way many of us here do. i hope you can still accept the game for what it is since you still paid money for it.
 
I would hate this game if the scenario you mentioned was actually in this game. You think Geralt should throw away the chance to gain information about the one he's truly after for some stupid griffin, a monster who he's professed to slay? Yes learning the story behind the griffin is sad for the player, but realize that the narrative decidedly went in that direction to illustrate that Geralt is only 1 man, and must make real life trade offs. He might not like the Nifhgard, but should it prevent him from bartering for information leading to the one he truly cares about? Of course not.

This a very lore focused story driven game, you're playing Geralt of Rivia, not some blank slate protagonist in the Elder scroll series. You've two choices, learn to appreciate story telling from a specific vantage point, or just put down this game and play something like pillars of eternity.
 
OP, your suggestion goes against what makes The Witcher the game that it is. The entire point is that Geralt and Co. are just people trying to survive in a world that sucks. The last thing the Witcher is supposed to be is some B-movie power fantasy. Dozens of other AAA titles offer that.
 
So in essence your actually not happy playing a Witcher (a pro monster hunter) in a game called The Witcher (about a pro monster hunter)

This is a joke right?

The OP obviously relishes playing a role that Geralt does not.

I wonder if he began to realize the game was not for him when he tried to decapitate the first innkeep he laid eyes on, and she just cowered in fear as Geralt stayed his hand.

The OP has now posted : don't want to kill wolves/ not happy levelling up Geralt when he should already be uber powerful after 2 games and now don't want to kill monsters!
Methinks we need a Witcher for the troll!

ok (sigh) the OP fundamentally doesn't like this style of game, well thanks for sharing.
Something that can be remedied only, I suspect, by the OP playing an entirely different game
(though good luck finding one with that impossible breadth of choice)



Can you recommend any particular olis or potions to imbibe to deal with the troll in question? :p

I believe Call of Grand Theft Postal Gaiden Battlefield Saints Solid VII: The Revengination* will suit the OP's needs. The very first tutorial mission will have you prepping the thousands of bombs you will need to bring your revengination to the next level.

*disclaimer: pulling names out of my arse, not meant as a slight to any alluded-to games except for maybe, well, you know…

I've got a pouch of 200 orens for any witcher that can dispatch of the troll lurking under the bridge of this forum.

Wow guys, such a fanboism, you cant accept any criticism of your worship object and attacking anyone who has different opinion with far-fetched accusation in trolling and instead of giving logical counter-argument and explaining why you think he is wrong, you just posting useless words for lulz. And you call him troll after that? You are real trolls!

Op has good point actually, if you dont get it ill explain it to you - he says that choices are very limited and very forced in this game, scenario is mostly linear with very few splits up of path that player can select, most of choice cosmetic and minor, and in 2015 year's biggest RPG OP honestly expect more freedom of choice and he suggested good variations of big choices instead of following one linear path. I agree that some option he provided not suitable for Geralt character, but i was just a quick example of options that actually makes some difference.
 
How hard would it be to offer me a choice not to kill the Griffon and let it eat as many Nilfguardians as it likes or to ride the Griffon and rain fiery death upon an occupying army. That is what RPG is all about.

What makes you think a griffon in The Witcher world would let itself be ridden? It's a monster, after all not your friend.
 
Wow guys, such a fanboism, you cant accept any criticism of your worship object and attacking anyone who has different opinion with far-fetched accusation in trolling and instead of giving logical counter-argument and explaining why you think he is wrong, you just posting useless words for lulz. And you call him troll after that? You are real trolls!

Op has good point actually, if you dont get it ill explain it to you - he says that choices are very limited and very forced in this game, scenario is mostly linear with very few splits up of path that player can select, most of choice cosmetic and minor, and in 2015 year's biggest RPG OP honestly expect more freedom of choice and he suggested good variations of big choices instead of following one linear path. I agree that some option he provided not suitable for Geralt character, but i was just a quick example of options that actually makes some difference.

