Such an uninspired disappointing story
I'm sitting here as the credits roll by, and I have this awful disappointed feeling inside. Witcher 3's story is not half of what Witcher 2 had to offer. I can't understand why I haven't seen any reviews mention how awfully cliche and mechanical most parts of the main story were. The only scene which I thought Witcher 3 rivaled the complexity, pathos and maturity of its precursor was the meeting between Geralt and Ciri (which was a tricky thing to do correctly). The rest of the main quest consisted of asking meandering about this impressive world, performing minute tasks, delving into favours after favours. In fact it got so ridiculous, that the writers had to even point out the ludicrousness of the whole situation. I believe the bard Priscilla remarks on the fact Geralt has to find Guy 1 in order to find Guy 2 in order to find Guy 3 in order to find Ciri. This is not cohesive story-telling! There's no pacing and the first and second acts drag on forever without the narrative ever flowing properly.
It seems as if the writers had a check-list of all the things they wanted to shove into the story, rather than having a well-paced, well designed narrative as was the case in Witcher 2 (mostly). The most egregious of sins is randomly adding bloat that had no purpose other than to be a throwback to fans of the polish novels. The Emperor, Fringilla Vigo and Laux-Antille are the worst cases of characters appearing without a great point or purpose. They are the dialogue-equivalent of stone walls and high-handed name-drops.
But the final quest is by far the worst piece of narrative design that's come out of CD Projekt Red. A deus ex machina plot device in the sunstone, a hurried quest to gather sorceresses whose contribution we never see and seems trivial, two random boss-fights who have no character and thus rob us of the joy of defeating them, an unnecessary last-minute betrayal suspicion. And of course, the very worst sin in story-telling: we do not see the resolution! As if the sun-stone was not deux-ex machina enough, they introduced the threat of Ithilienne's prophecy, which had not been foreshadowed to any acceptable degree, and was a ball thrown out of left field. And even with this awkwardly inserted, final foe, we do not see the pivotal moment in the story that brings about the end. I don't see how people find this to be good storytelling!
Sorry if this is overly long. But does anyone else feel the same? I am shocked about how many narrative faux-pas were made by the writers, and how ignored they have been from general critique. I get that Geralt-Ciri relationship was supposed to be the driving pathos in the story rather than the colder story of Witcher 2 (which by all means is a medieval equivalent to an international thriller novel), but the story just trips up over itself, and ends up looking like the story served the world it inhabited, and not the other way around. Very, very disappointed. How do others feel on the main story - the final quest in particular?
I'm sitting here as the credits roll by, and I have this awful disappointed feeling inside. Witcher 3's story is not half of what Witcher 2 had to offer. I can't understand why I haven't seen any reviews mention how awfully cliche and mechanical most parts of the main story were. The only scene which I thought Witcher 3 rivaled the complexity, pathos and maturity of its precursor was the meeting between Geralt and Ciri (which was a tricky thing to do correctly). The rest of the main quest consisted of asking meandering about this impressive world, performing minute tasks, delving into favours after favours. In fact it got so ridiculous, that the writers had to even point out the ludicrousness of the whole situation. I believe the bard Priscilla remarks on the fact Geralt has to find Guy 1 in order to find Guy 2 in order to find Guy 3 in order to find Ciri. This is not cohesive story-telling! There's no pacing and the first and second acts drag on forever without the narrative ever flowing properly.
It seems as if the writers had a check-list of all the things they wanted to shove into the story, rather than having a well-paced, well designed narrative as was the case in Witcher 2 (mostly). The most egregious of sins is randomly adding bloat that had no purpose other than to be a throwback to fans of the polish novels. The Emperor, Fringilla Vigo and Laux-Antille are the worst cases of characters appearing without a great point or purpose. They are the dialogue-equivalent of stone walls and high-handed name-drops.
But the final quest is by far the worst piece of narrative design that's come out of CD Projekt Red. A deus ex machina plot device in the sunstone, a hurried quest to gather sorceresses whose contribution we never see and seems trivial, two random boss-fights who have no character and thus rob us of the joy of defeating them, an unnecessary last-minute betrayal suspicion. And of course, the very worst sin in story-telling: we do not see the resolution! As if the sun-stone was not deux-ex machina enough, they introduced the threat of Ithilienne's prophecy, which had not been foreshadowed to any acceptable degree, and was a ball thrown out of left field. And even with this awkwardly inserted, final foe, we do not see the pivotal moment in the story that brings about the end. I don't see how people find this to be good storytelling!
Sorry if this is overly long. But does anyone else feel the same? I am shocked about how many narrative faux-pas were made by the writers, and how ignored they have been from general critique. I get that Geralt-Ciri relationship was supposed to be the driving pathos in the story rather than the colder story of Witcher 2 (which by all means is a medieval equivalent to an international thriller novel), but the story just trips up over itself, and ends up looking like the story served the world it inhabited, and not the other way around. Very, very disappointed. How do others feel on the main story - the final quest in particular?
