TW3 General Feedback [SPOILERS]

[ReptilePZ]

That's the thing, Ciri is not that much of a compelling character either if you narrow it down, but after all is said and done, regardless if the Wild Hunt is compelling enough or not, they are the main antagonist CDPR got stuck with, the problem is that they handled their king in a far far better way in the first Witcher than in Geralt's last one, that is no excuse if the original source material did not deliver more on that.

No, she isn't, which is why I think it's good they focused on what matters - her role as an adopted daughter to Geralt. And the used the Wild Hunt in a similar way - the thing that pushes the story forward. Basically, they used the strongest aspects of those characters.

Yeah, they handled the King better because back when you played TW1 you knew nothing about the Wild Hunt, so he seemed like a cool mysterious dude. It's still the same character, though. Which is why I said Sapkwoski should have just kept the Wild Hunt as a mysterious legend, instead of trying to develop them, because that did not end well.

In TW3, they had to reveal who he is, get rid of the mystery, and what you're left with is, well, a fairly bland character. And they had to do this, in order to wrap up the story. So, given that CDPR were stuck with an uninteresting antagonist, I think they did the best thing and not focus on them. So, in the case of the Wild Hunt, I'm willing to give CDPR a pass and I definitely don't want them to waste any resources trying to "fix" them. Just move on, give me another antagonist with the depth of Letho.

 

[KingHochmeister]

No, she isn't, which is why I think it's good they focused on what matters - her role as an adopted daughter to Geralt. And the used the Wild Hunt in a similar way - the thing that pushes the story forward. Basically, they used the strongest aspects of those characters.

In certain aspects, yes, they did, the father/daughter scenes were the best I have seen from gaming for sure, but I meant her as a character (even with all the character development she goes through the books) is not that good to be honest.

Yeah, they handled the King better because back when you played TW1 you knew nothing about the Wild Hunt, so he seemed like a cool mysterious dude. It's still the same character, though. Which is why I said Sapkwoski should have just kept the Wild Hunt as a mysterious legend, instead of trying to develop them, because that did not end well.

Also the quality of the dialogue was way different, you can still make a bland character compelling enough for a story, they even had an entire quest where you had to infiltrate the hunt, sadly it did not come to fruition.

Eredin suffered the same thing that happened with Vilgefortz in the books, I guess even though the Witcher series has really good antagonists, the "main" ones are bland in the end, which is a damn shame, granted, those "antagonists" in the games were written by CDPR and not transferred from the books.

In TW3, they had to reveal who he is, get rid of the mystery, and what you're left with is, well, a fairly bland character. And they had to do this, in order to wrap up the story. So, given that CDPR were stuck with an uninteresting antagonist, I think they did the best thing and not focus on them. So, in the case of the Wild Hunt, I'm willing to give CDPR a pass and I definitely don't want them to waste any resources trying to "fix" them. Just move on, give me another antagonist with the depth of Letho.

A bland character, but perfect for a videogame, if he kept harassing and haunting Geralt throughout the game like in Witcher 1 in the way of the "Cave of Dreams" quest then he would be a personal antagonist to the player, same reason why some gamers praise Handsome Jack in Borderlands to be a compelling antagonist, even though if you look at his character, he is also a bland one, but presented perfectly.

 

[misho8723]

But the scenes between Geralt and the King in TW1 were pretty good and the bast part about the ending of that game.. good writing is all the difference between a bland and a interesting character.. the problem in TW3 in my opinion is, there are no dialog scenes between any the main characters with Eredin.. 10 or so lines for Eredin is just way to little.. but I'm one of those that like Wild Hunt and Eredin from the books.. I like that in Witcher world they are not ghosts, or spirital things-- normal elves dressed up in badass armors that want to take their home territory back is really a good twist on the whole legend about WH from European folklore

 

[ReptilePZ]

In certain aspects, yes, they did, the father/daughter scenes were the best I have seen from gaming for sure, but I meant her as a character (even with all the character development she goes through the books) is not that good to be honest.

Right, yes, I agree, just not sure what point you're trying to make

Also the quality of the dialogue was way different, you can still make a bland character compelling enough for a story, they even had an entire quest where you had to infiltrate the hunt, sadly it did not come to fruition.

Was it, though? To me, the only compelling thing about the King's dialogue is that it took into account your actions as a player. If Jacques had said those lines instead of the King, it wouldn't have made a difference. It doesn't add depth to the character, it just gives him more functions in the game.

As for infiltrating the Hunt - that's one of those things that I think would have just bogged down the game, while achieving little - "yep, the WH really aren't that interesting, now I've seen it first-hand. Thanks, I guess..."

Eredin suffered the same thing that happened with Vilgefortz in the books, I guess even though the Witcher series has really good antagonists, the "main" ones are bland in the end, which is a damn shame, granted, those "antagonists" in the games were written by CDPR and not transferred from the books.

Yeah, I think Letho is the best antagonist in the series - books or games. And he's not even a bad guy. In fact, he's a possible ally in TW3. To me, these grand antagonists are a fantasy cliche that I just don't like. Going in-depth only makes it worse, imo. Which is why I'm actually fairly happy with how the WH turned out - at least they were minor enough for me to ignore.

A bland character, but perfect for a videogame, if he kept harassing and haunting Geralt throughout the game like in Witcher 1 in the way of the "Cave of Dreams" quest then he would be a personal antagonist to the player, same reason why some gamers praise Handsome Jack in Borderlands to be a compelling antagonist, even though if you look at his character, he is also a bland one, but presented perfectly.

