Their own story or a conclusion to the books [SPOILERS]

[Zeroscape]

Yeah I don't really have anything else to add. You guys basically summed it all up nicely.

We're obviously here to talk about what bothered us, but I wouldn't have been so zealous in posting on these forums if I didn't love what they've accomplished. While I believe CDPR could fix a lot of holes by sprinkling in more dialogue and doing another pass on the endings/epilogue, it just comes back down to whether they are happy with what they've accomplished. I wouldn't begrudge them if they were content with the critical success and sales numbers and would take the lessons learned to Cyberpunk instead.

 

[Redemyr]

I agree, many people surfing around here and sometimes complaining truly loved this game. There are plenty of reasons for that. Yet imho it is important to notice the things we didn't like that much or point out situations in which they did much better. For me, story wise, anything that came out entirely from the devs is superior to the books. Or at least the ones I read.

It was the author who originally created the setting and there would be no witcher without him. Yet that's about it regarding what I wanted the devs to keep, the setting. It worked really well in their other two games. I'm not saying the author's storylines are inherently inferior, they might be or not, yet that's beside the point.

What I mean is, trying to incorporate/modify their own story in other people work, severely limits the freedom the writers have to create a story. And thus the quality of it suffers.

 

[msanx]

gameplay: TW3 > TW2
(main) story: TW2 > TW3

This sums it up nicely

---------- Updated at 11:20 PM ----------

I agree, many people surfing around here and sometimes complaining truly loved this game. There are plenty of reasons for that. Yet imho it is important to notice the things we didn't like that much or point out situations in which they did much better. For me, story wise, anything that came out entirely from the devs is superior to the books. Or at least the ones I read.

It was the author who originally created the setting and there would be no witcher without him. Yet that's about it regarding what I wanted the devs to keep, the setting. It worked really well in their other two games. I'm not saying the author's storylines are inherently inferior, they might be or not, yet that's beside the point.

What I mean is, trying to incorporate/modify their own story in other people work, severely limits the freedom the writers have to create a story. And thus the quality of it suffers.

I agree, the people that do come on here are fans that hold the game and the developers in such a high regard, which is why any issues they have with the game they take seriously and voice their discontent with it. The previous games worked in terms of the main storyline because CDPR did have that license and freedom to create their own storyline that was in line with Sapkowski vision of the Witcher world, but without him actually having a say on what happens - this allows the CDPR writers to make their own story using the world and lore created by the author of the books, that in itself allows freedom yet can also limit them, so for a developer like CDPR they need to find their own balance to staying 'true' to the lore of the Witcher but also contribute their own story in what i guess you can call an alternate/expanded universe. Some people prefer the games to the books, others prefer the books to the game and some like both equally.

 

[Vargeras]

the games aren't canon

I swear if I hear that one more time I'll vomit all over my desk.
The Games are an adaptation of the books, sure the designer at CDPR have their artistic freedom but it still an adaptation, thus the games have to resemble the books, or otherwise they would've just made their own universe.
It's like The Lord of the Ring, for example. It's one thing to show the battle at helm and other discrepancies but just imagine they would've used Space ships and shit and call it: " Fuck off the movies ain't canon! We can do this!"

 

[Redemyr]

I swear if I hear that one more time I'll vomit all over my desk.
The Games are an adaptation of the books, sure the designer at CDPR have their artistic freedom but it still an adaptation, thus the games have to resemble the books, or otherwise they would've just made their own universe.
It's like The Lord of the Ring, for example. It's one thing to show the battle at helm and other discrepancies but just imagine they would've used Space ships and shit and call it: " Fuck off the movies ain't canon! We can do this!"

I believe what they mean like that is, the books provide the setting. Of course nothing like that (spaceships, modern weapons, computers, etc) would make sense here, unless Ciri somehow brought them along from her travels.

Back to the point:
Take for example W2. All the character come from the books, or most of them at least. The geography, themes, etc, they all come from the "lore" established by the books. Yet the main plot, the assassination of kings and Geralt being framed, is not a plot developed in the books, it's something completely created by the devs.

