I never thought something like for even a second while playing W1 or W2. But then again I'm a fan of properly staged or directed games. And during the many years I've played games now I finally came to the conclusion that exploration is almost never worth it, at least not for me. It never satisies me on the same level a properly directed experience could (if done well of course). I rather play three quite linear and way "shorter" games that please me with an emotional narrative with a proper story arc than wasting my time in an open world game that always gives me the feeling that it's more generic than handcrafted. That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy some freedom like e.g. choices in dialogues or choices how you deal with a situation. But those hours and hours running around in an open world, searching for better entertaiment and better stories all the time, that's not my thing anymore. Maybe I'm too old for that or maybe my priorities just shifted to more "dense" experiences. In my opinion open world games and modern mainstream games have quite something in common: they can both please me and I can enjoy them but they never really get to me, they always stay on a "nice but not great" level and they always offer as least as many down than they offer ups. It's more or less lightweight entertainment without many real emotions behind (which is imo the core philosophy behind sandbox games in general). If I had to decide whether I'd get a rather linear constructed experience (not in narrative choices but in freedom of movement/navigation) that manages to really get to me on an emotional level or I'd get an open world experience in which I can do much but without being consistent, connected, engaging, tension-filled (or at least not on the same levl) I would always prefer the former one. Of course there are comromises and hybrides but once you decide to extend open world and the freedom of movement (and progression) beyond a certain level you'll always put that at risk what I value most in games like the Witcher. I guess that's the main reason why I don't support CDPR's open world vision for W3...
I would've preferred an open world but one that is based on several distant from each other hubs (that the player is free to travel to and from) on an overland map rather than one nigh borderless map area mostly full on just prop scenery that they are going for.
Last edited:
With several people mentioning how much they liked the Gothic approach it may be cool to remember that if there is one RPG Konrad (TW3 director) mentioned many times himself to talk about TW3 was Gothic, just to keep it in mind 
.
Now personally I think open world is the way, while playing the games I didnt felt the need for an open world even though I saw its massive potential (after all a big part of the witcher's existence has to do with its awesome lore), but while reading the books, of course the ones based in short stories, that was the zen moment when it became incredibly obvious an open world witcher game was a must.
Thing is later the saga took a much more directed and tightly interconnected approach, and the devs seem to want to keep that for TW3, so we'll have to see just how much of each part of the book saga they want to simulate, and with which tools they want to put together all of it.
The devs said many times already that TW3's main inspiration are the short stories of Geralt's adventures, but like I said, we know the whole deal with Ciri and the Wild Hunt is also getting focus and attention, so it remains a mystery yet what will end up making the game more, one or the other.
I think its totally possible to combine the two things, or should I say, alternate between them effectively without falling into either, too many limitations and an illusive world, or an inconsistent false tension and agency that doesnt really apply to the endless adventures of the traveling monster hunter. I think its definitely a solvable problem, the key thing is to not mix them too much as that would wash out the purity of what makes each thing attractive, but to rather keep them concrete, at their best, acting in different moments and places, but belonging to the same big adventure/story.
After all, there are examples in real life when no matter how tension filled is a situation, what urgency it has, you cannot really help but to still get lost in a mundane routine, and wait for something that finally lets you chase the goal actively, or just chase it in a slow and abstract way.
I can't avoid mentioning one of my favorite things in TW1 that they perhaps might bring back in TW3, the classic "wait until events unfold" or something. The acceptance that because you are not the center of the universe and the ever powerful Hero, sometimes you just cannot do everything you want, advance what you want, or make things happen when you want them at will, that sometimes you run out of possible options, ideas, and "destiny" has to come in to get you back on track, and while destiny takes its time, you have to keep living, doing what you can. If this would work well in TW3 has to be seen on each particular case (story, quest, etc.), but I suspect since its their own previous game, they understand clearly how it relates to player agency and limitations, pace, capabilities and freedom.