I'd rather CDPR just not succeed at making a passable video game antagonist, because if that works, then I'd be worried they might decide to fall back on this in the future, if it gets enough praise. Now that the WH are underdeveloped, they can't do that, and the result will hopefully be antagonists that are good in general, not just video games. So, to me, this just isn't a compelling argument.

But the scenes between Geralt and the King in TW1 were pretty good and the bast part about the ending of that game.. good writing is all the difference between a bland and a interesting character.. the problem in TW3 in my opinion is, there are no dialog scenes between any the main characters with Eredin.. 10 or so lines for Eredin is just way to little.. but I'm one of those that like Wild Hunt and Eredin from the books.. I like that in Witcher world they are not ghosts, or spirital things-- normal elves dressed up in badass armors that want to take their home territory back is really a good twist on the whole legend about WH from European folklore

To me it just clashes too much with the world the early books try to build. You have this low, dark fantasy setting to the point where it almost not even "fantasy" anymore but feels closer to myth and legend.

And then evil alien elves and space/time travel get introduced and I just...

I'm not a fan, lol

 

[KingHochmeister]

I'm not a fan, lol

Kind of obvious, m8.

Right, yes, I agree, just not sure what point you're trying to make

Did not re-read that statement correctly, noble lizard.

Was it, though? To me, the only compelling thing about the King's dialogue is that it took into account your actions as a player. If Jacques had said those lines instead of the King, it wouldn't have made a difference.

As for infiltrating the Hunt - that's one of those things that I think would have just bogged down the game, while achieving little - "yep, the WH really aren't that interesting, now I've seen it first hand".

To you, of course, not trying to change one's mind, but you will never know, I hated Ciri with a passion, yet Witcher 3 changed that for me, even though technically the Witcher 3 Ciri is a very very diluted version of the book version.

Yeah, I think Letho is the best antagonist in the series - books or games. And he's not even a bad guy. In fact, he's a possible ally in TW3. To me, these grand antagonists are a fantasy cliche that I just don't like. Going in-depth only makes it worse, imo. Which is why I'm actually fairly happy with how the WH turned out - at least they were minor enough for me to ignore.

While I agree Letho is perhaps the best character in the trilogy of the Witcher games, it usually depends on the writing of said cliche grand antagonists after all is said and done.

I'd rather CDPR just not succeed at making a passable video game antagonist, because if that works, then I'd be worried they might decide to fall back on this in the future, if it gets enough praise. Now that the WH are underdeveloped, they can't do that, and the result will hopefully be antagonists that are good in general, not just video games. So, to me, this just isn't a compelling argument.

But they can at least add to those underdeveloped characters that are not fleshed out, or do you still want a W2 situation where the last part of the a Witcher game is always the weakest? Especially when it is perhaps the only sequel we will ever get to the books at this moment (regardless if you think the books need a sequel or not). I don't personally think the Wild Hunt are really that compelling either (woah) but CDPR did make some mistakes, won't even get into the White Frost discussion, problem is, the game is so near to perfection (for me) in the storytelling aspect that when the main antagonist of it is not fleshed out, it really sticks out as a sore thumb.

Luckily, this time the Witcher game did not have to depend entirely on a good antagonist to carry the last act (like in the previous two Witcher games).

To me it just clashes too much with the world the early books try to build. You have this low, dark fantasy setting to the point where it almost not even "fantasy" anymore but feels closer to myth and legend.

And then evil alien elves and space/time travel get introduced and I just...

Well you need this kind of "other worldly" threat in those types of fantasy anyway, just look at the Song of Fire and Ice series, personal conflict with one's self can carry the storytelling for so far, you need this type of threat eventually, or like in the Witcher books, foreshadow it.

 

[ReptilePZ]

To you, of course, not trying to change one's mind, but you will never know, I hated Ciri with a passion, yet Witcher 3 changed that for me, even though technically the Witcher 3 Ciri is a very very diluted version of the book version.

Not really, she isn't a "diluted" version - she's just a "grown up and no longer an angsty teen" version. At her core, though, she's still "The Chosen One" which is just not a very interesting concept to me.

So, TW3 did nothing to change my opinion of Ciri as a character, really. But yes, Ciri's young adult woman form is generally more bearable than her brat/angsty teen one

While I agree Letho is perhaps the best character in the trilogy of the Witcher games, it usually depends on the writing of said cliche grand antagonists after all is said and done.

I'm not gonna say the quality of writing doesn't matter, because it obviously does. But I really don't think a story needs a big bad to be good or to work - TW2 is proof of that.

But they can at least add to those underdeveloped characters that are not fleshed out, or do you still want a W2 situation where the last part of the a Witcher game is always the weakest? Especially when it is perhaps the only sequel we will ever get to the books at this moment (regardless if you think the books need a sequel or not). I don't personally think the Wild Hunt are really that compelling either (woah) but CDPR did make some mistakes, won't even get into the White Frost discussion, problem is, the game is so near to perfection (for me) in the storytelling aspect that when the main antagonist of it is not fleshed out, it really sticks out as a sore thumb.