Now take W3, the main quest is about tying up loose ends left over when the author decided to kill his characters in the books, with side quests created by the devs to enrich the story and populate the world.

 

[saricc]

It already did not make much sense for Geralt to be involved in politics in the first place. A repeat of TW2 would never have happened.

The books have their own ending. Nilfgaard loses, pogroms in the North begin, eventually the north turns on mages, eventually Nilfgaard conquers the North. The white frost is just climate change that only really harms the North.Yennefer and Geralt die. They wre taken to a peaceful paradise after life by Ciri. Ciri travels to other worlds as a Witcher, ruining the lodgee plans. She denies her destiny, abandons the world to it's fate, and chooses to be free instead. She will be her own independent person, a thing she has always wanted.

---------- Updated at 09:44 AM ----------

I believe what they mean like that is, the books provide the setting. Of course nothing like that (spaceships, modern weapons, computers, etc) would make sense here, unless Ciri somehow brought them along from her travels.

Back to the point:
Take for example W2. All the character come from the books, or most of them at least. The geography, themes, etc, they all come from the "lore" established by the books. Yet the main plot, the assassination of kings and Geralt being framed, is not a plot developed in the books, it's something completely created by the devs.

Now take W3, the main quest is about tying up loose ends left over when the author decided to kill his characters in the books, with side quests created by the devs to enrich the story and populate the world.

The author ended their charachter arcs with their deaths. Geralt and Yennefe' s stories are finished by the end. The books even tell us the world's fate hundreds of years into the future. The only plot left open is the Aen'Elle and Ciri.

 

[Willowhugger]

It already did not make much sense for Geralt to be involved in politics in the first place. A repeat of TW2 would never have happened.

To be fair, a major part of the Witcher games is that Geralt may choose to believe his past beliefs were WRONG.

 

[carlos2033]

TW3 fails utterly as either a sequel to TW2 or a finale to the books.

I think you are right, it is best rpg but as standalone just Witcher Wild hunt, not as sequel to books or W2, choices from W2 don`t matter and some characters are not the same they was in W2 anymore so its not sequel, even some characters from books are not the same they were in the books, plus too much characters from the books are dead, and some unexplained plots from books so cant be considered sequel to books either, its just one of the best rpg but as standalone.

 

[Costa417]

I truly had more enjoyment from TW2 than TW3 per hour played, but this could change.

The storytelling was simply better in TW2 because the plot wasn't nearly as predictable.

On this note, I'd have preferred TW3 had followed TW2's plot, though if any of the expansions tie into TW2's plot I'd be content.

That's exactly what i fell! Glad im not the only one

 

[AVMC]

Dang, I wish I would have seen this thread earlier. I'm so glad that as more and more people finish the game, we're getting to have some great discussion about the story! Lots of great points all!

I wonder if, in knowing this is the last intended story for Geralt, CDPR pulled out all the stops and told the writers, "If it's important to the works, try to fit it in." I think they strived to make the game both an end to the Geralt arc AND a love story, heartfelt goodbye to the series. I know some of you are shaking your heads, but bear with me here.

The problem, I think, is that they just didn't have enough game that explained it. Whether that's due to time or budget or some strange terms regarding <insert random hoops to jump for Sony/MS here>, we may never know.

Regardless, a lot of characters became barely mentions [Zoltan became an intro to more Gwent...] or fan service, while story lines were dropped in without much back-story. Vice versa, we had existing/fan favorite story lines not explored going forward. [Ciri's a good example of introduction with no back story, except for one reference in W1... as if no one talking about her before now was normal.]

The main cast of game characters are [almost] all there. Their motivations and goals were there to be explored. But ultimately the ending we got was more one of convenience for everyone than a conclusion to Geralt's arc. So again, I think the game intended to be a conclusion based on both... while being an introduction to more book elements while they still had the opportunity to do so.