The Op does not have good points. He's complaining about 'limited choice' in the scope of a character driven rpg, which makes no sense. He's also talking about a particular mission in the prologue area, yes this mission doesn't give you choice, but plenty of other missions do, and impact the story quite drastically. In fact, if he's made it to velen, which i doubt, he'd have nothing to say in regards to 'limited choice'.

Not every game should be a sandbox rpg with a blank slate protagonist. Many of us love the witchers game because the story is told from Geralt's perspective. I think on this point, its very good CDProjektRed didn't incorporate all of the absurd senseless fantasy that every player might want to embark on.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the OP thought that Geralt should have taken pity on the griffon and give up his only lead for his true motive. I cannot fathom how absurd this is in the context of the witcher universe. Geralt is monster slayer. Why on earth would he have pity on the griffin. The player him is separate issue. I was very sad when i learned of the back story, but it only adds to the realization that the game world is a cruel and gritty place. Made the quest that much more enjoyable.
 
Last edited:
Yeah... talking of "charming" the griffon... lol.

Plus if you start thinking like this every monster may have a reason to live... maybe he just wants to eat, maybe it's the humans that disturb it. But then Geralt is not a Witcher so this is not what the game is about.
 
Wow guys, such a fanboism, you cant accept any criticism of your worship object and attacking anyone who has different opinion with far-fetched accusation in trolling and instead of giving logical counter-argument and explaining why you think he is wrong, you just posting useless words for lulz. And you call him troll after that? You are real trolls!

Op has good point actually, if you dont get it ill explain it to you - he says that choices are very limited and very forced in this game, scenario is mostly linear with very few splits up of path that player can select, most of choice cosmetic and minor, and in 2015 year's biggest RPG OP honestly expect more freedom of choice and he suggested good variations of big choices instead of following one linear path. I agree that some option he provided not suitable for Geralt character, but i was just a quick example of options that actually makes some difference.

Fanboyism? I'm sorry but someone else's ignorance, doesn't make people that are not ignorant fanboys. I mean come on! I'm not attacking anyone, I made a joke because the post read quite ludicrously. It doesn't need to be personally explained, as just by existing as it does invalidates itself when you read it and know anything about the Witcher at all.

You have plenty of meaningful choices, life and death of a lot of characters in fact and you have lots of options on ways to deal with a problem. If making a joke on a post that included 'charming griffins' in it is considered trolling, I'll eat my hat. If someone does not wish to do any research into all the history of the Witcher, the previous games or any of the extended fiction and then to suggest that RP choices are limited on the basis of a completely false point of view what can you argue against? There is a story to be told in this game, and therefore you are limited in RP choices to fit the confines of the main story for sure because otherwise you break the beautifully constructed narrative and the mindset of established characters that have been written about in the books and games now for almost 30 years.

It's still an RPG, but you are playing a role that is pre defined. You are Geralt of Rivia, a monster slayer that has a long history with the characters you meet often in the main story. WIthin these confines however they gave so much room for meaningful choice. I've already seen many things my choices have bore fruit on, but I shan't spoil them as that would be unfair.

The OP has no point at all and what he suggests is just ludicrous to anyone that knows anything about the world, Geralt, monsters and other people within the world. You cannot screw up the entire storyline and make yourself an enemy of Nilfgaard by 'riding a griffin' and destroying the barracks, because
a) it cannot be done, Griffins are beasts and untamable
b) Geralt is a monster slayer and the griffin has been killing the people from the town and seeks the reward for performing Witchers work
c) Geralt isn't some sort of one man army and wouldn't want to be anyway. He doesn't believe in conquest.
... I could go on.

It's not a sandbox game, it's a Witcher game with Geralt of Rivia; that is story driven and is an open world storytelling masterpiece. Making it sandbox would destroy the very essence of what attracts people to the game.
 
Last edited:
The Griffin Luftwaffe aside I can see where the OP is coming from, multiple paths through quests would be welcome, however I understand just how much extra work that would have added, there are a ton of quests in the game and catering for multiple paths through each one isn't viable. Where the game does excel is in choices making an actual difference and those choices not being the obvious Eat the children/Save the children options you get in lesser games.
 