To me, TW3 lacks a lot in the story-telling department, so the WH being underdeveloped is really a non-issue. It definitely is not perfect. The story as a whole is spoon-fed to you, unlike in TW1 and TW2, where you really actually had to think. There were a lot of layers to what was going on, and the way the plot unfolded had a very labyrinthine quality to it. In TW3, I could turn off my brain completely and still follow the plot, so I really can't agree on storytelling being near-perfect here.

The dialogues were good, the characters, too. The delivery of the plot - too simplistic and straightforward.

Well you need this kind of "other worldly" threat in those types of fantasy anyway, just look at the Song of Fire and Ice series, personal conflict with one's self can carry the storytelling for so far, you need this type of threat eventually, or like in the Witcher books, foreshadow it.

I really, really don't think you do. There are a lot of other varieties of fictional stories that don't need a big cataclysm or big evil to work - I actually find it strange that I am having to explain this on TW forum, of all places. Again, I'd point to TW2 as an easy example. The entire game is carried solely by the premise of unfolding a mystery, and the surrounding political intrigue.

 

[Charcharo]

Not really, she isn't a "diluted" version - she's just a "grown up and no longer an angsty teen" version. At her core, though, she's still "The Chosen One" which is just not a very interesting concept to me.

So, TW3 did nothing to change my opinion of Ciri as a character, really. But yes, Ciri's young adult woman form is generally more bearable than her brat/angsty teen one




I'm not gonna say the quality of writing doesn't matter, because it obviously does. But I really don't think a story needs a big bad to be good or to work - TW2 is proof of that.



To me, TW3 lacks a lot in the story-telling department, so the WH being underdeveloped is really a non-issue. It definitely is not perfect. The story as a whole is spoon-fed to you, unlike in TW1 and TW2, where you really actually had to think. There were a lot of layers to what was going on, and the way the plot unfolded had a very labyrinthine quality to it. In TW3, I could turn off my brain completely and still follow the plot, so I really can't agree on storytelling being near-perfect here.

The dialogues were good, the characters, too. The delivery of the plot - too simplistic and straightforward.



I really, really don't think you do. There are a lot of other varieties of fictional stories that don't need a big cataclysm or big evil to work - I actually find it strange that I am having to explain this on TW forum, of all places. Again, I'd point to TW2 as an easy example. The entire game is carried solely by the premise of unfolding a mystery, and the surrounding political intrigue.

On the subject of Letho : He is very good by video game terms... nothing more though. And that is honestly a very low bar, gaming is still just ... a low bar.

Honestly the new Ciri in the game is not the same Ciri as before. She lacks a lot of the fire of the book version. A decent video game character.

The Witcher 2 actually gains from being the middle game in a sense. The big bad has always been the same, but he is not important in TW2. All stories pick sides, the important thing is how well both sides are developed and how much you "rotate" them (if at all).

Honestly the biggest issues with Witcher 3 are all in the characters, thematic coherence (but at least it is better than Bioshock...) and the White Frost. After that is the Wild Hunt. CDPR has imagination, they could have done well with them but they did not.
How difficult a plot is to follow is not exactly a measure of quality though (else you would be singing praise for Shadow of Chernobyl). I think TW3 did well considering its medium and competition. Problem is I could easily see how it could have done better.

I do agree about the "big evil" thing. Though ... really it depends on how you analyze the core themes this thing. Truth be told one can easily read (and make it make sense) the Witcher books and say it is about good vs evil.

 

[ReptilePZ]

On the subject of Letho : He is very good by video game terms... nothing more though. And that is honestly a very low bar, gaming is still just ... a low bar.

Honestly the new Ciri in the game is not the same Ciri as before. She lacks a lot of the fire of the book version. A decent video game character.

K, I'm not about to have a books vs. games as a medium discussion here. But making blank statements without backing them up is hardly the way to build a convincing argument.

The Witcher 2 actually gains from being the middle game in a sense. The big bad has always been the same, but he is not important in TW2. All stories pick sides, the important thing is how well both sides are developed and how much you "rotate" them (if at all).

Honestly the biggest issues with Witcher 3 are all in the characters, thematic coherence (but at least it is better than Bioshock...) and the White Frost. After that is the Wild Hunt. CDPR has imagination, they could have done well with them but they did not.
How difficult a plot is to follow is not exactly a measure of quality though (else you would be singing praise for Shadow of Chernobyl). I think TW3 did well considering its medium and competition. Problem is I could easily see how it could have done better.

I do agree about the "big evil" thing. Though ... really it depends on how you analyze the core themes this thing. Truth be told one can easily read (and make it make sense) the Witcher books and say it is about good vs evil.

What TW2 gains from is that it hardly follows the books. It is mostly a story that is entirely done by CDPR, not restricted by the books too much. I'd play a trilogy that's about the Lodge, Emhyr and the Northern Kingdom's machinations, without needing a big bad like the WH. There are genres in fiction that work just fine without an Ultimate Evil. So, no, you absolutely don't need that thread to have a successful story. TW1 and TW2 staying mostly away from that is what drew me to them, so I was never interested in the Wild Hunt as a villain to begin with. Unfortunately, TW's biggest strength in being based on books is also its biggest weakness, as the devs ended up having to wrap up that mess of a story.

