It kinda makes sense does it not? Now that the war is there it won't be thick like the plot to start one. It's about Geralt now and the Wild Hunt. I'm fine if they tone down the political stuff, we can finally return to classic Witchering, solving monster problems, etc. I loved Witcher 2 but I think it deviated too much off the Witcher's path.Seyu said:
....
And instantly my excitement is ravaged and dragged through the mud, and then thrown on burning oil.
I need a few minutes to calm down...
EDIT: ok they said "slightly" toned down. Not a disaster, but still I need to breath.
Yeah, a lot of people complained about the politics in TW2. Personally I liked that part best, but I'm optimistic it will still be there in TW3 to make all the political animals out there happy. 
I want a strong political aspect! GOT wouldn't be GOT if it is only (or mostly) about White Walkers bashing! TW3 wouldn't be a real TW game for me if it is only (or mostly) about Wild Hunt bashing! The war is not decided yet, with many possible players and outcomes, you know. It may not be that crazy complicated stuff of TW2, but without enough politics TW3 would loose its uniqueness, at least for me. I want my Geralt to decide an outcome of that bloody war, and a state of the world, not that it would just happen as a completely unforeseen consequence of some of his monster slayings. He makes political decisions by personal reasons - fine. Things just happen out of the blue? No, no, no!
Agreed.vivaxardas said:
There are plenty of games out there fighting demons, monsters and what have you.
What made The Witcher unique to me, even from TW1, is its complex portrayal of socio-economic issues and politics as far as games go. That was TW2's genius as far as I am concerned (and I firmly believe that on a lot of aspects, TW2 is single handedly better than A Song of Ice and Fire), and while I do understand the decision to go back to a more "traditional" Witcher sense for the last game, it still better have a very prominent political element or otherwise it will be like any other game to me.
It's probably more proper to compare all Witcher books + the games with the Song of Ice and Fire. And I agree - Witcher's world is more interesting, at least for me.KnightofPhoenix said:
The thing is, though, by definition you cannot focus on two facets at a time. You can either *focus* on politics or on more personal aspects. They chose the latter. Bear in mind this is a trilogy with a story arc that must be given completion. That, apparently, requires Geralt to unknot some personal unfinished business.
Thus, the way I see it, it could hardly have been different.
Thus, the way I see it, it could hardly have been different.
Hope they're not pandering too much to the retards who couldn't grasp the politics, background or plotlines, they should fuck off and play another game.
Yea we can be a crazy bunch.ReptilePZ said:
No but in all seriousness, I did not expect TW3 to focus on politics like TW2, I knew and accepted that it was going to be more personal.
I freaked out because my brain somehow missed the "slightly", but even then well what do they mean by "slightly"? So I have my worries.
Well, I hope it means that they bring more personal stuff in Geralt's political decision-making process. In TW2 we had only minor personal reason to kill Henselt, for example, or at least not as strong as it would be if Yen or Ciri were involved. If Geralt's personal interests were to play a major role in his political decisions, and consequences they bring, it would be awesome. But politics and social issues, including non-human/human relations, religious fanaticism, Nilfgaardian invasion, and a homely northern political backstabbing, should be prominent in TW3.