.Now personally I think open world is the way, while playing the games I didnt felt the need for an open world even though I saw its massive potential (after all a big part of the witcher's existence has to do with its awesome lore), but while reading the books, of course the ones based in short stories, that was the zen moment when it became incredibly obvious an open world witcher game was a must.
Thing is later the saga took a much more directed and tightly interconnected approach, and the devs seem to want to keep that for TW3, so we'll have to see just how much of each part of the book saga they want to simulate, and with which tools they want to put together all of it.
The devs said many times already that TW3's main inspiration are the short stories of Geralt's adventures, but like I said, we know the whole deal with Ciri and the Wild Hunt is also getting focus and attention, so it remains a mystery yet what will end up making the game more, one or the other.
I think its totally possible to combine the two things, or should I say, alternate between them effectively without falling into either, too many limitations and an illusive world, or an inconsistent false tension and agency that doesnt really apply to the endless adventures of the traveling monster hunter. I think its definitely a solvable problem, the key thing is to not mix them too much as that would wash out the purity of what makes each thing attractive, but to rather keep them concrete, at their best, acting in different moments and places, but belonging to the same big adventure/story.
After all, there are examples in real life when no matter how tension filled is a situation, what urgency it has, you cannot really help but to still get lost in a mundane routine, and wait for something that finally lets you chase the goal actively, or just chase it in a slow and abstract way.
I can't avoid mentioning one of my favorite things in TW1 that they perhaps might bring back in TW3, the classic "wait until events unfold" or something. The acceptance that because you are not the center of the universe and the ever powerful Hero, sometimes you just cannot do everything you want, advance what you want, or make things happen when you want them at will, that sometimes you run out of possible options, ideas, and "destiny" has to come in to get you back on track, and while destiny takes its time, you have to keep living, doing what you can. If this would work well in TW3 has to be seen on each particular case (story, quest, etc.), but I suspect since its their own previous game, they understand clearly how it relates to player agency and limitations, pace, capabilities and freedom.
Last edited:
I agree with most of what you've said and I think it is indeed at least half-decently possible and realistic with really well done writing and story.
But as you've correctly pointed out there must happen something at certain points in the game that is not arbitrary if you want to maintain at least a certain amount of tension. The problem I have with this whole topic is how CDPR advertises its approach: " Do anything you want, anytime you want!" Either that's a lie and the game does actually have certain times in which your gaming experience is directed and at least partially linear or it's indeed true and that's actually the interesting point because it could mean different things, depending on how it is implemented. That either means that the overall plot arc evolves around you on its own and you might participate or not (and bear the respective consequences) or it's the traditional tension and plot-pacing breaking experience we are used from other open world RPGs like Skyrim in which the world is not made to be immersive and believable but to be the gamey sandbox just created exclusively for the player. I think the former possiblity is probably the most interesting one (it's pretty much a continuation of what I've described in my latest post where I critiziced the plot of Dragon Age Origins) but also the hardest one which has - at least in my experience - never been done in an RPG because it includes so many variables and possible outcomes. While I would like to play such a game I don't think it's realistic on such a big scale. So I think it's maybe a cross-over between this approaches and the advertizing (the sentence is a direct quote from W3's shop page on Steam) is just exaggerated or overstated because the player certainly will be directed and "guided" somehow. The problem that remains is that while offering too much freedom you also give players the opportunity to "destroy their own experience". That may sound weird in the first moment and you might say "that's not CDPR's issue" but I don't think it's that easy. By giving the player too much freedom you also give the player the opportunity to follow his own weaknesses (or just his curiosity) while not knowing the consequences for his overall experience. Such things are dangereous because they easily break the immersion and what else do you want to achieve in a narrative game if not immersion, engagement and presence? It's not easy for a developer to find the right balance here and giving the player "full freedom to do anything in every moment" is like opening a can of worms imo...
I'm really considering opening a new thread about open world design or general design of narrative games. It's definitely an interesting subject when you look at it from a game designer's perspective and not only a player's one...