Thematic coherence? How is that a problem - the theme running throughout the entire game is Geralt as a father. Yes, there are different regions that you explore in the world, with their own struggles, but it's still a coherent theme overall. The issues with the plot is that it's just not very complex in terms of delivery. And don't mistake a convoluted mess of a plot for a complex, well-built one, just because both can be difficult to follow. Because when you dig deeper into the former, you just see a mess, whereas if you do the same with the latter, you uncover just how coherent and well thought-out it is. TW2 is an example of the latter - it had great political depth, with a lot of different sides with their own agendas and plans being set in motion, and it was also a very well-done mystery. Understanding the plot and its intricacies was a joy.

On the witcher books being about good vs evil. Yes, if you take into account the later novels, it absolutely can be interpreted that way. But the early books set it up as anything but good vs. evil. It's all about grey morality and lesser evils, and it feels closer to a western than fantasy. I liked that, I don't think fantasy as a genre is particularly compelling. That the early books in TW were trying to do something different was refreshing and interesting to me. The same applies to the games, with TW1 and TW2. TW3 is a lot more typical in the fantasy genre. What saves it, and why I still like the books, is the focus on characters and the grounded small stories it tells, not the overarching Ciri/WH plot.

 

[KingHochmeister]

Not really, she isn't a "diluted" version - she's just a "grown up and no longer an angsty teen" version. At her core, though, she's still "The Chosen One" which is just not a very interesting concept to me.

So, TW3 did nothing to change my opinion of Ciri as a character, really. But yes, Ciri's young adult woman form is generally more bearable than her brat/angsty teen one

No, not at all, she literally does not give a crap if Geralt chooses Triss, no matter how old the book Ciri would get, that is the ONE thing she will not stay quiet about.

I'm not gonna say the quality of writing doesn't matter, because it obviously does. But I really don't think a story needs a big bad to be good or to work - TW2 is proof of that.

I really, really don't think you do. There are a lot of other varieties of fictional stories that don't need a big cataclysm or big evil to work - I actually find it strange that I am having to explain this on TW forum, of all places. Again, I'd point to TW2 as an easy example. The entire game is carried solely by the premise of unfolding a mystery, and the surrounding political intrigue.

Witcher 2 is a bad example, it is the messiest Witcher game in matters of plotline, Witcher 1 did a better job in that aspect, thing is, they both ended foreshadowing a greater evil in the end, though they needed to lay the grounds for the Witcher 3, obviously.

It is still a videogame series at the end of the day, having a big evil to fight is more compelling from a gameplay point of view, I actually find it also strange I am having to explain why the Wild Hunt being underdeveloped is a bad thing for Witcher 3 itself in a Witcher forum as well.
Witcher 3 did a bad job on the White Frost though, although they did foreshadow it throughout the game.

With that said, ironically enough, the Cyanide studio's Game of Thrones RPG did a fine job of having its story purely personal and focused on two character without even mentioning the white walkers and it kept being interesting, so that is an achievement.

The dialogues were good, the characters, too. The delivery of the plot - too simplistic and straightforward.

That I agree with, it was catered to a broader audience, though when compared to other modern RPGs that were released recently, even with Radovid, the WH and the politics being too simplistic and dare I say, too "Bioware-ish", they did a far better job than all of them so far.

 

[ReptilePZ]

No, not at all, she literally does not give a crap if Geralt chooses Triss, no matter how old the book Ciri would get, that is the ONE thing she will not stay quiet about.

That's... an entirely subjective interpretation, lol. Besides, how she reacts to Geralt choosing his partner hardly invalidates her as a character. You maaaay be giving too much weight to something really insignificant, here

Witcher 2 is a bad example, it is the messiest Witcher game in matters of plotline, Witcher 1 did a better job in that aspect, thing is, they both ended foreshadowing a greater evil in the end, though they needed to lay the grounds for the Witcher 3, obviously.

Messiest? How? It was the most complex, sure, but I wouldn't call it messy. Pretty much everything made sense and had a purpose. There are a few instances where I think the writers messed up a bit, but the plot as a whole was very well-done. It was rushed at the end, so some pacing issues did arise from that, but that did not make it messy. I think you're misusing terms here.

TW2 ended up foreshadowing a war. That's not an ultimate evil, that's a political move... You need -some- conflict, it just doesn't need to be a menacing evil guy dressed like a skeleton.

It is still a videogame series at the end of the day, having a big evil to fight is more compelling from a gameplay point of view, I actually find it also strange I am having to explain why the Wild Hunt being underdeveloped is a bad thing for Witcher 3 itself in a Witcher forum as well.

I'm not saying having the Wild Hunt underdeveloped is a good thing. I'm saying having them fully developed wouldn't be a good thing, either, because the Hunt is a villain lacking depth, even with all of the information about them, so it ultimately doesn't matter that much - if I had to level criticism at the game, the Hunt would be the last thing I bring up, if it was a matter of "fixing" it. The better thing to do would be to just replace that whole thread entirely, as it's too generic. Also, if you settle for "well, it's a videogame, so it's ok to have shitty characters", then the medium will never move forward. And especially when TW2 already had a very strong antagonist. So, that's just really backwards thinking there, I think.

With that said, ironically enough, the Cyanide studio's Game of Thrones RPG did a fine job of having its story purely personal and focused on two character without even mentioning the white walkers and it kept being interesting, so that is an achievement.

Yeah, that game did have a good plot, sadly, the game itself was pretty bad as a whole. I'd love it if they gave that another shot, especially now that Bloodbowl blew up and they probably have more resources. Anyway, that's going off-topic.

That I agree with, it was catered to a broader audience, though when compared to other modern RPGs that were released recently, even with Radovid, the WH and the politics being too simplistic and dare I say, too "Bioware-ish", they did a far better job than all of them so far.