Wow guys, such a fanboism, you cant accept any criticism of your worship object and attacking anyone who has different opinion with far-fetched accusation in trolling and instead of giving logical counter-argument and explaining why you think he is wrong, you just posting useless words for lulz. And you call him troll after that? You are real trolls!

This thread just keeps on delivering. Great entertaining value.

Op has good point actually, if you dont get it ill explain it to you - he says that choices are very limited and very forced in this game, scenario is mostly linear with very few splits up of path that player can select, most of choice cosmetic and minor, and in 2015 year's biggest RPG OP honestly expect more freedom of choice and he suggested good variations of big choices instead of following one linear path.
Yes, because you must be given at least 10 different choices for every single action in game, no matter how insignificant the action is, or how nonsensical the choice is :
Quest: "Kill Griffin"
Choices:
1. Kill griffin
2.kill griffin but feel guilty about it
3. kill griffin and feel good about it.
4. kill griffin, bathe in its blood, then feel guilty about it.
5. Kill quest giver for merely suggesting you kill the griffin.
6. Pay the quest giver for giving you the opportunity to kill the griffin.
7. Kill griffin with bare hands
8. kill griffin naked
9. kill griffin bare handed and bare assed.
10. Call PETM (People for the Ethical Treatment of Monsters) and picket the Nilf camp.
11. Start a write-in, take it to your congressman to push him to pass a law to protect griffins, declare the 8th of Blathe "Griffin Appreciation Day".
12. Craft mount for griffin, craft bombs, fly griffin to Nilf camp, go AC-130 on their asses.
13. Call Griffin Whisperer to figuring out what is really behind its anger and disobedience.
14. Don't take the fucking quest (oh, that's already in game... my bad)
I agree that some option he provided not suitable for Geralt character, but i was just a quick example of options that actually makes some difference.
It just wasn't a quick example... I rarely make comments like I am about to make, but the "examples" given by OP are idiotic...The game is about a witcher, a man whose whole life has been dedicated to kill monsters, that is what he is, that is what he does, that is his purpose in life... if you were to start a drinking game based on someone saying "monster slayer" in game, pretty sure people would have to be rush to the hospital for alcohol intoxication... AND YET, you do have the choice of not taking the fucking quest.
 
I believe the traditional "roleplay" element isn't present because you play as a single, specific character, with an established history within the world, personality, etc. You don't have much room to do anything because you literally have to play within specific parameters. Where you'd want to create your own character and thus your own "story", in this case your character and story were pre-made and you have no choice in the matter.

While the OP's post is a bit absurd, the fact is that the Witcher does limit you quite dramatically. It really is a love it or hate it situation, though: you either really want to play as Geralt and love it or you really just avoid The Witcher altogether.
 
Playing The Witcher and complaining about having to play Geralt is like playing GTA V and complaining about having to rob banks and kill people.
 
Yes, because you must be given at least 10 different choices for every single action in game, no matter how insignificant the action is, or how nonsensical the choice is :

This is a roleplaying game. You play a "role" which means it is indead limited on that certain character. You are asking for sandbox game not roleplaying game.

Mass Effect series never had "10 different choices". The game was mostly based on a paragon/renegade system, but even if you remove it, it still gives you 3 choices in the dialogue to choose from. It doesn't always affect the outcome, but it's nice because it's YOUR choice. The ME series aren't considered sandbox games either. Just critically acclaimed, award winning roleplaying games. mxYELLOW your definition of playing a role could easily be applied to games like Dark Souls, which are more action oriented. It's nice that CDPR gave us the option to customize Geralt and choose to level him as we see fit. But more dialogue trees would have been very welcome, especially since most NPCs are generic and non-interactable anyways.
 
Mass Effect series never had "10 different choices". The game was mostly based on a paragon/renegade system, but even if you remove it, it still gives you 3 choices in the dialogue to choose from. It doesn't always affect the outcome, but it's nice because it's YOUR choice. .

And Witcher doesn't give you choices of inconsequential dialog? News to me. I wonder who hacked my game and put them there.

But you are straying from the argument. The argument is not about giving the player choices of inconsequential dialog. The argument is about giving the player consequential choices of action (non-canon at that), which is a completely different thing.
 