Ah yeah, the way they advertise it is indeed contrary not just to the ultimate reality but also to what we want/hope/think it'd be the best. As you I dont really take it as literal, I mean when people ask them "woah !! is it really open world? or not so open world", its natural that they just cut down to the chase in order to be clear and say "yeah you can do anything you want anytime",they're not gonna get into the super specific mechanics and solutions, but its nevertheless a concern that might turn out to be real.
I agree that the second possibility of the story building around your own take is appropriate, at least from a design on paper view, but also the hardest one. I havent really thought about this too much since I'd take me some extra time, but I think that they will try to make the story quests and events "be available" depending on where you go and what side quests consequences you trigger, and that would just give you the freedom of a perspective and main story choices, while also allowing you to "abandon" a main story part, and yet follow it indirectly by moving unto some other place or side quest.
If I remember correctly, each big/medium place, and their important chars and such matter in the context of the main story, and its a big main story with wild hunt invasions and war that by logic simply somehow end up relating those places and characters, because they are transcendental events. Now why do I think the game is like this? because the battle of developer direction vs player freedom, in general, ends up in that the best compromise between the two, is to give the player freedom but control his/her psychology and emotions so much that they still end up going for the "developer's path", but while retaining their freedom, its pretty much the ultimate solution really, the players end up doing what you want, but not only they still feel free, but also this freedom makes them think they are responsible for the great story you "secretly" made them have, made them have with suggestions, clues, red herrings, etc etc. So yes, I think that the whole thing of "you can rebel against the mains story and go do something else" will naturally end up putting you once again into the main story, only in a different unexpected way, perhaps another section, another perspective, etc.
TW3's main thing as stated by developers is the main story, and so I believe you will never be able to escape it unless you go to extremes (standing in the grass doing nothing or killing randomly generated bandits), you might refuse to do a particular quest, thats fine, the consequences of that will catch you later and in fact be related to the things you are using to escape the main story, such as what first look like totally disconnected side quests, but in reality are not.
Another thing they said is that you sort of find different pieces of the main story and then it starts putting itself together up until its very well formed and leads to the end, this fits my opinion here. In a game where consequences have real impact and change the world around you, the ultimate problematic player freedom, is simply in the beginning of the game, once the player passes that part, and initiates a "world reaction", the game can now have an argument to throw things against you because of what you did before, and those things get chained more and more as you play, in essence, the player might have freedom, but because of the consequences they themselves slowly lock their own freedom in the world, they act and act and limitations(story consequences and logical reactions) start coming more and more, until you have a much more streamlined set of ways to follow the main story near the end.
At this point I wouldnt be surprised if the whole northern kingdoms had succumbed to Ithlinne's Prophecy already, and become a snowy wasteland where you could hardly have dumb sidequests about some poor monster to follow.
As you said, the variables are truly many, however, combine what I said, with The Witcher franchise's "taste" for "destiny" and impotence of the anti-hero, like not being able to stop the war at the end of witcher 2, or not being able to stop Javed from escaping in the swamps of TW1.
A player might have freedom to start the story, and travel through its early events, yet quickly find Gates of the World (another thing they said to be using), that pretty much unavoidably lead into the next big "step" of the main story, or abstract chapter if you will, thus like I said, limiting much of the freedom you used to have, perhaps according to some of your early actions.
The problem with player's freedom and them actually falling into the story CDPR want imo is a serious one, but if you build the story correctly to address it, it can be relatively solved. The main threat is the beginning of the adventure, the "blank slate", after that players will make choices and CDPR can respond with appropriate limitations (story reactions) that reduce freedom.
Now what would happen if players eliminate content/places accessibility before they could see it? well there are exceptions to solve that, but its a whole other wall of text. I suspect CDPR will simply employ plots and quests that make sure to take you around many places so you can enjoy the world before the world gates start to slowly forbid sections and quests.
There was a thread about the open world and how we thought they should/were to implement it, search for it and bring it back if you want.