Yeah, the focus was shifted to telling an adventure story. But they kinda needed to do that to wrap things up, because the overarching Ciri/WH story sorta demands it. So, I think it's a fair criticism to make, but while keeping in mind that the devs' hands were sorta tied by the lore there. They still could have fleshed the political plot out more, so that's unfortunate and something they need to address in future titles, because that was just a step backwards, when compared to how it was handled in the previous games.

 

[Charcharo]

K, I'm not about to have a books vs. games as a medium discussion here. But making blank statements without backing them up is hardly the way to build a convincing argument.

What TW2 gains from is that it hardly follows the books. It is mostly a story that is entirely done by CDPR, not restricted by the books too much. I'd play a trilogy that's about the Lodge, Emhyr and the Northern Kingdom's machinations, without needing a big bad like the WH. There are genres in fiction that work just fine without an Ultimate Evil. So, no, you absolutely don't need that thread to have a successful story. TW1 and TW2 staying mostly away from that is what drew me to them, so I was never interested in the Wild Hunt as a villain to begin with. Unfortunately, TW's biggest strength in being based on books is also its biggest weakness, as the devs ended up having to wrap up that mess of a story.

Thematic coherence? How is that a problem - the theme running throughout the entire game is Geralt as a father. Yes, there are different regions that you explore in the world, with their own struggles, but it's still a coherent theme overall. The issues with the plot is that it's just not very complex in terms of delivery. And don't mistake a convoluted mess of a plot for a complex, well-built one, just because both can be difficult to follow. Because when you dig deeper into the former, you just see a mess, whereas if you do the same with the latter, you uncover just how coherent and well thought-out it is. TW2 is an example of the latter - it had great political depth, with a lot of different sides with their own agendas and plans being set in motion, and it was also a very well-done mystery. Understanding the plot and its intricacies was a joy.

On the witcher books being about good vs evil. Yes, if you take into account the later novels, it absolutely can be interpreted that way. But the early books set it up as anything but good vs. evil. It's all about grey morality and lesser evils, and it feels closer to a western than fantasy. I liked that, I don't think fantasy as a genre is particularly compelling. That the early books in TW were trying to do something different was refreshing and interesting to me. The same applies to the games, with TW1 and TW2. TW3 is a lot more typical in the fantasy genre. What saves it, and why I still like the books, is the focus on characters and the grounded small stories it tells, not the overarching Ciri/WH plot.

I think I once sent you a link to a post where I kind of explain my position about the literature vs gaming thing? I am quite certain I already did, if not I can resend it again via PM?
Anyways to me it is not a question. It is pretty much... obvious. I am prepared to talk to you about it... but I honestly dont know how to explain these things.

The gain you are talking about with TW2 is something I have noticed with the Metro games too. They do well not trying to follow the books completely. The game designer in me approves of this concept... yet I just see it as a bit of a cop out at times. It is the easy way out technically especially when making a game like Witcher 1-3 and I do not approve of the easy way. There IS a way to have your cake and eat it too.

I dont remember saying one needs an ultimate evil though I agree here, you do not need it... but there is a reason it exists even in classical works of both old and new.

Fiction can function just well enough without the need to be conformed into genres though. Remember, the "literary" critics look down on fiction (the hypocrisy though)... lets not emulate them, it is better that way.
The Witcher 3's biggest strength could have been without issues had it been better written or not aimed at the average gamer. But such is life really.

There are many themes running thoughout the game. One is that (and is reasonably well done, could have been better though) but it is not the only one. Generally the critique for themes and point (or lack of one) in a work is more advanced that the one levied at the plotline (that is one of the stupid but unfortunately logical stuff literary elitist talk about fantasy and science fiction).

I dont mistake a bad convoluted plot for a good one. Never have I said that . Witcher 2 has a good plot for a video game. In some areas better than the one in Witcher 3 and in others - worse.
With that being said it is refreshing the way you think. I too have noticed that there are stories that may be... not super impressive when you look at them but stand VERY well under analysis (like STALKER). There are others that look quite good once you experience them but are totally #Reked as soon as any serious thought put into them (for example... Bioshock). Here we agree completely!

Actually on the topic of good and evil I was envisioning the first 2-3 books more than the last ones. Their core ideas and themes feed into the existence of evil as a concept that is natural in the world and one that exists as long as many people let it exist. Depends on the depth and the way someone can spin it really. I see the logic in what you are saying about the final books but I can not completely agree due to the way I am used to analyzing past works. That is what makes it so exciting though !
I find fantasy to be a compelling background and thematic tool for many different storylines. I think I sent you some book recommendations earlier? My memory is truly terrible

 

[-Hisoka]

my thoughts on the game/dev- the good and the bad.

i wanted to write this for a long time and i think now its right time ^^

first id like to point that english is not my main language so if i have any mistakes please ignore them and focus on my meaning.


i'm 24 years old and i game for almost half my life. usally its been the FPS gener which i use to do competitve.
the only true "rpg" game that i played was skyrim but always loved the fantasy world and movies like Lord of the rings were the main reason of it.

last year or maybe even longer ago i started to hear things about a game named "The Witcher" and saw some trailers - i was amazed how good the game is but never kept read or watching more about it.