A final note from the OP

This game is so close to being one of the best games ever made. It is held back only by its lack of real satisfying choices. If the devs want W3 to be played for 20 years like Balders Gate .... all they need to do is give the player more freedom and empowerment. Most of this can be done without changing the game flow too much. In the end it will benefit the game more than the crappy DLC most devs release.

As a side note, when I talked with a friend about my experiences with W3 they bought me Dragon Age Inquisition. What a horrible game .... didn't last 3 hours. I felt like a caged rat with all the corridors and scripted battles and lack of control and hitting over and over and over. And the controls and camera, no game came closer to making me hurl. You can just feel how every encounter is designed to be tedious. W3 is a masterpiece compared.

Interestingly enough the rickety old Skyrim engine is still my favorite (properly modded of course). Too bad nobody can make a game worth playing on it. Precious few quests are worth the time. If somebody could patch on a decent questing engine on top of the Skyrim engine, that might be the future.

If Bethesda and ProjectCD could collaborate and make an engine with the best of both worlds and get somebody who knows how to write complex quests and NPCs, perhaps gaming could rise out of the violent pablum it currently is. That said the quests in W3 are far better than I expected and if more choice and empowerment was offered I would say they have the questing talent to pull it off.

The more I play the more I am saddened by the way this game gives Geralt so few satisfying choices and makes you into sheep. In W3 who is the worst person in the game? A deserter of course, they attack on sight and are portrayed as rampaging murderers ...... yes lets teach everyone to be good little sheep that unquestionably obey orders ..... even when the game activity tells you that soldier "Murder, rob and rape and only don't kill dogs because they are not worth the trouble" . In a thoughtful RPG every deserter in the game wouldn't be a rampaging murderer ...... but you are being trained. W3 tries to make some statements about the stupid brutality of war, but the other choices the dev makes in actions situations, choices, shows the exact opposite.

Skyrim would have been a better game without the 1/2 baked civil war. The Dragonborn line was uninspired but at least it was enjoyable. IMO W3 would have been better without all this 1/2 done war ..... let us do something satisfying about it, remove it, or at least don't force us to serve military commanders we may hate without some clever way to circumvent. As it stands we are forced to serve Captain Peter to get a piece of information we don't even need as she comes and finds us anyway.

PS ..... this isn't about siding with the monsters. If necrophages are a problem ... My Geralt kills them. My Geralt always sends the dead on to wherever they go. Wolves are another story ..... My Geralt would only kill them if they show signs of wanton aggression ..... otherwise instead of killing he would relocate. Again this isn't because he particularly likes wolves, but sees them as a better choice as they may keep even worse creatures at bay in the wilds

But the Griffon is a different situation altogether. My Geralt weighed the situation and decided that the Nilfguardians are far worse than the Griffon. My Geralt is awed by the Majesty of this creature but he doesn't like it. If it was in a closed situation where it decided to eat villagers when there were other prey available, my Geralt would take a contract on it. If it was only taking sheep he might consider it. In an adult game why isn't this level of choice offered?

It certainly is possible ...... more work maybe. But devs insist on turning us into sheep. For ProjectCD I don't think this was their intention .... they just made a noobie mistake ...... they decided it would be cool to put Deserters into the game as combat filler and they really didn't think about the implications. There is no room for combat filler in games these days. Do it right or don't do it at all. Don't cheapen the game for some cheap filler.

They could have avoided this by paying an thoughtful outside consultant to look over their script and game plans ...... but nobody does this just like so few movies involving science actually get a scientist to look at the script. Science and philosophy students and graduate students would have done it for <1000$.

Interestingly enough I do think ProjectCD hired independent playtesters for this game ...... as there have been no bad decisions like QTEs and places where wild guessing is involved to progress ...... the game flows well ...... Thank you for doing that !!!!!!!!!

To those that think I am insulting the game and the dev. Nothing is further from the truth. ProjectCD is very close to mastering the art of gaming and bringing it out of the dark ages. A friend bought me Dragon Age Inquisition and I wouldn't bother writing 5 lines about that game. These are my opinions and if they were well implemented I think they could bring W3 and gaming to the next level.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom