Game should have had finding Ciri as a major sidequest to Geralt fighting the Wild Hunt.
I'm sorry but that would make no sense, seeing that the reason Geralt ever had anything to do with the Wild Hunt was that he and Yennefer were kidnapped in order to draw Ciri out and capture her. Take that out of the equation and Geralt never would have left his little island. And, say he had, and that he decided to fight the Wild Hunt, do you really think he would’ve gone the world over (as he did before the first game), just to kill a group of elves? My point is, the whole story wouldn’t have happened if not for Ciri, so of course the story should be centred around her.
To put it simply, as moonknightgog said:
Why Geralt should care and fight the Wild Hunt?
Obviously I didn't care in the slightest in finding Ciri, somewhat ruining the game for me (literally, I hate her that much).
I get that you don’t like the character, but you only play as Ciri a few times, hardly game-ruining material. I’d say you’re exaggerating a bit. By the way, “literally” literally doesn’t mean what you think it means!
Would have preferred a different cutscene where Geralt was glad Ciri was finally out of his hair, rich for bringing her to the emperor, and Yennefer eventually loses her powers, reverts back to a hunchback and is killed because people don't take her kind of crap from a magicless hunchback. Seriously, how can a person who was once a hunchback have such a horrible personality?
Geralt would never simply “give Ciri away” to the emperor, unless that was her choice. C’mon, you said you were reading the novels - they aren’t exactly friends (Geralt and the emperor). Now, why would Yennefer lose her powers? Having Yennefer die like that would serve no purpose storywise, would make no sense, and would actually reflect badly on the whole thing.
I get what you’re saying about her personality but ztoka gave a good explanation for it.
Funny that the game was even more linear than W2, where if you didn't like Triss, you can turn her down for sex, go with Roche, and save Anais in chapter 3. WH you have to save Ciri and you are suppose to romance Yennefer (other threads about how they screwed-up).
Again, you’re exaggerating, and a lot in this case. The Witcher 3 Wild Hunt is anything but linear. The fact that you have a story to follow does not mean linear. Also, you’re oversimplifying the second game, which, again, was anything but linear.
I think she needed MORE time, honestly.
I think so too. While this game’s story isn’t the usual “the chosen one”, “the messiah”, “the dude who will save everyone because he’s just so awesome”, they did put her in that role - not in the usual way, of course, but still.
wish I could have just watched a cut scene about what she did.
Agreed. Would have been a simpler thing to do, too.
The ending is based on Ciri's fate, because is the result of Geralt's choice as father.
This guy gets it. It’s not based on Geralt’s “silly interactions” with Ciri. It’s based on his choices, actions and behavior as a father/mentor.
Nah not sure he goes to die really... Probably just upset
Perhaps they didn’t manage to make it clear enough that he was going to die, but it seemed pretty obvious to me. Not saying he does die, but that seems to be what they intended to show us.
Agreed, I also like Ciri a lot and would absolutely love having her as main Protagonist in TW4!
No, please! Let’s have something completely new, with different character and perhaps a different part of the world. Let’s not make The Witcher 4, let’s hope they make a new game, sure, but a new trilogy as well.
As for him losing the will to live. I don't buy it. He's been through so much, sure it would have made him sad, but normal people lose sons and don't break like that. And the witcher is anything but ordinary.
Witchers can’t have children. And for one to see another person as his own child, his own family, it’s hard and very unorthodox. I don’t think Geralt would simply think, “ah, I’ll just adopt another kid”. Besides:
To be fair, I think Geralt's abnormality is WHY he wouldn't be willing to go on. He's 100 years old and already tired of life with only Ciri and Yennefer keeping him going.
Precisely it. He shows time and again that he’s pretty old and very tired. So losing Ciri could - not saying should or that it certainly would - brake him.
And I agree that silly interactions determining the game's ending is just ridiculous.
Again, it’s not “the silly interactions”, and therefore it’s not ridiculous.
I think that's the syndrome of open world games, the main plot usually isn't that great and lack details.
Now, this simply isn’t true. Not only was the main plot very focused, detailed and polished, even the side quests were very memorable and interesting. I agree that that can happen with open world games, but it didn’t happen with this game, and neither did it happen with GTAV, another great open world game.
Still, open world or not, I at least expected that The Witcher 3 would bring closure for everything in Geralt's life during the game, and not by just watching some slides.
As you said, the game does bring closure for everything in Geralt’s life, just not in a way you enjoyed it, which is fine. I too would have prefered something like Mass Effect 3’s earth sequence in which you get to talk to everyone one last time.
You are right. Witcher 3 should have been a linear game. Witcher 2's formula was perfect and i detest Ciri, don't know the reason but in one of my playthrough i deliberately killed her. Witcher 3 is a great game but main story (Ciri) is one of its flaws.
The Witcher 3 shouldn’t have been a linear game. That would only have made it simpler, blender and less interesting. You wouldn’t get to meet all the interesting characters that you did and you certainly wouldn’t have cared as much for them (I’m talking about the minor plotlines and the amazing side quests). Being linear would only have detracted from it, not added. And the story, while not my favourite story in a video game, is certainly one of its strengths - it is what makes it a good RPG.
Yeah you're important but enough is enough; books were yours also, at least leave the fucking games to Geralt!
Actually, if not for the games and their story, Geralt is completely, 100% dead!
So basically, OP you wanted a story about a different Geralt it seems.
Precisely. Not just a different Geralt, but a different character altogether - which is fine, by the way, I mean, I’d love a Witcher game in which you get to make your own character, your own witcher, that isn’t an already established character.
when I was forced to play as Ciri, who can't parry,actually dodge, (I found that her elder blood power was awful for dodging the wolves) throw bombs, power swing... Ugh.
She does get some awesome powers as the game progresses though. I mean, maybe it’s just me but teleporting and slicing people up all at the same time is just AMAZING!
I never read the books....So Ciri just randomly appearing and becoming the be-all and end-all for the plot felt like the deus ex machina/ mcguffin from Mass Effect 3 with the crucible.
That is not what deus ex machina is. I think you meant to say that she’s some sort of forced plotpoint, something to keep the story moving but that feels artificial, like the Indominus Rex in Jurassic World.
I was expecting Albert to play some part...
That’s either Alvin or Jacques de Aldersberg. Don’t recall any Alberts.