some time pass and i found my self watching another TW trailer and told me self that i must dig more about this game .
it took only few trailers\gameplay videos and a bit lore reading to decide that im going to buy a new PC/Monitor and play this game !
and so i did . i got my self an amazing rig combined with a monitor and started to play TW3

got my self The LAST wish but no time to read it all
i also played a bit tw1 but got some issues running it(wierd huh ? ) so i had to read and watch videos about what happend there
and i also played TW2 to get more background , which i think is an amazing game and a must buy\play if u really want to enjoy tw3

i want to say to the devs and any1 that took part in TW3 that you made something truely amazing with this game
i never belied i can get attached to a fictional charactar so much!
and let me explain:
when you go to menge's place (Witch hunter's base) with triss , i was so in love with that girl that i loaded that quest like 5 times - i just could not hear my lovely triss getting hurt - so everytime i got closer to menge i knew something bad gonna happen until i heard her scream when they turture us- that moment i said FUCK IT . reloaded the game and killed every sh1t in that place. - who would imagine i will that way ?

i did around 3playtrhoughts already and got close to 300hours in TW3 - but every fucking time i find ciri in the isle of mists
and every fucking time i see vesemir death i shed some tears and get really sad...

and i can go on and on about many other things in the game .

if any 1 in cdpr read this - you did something that no 1 else did in that regard and you deserve a fucking novel reward or something like that


Graphics- this is the best graphic game i've ever seen in my life(and i tried almost any good game out there) and even after 250hours i still find my self stop for a moment to enjoy the view and speak to my self with things like "FUCK THIS GAME IS AWESOME" - so another well done for you guys here: )

Updates- i was amazed to see how supportive you guys with releasing updates and finally found a company that actually listen to the players feedback! and i wanted to thank you for all those dlc's \ updates which are amazing !

HOS-hos was so fun even though i only played it once(gonna play it again very soon , just need to finish some business in velen first xD) - O'dimm was so good written and also Olgird , when i first met Gaunter O'dimm at the INN in white orchad - that guy left some "scary/wierd" impression on me . and when i found out about him in HOS i truly i was again suprised how u managed to do it so gooooood xD

and i like i said earlier and another post- im excited for BAW like a foolish kid that his parent promised him a toy xD
but i also really sad.knowning the fact that afte BAW i will have nothing to expect for The WITCHER really sad me :[
so im asking nicely if theres any chance you will keep us with more content for TW after BAW -it will be a dream come's true ^^

even if u like remake the old games and make 1 game that contain both of them with the new engine or decided to charge for a new content u plan to release - i will insta buy them and play like mad!


beside that the game got many good things like the combat/alchemy/crafting/items/missions/monsters and such more . but there are some bad things as well that i must point out!


Skills - i never liked Sings to much so after testing so many builds i found that my favorite is Alchemy/Fast attacks with focus on decoctions/Poision/Crit hit/Crit damage

but some skills are still broken since you launched the game!

Hunter Instincts - suppose to give 100% crit damage when ur AP at their maximum - tested it so many times - and it gives nothing!
Undying - the heal with 3 AP point is so little that this skill is Point less and could been replaced with something more usefull!
Fleet Foots-Not working guys! not working at all! another waste.
beside that there are many skills that are just POINTLESS and not fit well to the game . so even if u give me like 6 more slots - i will have to ignore Alchemy/combat and start add Signs - not because i like it but because i got nothing else to add that really makes a different!

Xbows- USELESS beside getting sirens/harpies down or shoot some Drawners - i just dont see the point of it and it takes a whole tree skill -.-


Roach-this horse is annoying since the launch and still no fix for him ? i prefer having a speed buff then using that shitty horse!
do you know that one time i called roach and found it it spawned on a fucking house roof at some village in velen?-thats how bad he is :<

Triss content - after playing TW2 i forgot about yenn (even that i romanced her once) and fell in love with triss just to realise you gave her so much litlle screen time and dialogs in TW3 - why you did it?!
she deserves so much more !!!

Gwent-i fucking love gwent but once you get some cards and know your enemies deck / moves (like i do ) its just soooo easy even on "HARD" level.
you should add some new mechanic or something like that so the game will be harder - and not just give any random npc cards like ciri/geralt to make him harder.
beside that - if i spend hard time fighting every npc i see in gwent just to get a "weather" card - thats just plain stupid . maybe give us the option to choose a card from a list ?
so each time we fight an NPC will offer us 1 of 3 cards to choose from b4 the game starts- and if i see those cards are useless - i will that NPC something like - you too weak for me and go search worthy opponent

i also DEMAND!!! another and HARDER gwent tournament!!! -it was PURE FUN but i never lost a game in that tournament (twice!) xD


Last thing is the new Runes system from HOS and basiclly runes themselves-90% are USELESS - unless your going with a "sign" build so u can get some cool things .
beside that i found only Whirl/Rend range thingy to be worthy and FUN!!! (i love it!)
and the ones that let u change your Armors to Light/Med/Heavy - those are great as well.
rest of them - not only the enhancments but also the stones themselves need an hard REWORK to add more depth to builds and such.

