Was This Really "The Wild Hunt" and more

+
Because the focus of this game is the Wild Hunt. It's called The Witcher 3 - The Wild Hunt, not The Witcher 3 - Geralt and Friends.

NO, it isnt called THE WILD HUNT.... its called WILD HUNT and i have explained how that differs...
 
How many times to people have to tell you? You should not have to read the books or play the previous games to appreciate Witcher 3. Any time people try and excuse something by pointing to EXTERNAL material, you know that the product can't stand on its own two feet.

This person took the words out of my mouth, as I stated before and I'll say it again, the primary antagonist, Eredin, has a shorter and much more rushed arc than that of Philip Strenger's. If I wanted to be satisfied with Eredin's content by using the book, then maybe the game and the book should be sold together.
 
You're missing the point here dude so take a chill pill & read them posts again.

not missing anything... you think this game is called THE Wild Hunt and therefore should have more content on Eredin, King of the Wild Hunt. Im saying, this game was about Geralt and his hunt of the WIld Hunt to save Ciri... therefore there is no need to dig deeper into Eredin personality.. or would you really try to find out why he wants to kill your daughter? would you negotiate? or would you leave him to kill her because his intentions are maybe excusable from his perspective? After all, he thinks killing her, would solve all his problems..
 
Show me single CDPR material where it is said this game is called Witcher 3 THE WILD HUNT... i dare you...

We can keep playing semantics if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that Eredin and his generals remain two-dimensional characters that feel more like afterthoughts than actual characters. If there's a whole book written on them, then obviously they're not 2D characters and there's a tonne of info the devs could've drawn from to characterised them better.

IMO, the antagonist is just as important a character as the protagonist. Ignoring this fact is creative death.
 
Last edited:
'K. A few posts have just disappeared, and a quick reminder on the forum rules.

It is NOT against the rules for someone to disagree with your argument, and say so.

It IS against the rules to argue based on ad hominem attack, i.e. attacking the person who posted, rather than the point they made.
 
We can keep playing semantics if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that Eredin and his generals remain two-dimensional characters that feel more like afterthoughts than actual characters. If there's a whole book written on them, then obviously they're not 2D characters and there's a tonne of info the devs could've drawn from to characterised them better.

From my experience, the antagonist is just as important a character as the protagonist. Ignoring this fact is creative death.

but that is the whole point - people use misunderstood semantics to prove their point.. and from the game perspective, i dont think Eredin was the main antagonist of this game.. there were others that had much bigger impact than him, like for example Radovid (who schemed in shadows since Witcher 1 with his support to order of flaming rose, then wiping out mages at Loc Muine in Witcher 2 and continuing the "hunt" in witcher 3) or Emhyr or even Crones...
 
The picture clearly says the Plague of the Wild Hunt, not hunting in the wild. I've understood the title correctly.
 

Attachments

  • THE WILD HUNT.jpg
    THE WILD HUNT.jpg
    125.3 KB · Views: 49
but that is the whole point - people use misunderstood semantics to prove their point.. and from the game perspective, i dont think Eredin was the main antagonist of this game.. there were others that had much bigger impact than him, like for example Radovid (who schemed in shadows since Witcher 1 with his support to order of flaming rose, then wiping out mages at Loc Muine in Witcher 2 and continuing the "hunt" in witcher 3) or Emhyr or even Crones...

Radovid was nothing more than a part of the political backdrop for the game, much like Dijkstra and Roche. Their job was to flesh out the world Geralt inhabits, but the main focus really was suppose to be Eredin, who's story is tied in with Geralt and Ciri's. If Radovid appears to have more presence, then that is only more evidence that something had gone awry during the writing process, especially when Radovid is just a side character with only one or two main quest and the rest of his content being optional.
 
Last edited:
I have come to the conclusion that the title, "The Wild Hunt" is meant as a play on words, referring to both the Aen Elle, and the, literally wild, hunt for Ciri through Velen, Novigrad, and Skellige.
 
I am sorry but to recap, some people really are arguing that the Witcher 3: Wild Hunt isn't about THE Wild Hunt...but rather just hunting in a rather wild manner? My lord.

Considering the pan lady in White Orchard has more dialogue than all members of the Wild Hunt combined it's not that surprising that people wonder if the game title really refers to the Red Riders.
 
Considering the pan lady in White Orchard has more dialogue than all members of the Wild Hunt combined it's not that surprising that people wonder if the game title really refers to the Red Riders.

Well the pan lady also looked and was way more scary and dangerous than Imlerith, Caranthir and Eredin all together.

Bunch of tryhard cosplayers, pff...
 
Last edited:
Considering the pan lady in White Orchard has more dialogue than all members of the Wild Hunt combined it's not that surprising that people wonder if the game title really refers to the Red Riders.

This is unfortunately true, I definitely think they needed more explaining, dialogue and screen time. I am just more dumbfounded people are trying to argue it is on purpose and the title is just a coincidence or play on words.
 
I don't recall Letho, Azer Javed or Jacques having a lot of dialogue until the final speech stages.

Yeah. Shilard is one of the big, directly involved villains in TW2, and depending on the player's choices, he might hardly even be seen at all.

I think a huge part of it has to do with the fact that the Witcher games are very consistent about showing the story through the point of view of Geralt -- or an untrustworthy narration from Dandelion -- with very few exceptions. We don't see and hear more of Eredin because he and Geralt aren't running into each other constantly and going "Oh yeah?? Oh Yeah?? Well eff you too!"
 
Top Bottom