Ok i think i spillid everything i had to say about how much i love the game and appericiate any 1 that had a thing to do with this game -

now i want to say what i hope to see in BAW -

-Vampires:Bruxa/Garkain/Fleder- i wanna fight those and if i have the chance maybe a quest to either kill the Bruxa and get gold for it or let it go and lie but have sex with her

- I want to see more of the main characters if possible - Ciri / Triss / Lambert / Eskel and even Letho if possible(hes a badasssss witcher)

-i want to see some new gear/combat mechanics that will include Skills/Runes/Fighting/ and New swords/armor that not only "look good" but also give decent stats that do wonder with some skills to make new fun and strong builds!
for example i like the new Viper sword/set the best in terms of pur LOOK but sadly the set just dont worth it because other builds do it much better .

-i want an higher level cap then 70! - if HOS limit is 70 - add the option to reach lvl 100 and make BAW quest level limit to be around 67-70 .

-new area with new atompspehre that i can explore and do conracts/missions/ romance and do some cool question marks! - i like to explore everything

-new monsters like a Royal Manticore! - geralt something like that once those manticores got him really excited because how dangerous they are but after he chased the hunt/yenn for so long they just became something that gets in his way and he started to kill them easly just so he can eat and keep moving - i would love to see those kind of dangerous monsters

-MAKE THE GAME COMBAT HARDER- i want to think hard and focus hard when i fight someone and not kill it easly because i got OP with my build /gear - so maybe give monsters more abilitys ? lets say we get to see a Bruxa - give her the ability to "drain our blood" and make us "dizzy" or something like that so we will have to drink a uniqe potion just like geralt did b4 the fight in "nights to remember"

-More Gwent!- more cards , more games , maybe new mechanics, a new tournament and such

-improvement to UI,FPS,GRAPHICS, and fix some bugs if possible .

-More hair\beard style's to choose from! - i really like the one with the ponytail but would love to see new things.

-Give us some cool tiny options in the game menu that make our expereince uniqe - for example give us an option to "Hide" parts of our gear-
lets say i dont want to see my XBOW , make an option to hide it so i wont have to use mods for that and keep update them everytime!
or maybe an option to choose which color we like roach to be - lets say i like my horse to be Deep black or pure white - that would be cool to choose something like that so i can fit the game for my taste
also u must add the option the change or hide sword rune words ! - lets say i like the green ones better but i must use the yellow for my build - thats kind suck right?so a tiny option the game menu can let us toggle between colors or even DISABLE runewords in our swords!
or maybe i want to HIDE all the toxic effects because i hate them ? i forced to use a mod because of that - add a tiny option that will make our life easier!!! : )


Water mechanics- add some more "depth" the water in the game beside diving to get a treasure and kill a damm annoying drwaner
also , add better ways to move faster in the sea - clearing skellige question marks is pain in the ass - i dont care getting all that treasure but knowing the hard long way i have to do just to get an "wieght limit" error few minutes later on makes it dont worth it !

Horse gear- add more horse gear so we can carry more items! but also fit a some good looking items to roach.


Trophys- those things really need a rework - half of them got useless bonuses - the rest got "bad" stats that adds nothing - add some cool things like u did in TW2 - maybe a 3%crit chance trophy- that would be something cool right?
why half the trophys are visible as a wierd little sak on my horse ?! why not invest some more time and remake them so we can be proud about some uniqe monster we killed ! ?
also ! add the option like u did in TW2 to carry part of the monster in that "hook" thingy that geralt wears. that would be cool as well!


Meditation/Alchemy - you really should rework the alchemy system to be closer to TW2 - longer buffs / only medidtaion gives you some option like raising stats
the Med animation was so cool in tw2 - i belive u can do something amazing in TW3- imagine geralt sit , drinks a potion , gets those angry viens popping for few seconds , relaxa and drop the potion - HOW EPIC THAT WOULD BE ?



i guess i covered up everything i had to say

i hope someone read it and do something about it ^^


Thanks !

 

[Exentryk]

This is the best RPG I've played, ever. (PC | Controller | HDTV | 1080p60)

Pros:
- Large open areas to explore
- The whole saving system - quick save anywhere; combination of auto saves, manual saves and quick saves available separately.
- Quick access to the horse
- Fast Travel
- Releasing the game on PC at the same time as consoles
- Storytelling (writing, voice acting, facial expressions)
- World level design and atmosphere
- Foliage density and weather
- Audio design
- Responsive combat system, with fun Sign usage

Cons:
- Combat system (core issues with hitboxes, inconsistent dodging, fast attack animations, skills, progression, and depth).
- Needing to use Radial menu for Sign usage, which is something that is meant to be used quite often in battle. (Radial menu for bombs and other stuff isn't so bad).
- Inventory UI (some items taking 2 slots while some taking 1 slot making navigation annoying; potions, decoctions etc having similar looking icons and no accompanying text; shops not showing how many of a particular item Geralt owns while trying to purchase things; etc.)
- Lack of some unique end game optional bosses
- Equipment system other than Witcher Gear (Poor design choice to scale weapons to player level as it discourages exploration; Diagrams only allowing forging of fixed level equipment rather than dynamic levels based on player levels; No way to choose sub abilities on Equipment; etc.)
- No being able to zoom out completely on the main map.

 

[Sneky]

A good save import. One where our decision had some impact
A game which would be challengin
Good story. Only with a few holes
Iorveth (they said that he would be in the game) and the main characters from The Witcher 2 with a decent role
Even when TW3 it's a more personal story, I think that most of the player expected a continuation of the second game given the fact that the game has a "3".
Beloved and missed characters in the expansions. The expression was done in plural but, for now, we only have seen Shani who is just one character and it seems that it won't be more in the next expansions
A charismatic villain

Should I continue?

U should now find me articles about these things from Witcher 3 marketing period.


1. They never said much about saving system, Witcher 3 from the start was promoted as "independent" game from Witcher 1 or 2.
2. For u is not challenging, for other is. So its ur personal opinion.
3. "Good story" is just personal preference, for me the story is good and for many many other players also, for other like u its disappointing, its normal thing. There was also alot of complain about Witcher 2 storyline after release, "too much politics" etc..
4. They never said that Iorweth will be in Witcher 3, if im wrong show me article.
5. We got so far Shani, and in Blood and Wine most probably we will get another character, or characters. So where is the problem?
6. They didnt say much about villains in marketing campaign.

 

[Holgaroni]

U should now find me articles about these things from Witcher 3 marketing period.

So... all the things which weren't advertised during the marketing campain can be bad? Didn't know it was that simple.

6. They didnt say much about villains in marketing campaign.

That's the worst excuse i've ever seen about poor character development. How is this game called, TW3: Wild Hut? No, maybe hunt or something like that.

4. They never said that Iorweth will be in Witcher 3, if im wrong show me article.

Fucking yes they did. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOCAgHYPtF4& 4:09 min

 

[Sneky]

@Holgar82 Ofc not but he said "If you or they don't want to hear all these things, at least they should have developed the game as they said and not like the game actually is" so i asked for articles from marketing period. They pretty much delivered what they advertised except graphic. So yeah, im not excusing CDPR because i loved Witcher 3 so i don't really care, definitely much more than Witcher 2 which was disappointing for me personally. I was complaining after Witcher 2 and many others also so i understand u in some way and i respect your or Sam opinion about Witcher 3.

 

[ilayoeli]

6. They didnt say much about villains in marketing campaign.

The game is literally titled by the name of its antagonist.

Besides, having an antagonist who isn't complete garbage of a character is Writing-101

 

[xTr3me90]

My pros & cons so far (after finishing the battle of Kaer Morhen and playing the Hearts of Stone):

Pros:
- The most immersive and living world I ever saw in a game
- Great story, respectively a great way of telling the story, very intresting side quests.
- Great characters
- Decisions with consequences. Especially that you have the opportunity to choose between Triss and Yen is nice
- The crafting system
- The skill tree is much better than in the Witcher 2, espacially it's nice that you really learn some new abilities like the IGNI firestream, however,compared to some other RPGs it's still rather less.
- The combat system is really good

Cons:
- The thing wich bothered me the most is that the game helps you way too much. I know I can deactivate questmarkers & co, but it seems like the game isn't built for it. Also the quests was splitted in to many tiny subquests which told you exactly what do to. You are in an open world, but still, you are only following the game's instructions like : "Use your witcher senses" , " Talk to X" , "Go To Y". I know in such a large world it isn't easy to design quests without questmarkers and hints, but in my opinion it's a bit too much help.
- I wished there was more quests like the "serial killer" quest in Novigrad. Also I like to solve riddles like "The secrets of Loc Muinne" quest in The Witcher 2.
- In my opinion the alchemy system in the Witcher 2 was better, I like to have to collect ingredients for my potions, and I like to have to budget the potions which I got and to use them wisely, instead of getting it refilled every time I meditate. Also I don't like that you can indefinitely heal yourself in combats.

Despite the fact I wrote more to the cons than to the pros, The Witcher 3 is the best RPG in my opionion (Beside Gothic 2). I really enjoyed the game until that point, and after finishing the hearts of stone I will continue playing the main story line

 

[arkhenon]

@xTr3me90 It's good to write (of course while watching the tone) more to the cons, even if you absolutely love the game. It's good constructive criticism that maybe would help CDPR perfect their next game It's all good in my opinion.

 

[Col.Gali]

Platform: PS4

Pros:

• The world is loaded with relevant content (Frankly I do not care how big it is. They won’t be able to create bigger than the real one anyway, so for me it is only the quality that matters. See Dragon Age: Inquisition’s huge but terribly boring world).
• Fantastically written NPCs, each with their own motives and purposes.
• The world has a great feeling, and not just because of the details of the graphics, but because of the people in it and the environment. I prefer this over lava flows and other high fantasy things.
• Very well written dialogues, great voice acting. Great balance between humour, sarcasm and meaningful conversations.
• The combat is realistic and challenging (only on death march difficulty though).
• Great character development. Different builds require different play style but they are all enjoyable.
• I like the crafting system and that my potions are getting refilled and I only have to craft them once.
• Gwent is great. And luckily they implemented it in a quest like the tournament in the Passiflora
• After Athkatla (BG2), Novigrad is the first city which deserves the name of a “city” in a crpg. Can’t wait till Blood and Wine.
• I love the detail-oriented approach of the developers regarding furniture, clothes, weapons etc.

Cons:

• It would be nice if we could write our own notices on the map. Just mark some spots where I want to return.
• The quality of the Yennefer related content is much better than the Triss related even after the patch. Other NPCs should be even more responsive to our choices in this regard too. (Yes I have read the books and I am completely aware of the lore, but hey… Triss had major role in the previous games.)
• Some quests, like “Fencing lessons” feel like unfinished
• The main antagonist should be more charismatic.

Summary:

As for me, this is one of the best rpgs I have ever played with. I love how it goes against most of the trends which ruin the rest of the rpg market. I am in my second playthrough and I enjoy it even better than my first. Thank you guys!