What disappointed you about this game?

+
I'm not done yet, but for me it's
1. Politics and the war being background noise. Radovid becoming a complete mad man saying "lub dub."
2. Leaving out some of the main characters from the previous games. IMO, in the last game you have to bring back every major character who is still living (based on canon or import). That would mean Shani, Siegfried, Yaevinn, Iorveth, Saskia
3. Not enough Triss
4. Not enough dwarves and elves
5. Skellige, while nice, didn't fit IMO
6. Continuity from last games pretty much abandoned to the point of things not making sense when taken as a whole.
 
If you have to make your character blatantly state his/her feelings, you haven't developed the character well.

Well, I'm not really fond of that kind of rules. Too extreme point of view. :p

For me, some things can be said by gesture, situations or other things, and some things can be said by words. I'm not agree with the idea words would be a "bad" way to express the feeling of your characters. But I'm totally agree it can't be the only way to tell things about your characters. I'm just also totally disagree to tell it's a bad way. : )

About Geralt, I can be agree with you. He's definitely not the expressive guy. But even with that, I found him really more expressive in the relationship he had with women, for example (Yennefer/Triss). And the way the game quickly conclude Geralt spoke about Emhyr when I did Geralt say "she's like her father" just tell me it was not only a choice from CD Projekt, but also a lack of consistense on this matter. And it deprives us from an interesting subject (what's a father?) for the game.

But, well, let's say Geralt is okay for not expressing his feelings. Not really agree with that (a bit, but not totally), but I can understand what you'r saying. Except for the books you talked about: I thought Geralt was really much talkative in the books than in the game. Not really a problem with that, I like the Geralt of the game, but I think he's a bit different. : )

For Ciri, you said Ciri should mention that once, but she never did. Well, not in the game. I think it's a mistake. First, for not everyone read the books, and add some more explicit lines between Ciri and her adoptives parents for those players could have been a good idea. Second, Ciri did not see Geralt and Yennefer for many years, and they risk their lives on this journey. The fact there is never one intimist talk between them is really a lack for me. Sure, there are some scenes. Some of them excellent. But the relationship were never so clear as it was in the books, to my mind. I would be agree to say : not too emotional scenes, not everytime or everywhere. But some strong feelings during some strong scenes, just like in the books, that's what I'm missing. Same thing with Yennefer, who is cold with everyone, except Geralt and Ciri (and, well, Triss, sometimes). The warmer side of the character is well writen when it's Geralt, but for Ciri? Not so much. We can't see the two of them as much as we see Geralt/Yennefer, but few more scenes wouldn't be bad (and the reunion scene, like I said, was not really good).

And again, there is this damn ellipsis I can't forget. : (

The subject is really one of my favourite in the game, so my expectations on this matter were really high, I have to say.

No one needs over-the-top sentimental cry-parties we see in Japanese RPGs.

Just to see some characters express feelings with voice? It's far more exaggerated to me (like your golden rule, too extreme opinion for me :p). The baron expressed his feelings that way. We can hear him cry when he have to name his child, and for me he was really one of the best characters of the game, and the scene was one of the best on the game. Maybe I'm the only one who think that, but the scene would have been totally different if it would have been done in a muet style like the scene of the reunion between Geralt and Ciri.

The Japanese-RPG are not bad because they have too much feeling expressed, but because the characters writing is often naive and not really good (in every way, not only on the emotional part).

But, well, I think we can't be agree. You seem to consider words and voice are a bad way to express feelings, when I consider these things are important to define someone, just like gesture (even when it's a not so talkative character like Geralt). When you say the gesture of Geralt says a lot more than he could express with voice, I don't see why. There is not really a reason to that. I don't say it's not true that the scene express things (like I said, the scene was really good), but I don't see why it should be the better way to express feelings of a character. It seems to me it's totally subjective.There is not a better way to express feelings. It depends of characters (like you said yourself, there is characters like Geralt who are not talking so much), situations, staging (not sure of my english with that word :s ) in the case of fiction. But in the end, gesture, facial expressions, or voice are things who define ourselves, and so I'm considering all these things at the same level. There is no bad way or good way to express feelings, just different ways.
 
Last edited:
Golden rule of storytelling. If you have to make your character blatantly state his/her feelings, you haven't developed the character well. Geralt is not meant to be sentimental. The reunion on the isle of mist is the most tasteful part of the game because it is tremendously understated. I could decompose the hell out of that scene. Geralt turning his head tells you much more than hearing him scream. Also, Geralt is NOT an expressive character. You see this in Geralt's reunion with Ciri in the novels. Ciri becomes incredibly emotional but Geralt is very curt. But not for a second do you doubt that he is bursting with happiness to see her. If Ciri has to explicitly state that she views Geralt as a father figure, then the relationship clearly hasn't been bought. Far better to mention it once, and let the story make you believe it . Show instead of tell. This scene was one of the few parts of the game I thought was executed correctly. No one needs over-the-top sentimental cry-parties we see in Japanese RPGs. The subtle and graceful approach is the best approach.

At first I thought I agreed with tiphereth and now I feel like I agree with you. xD
I think both approaches have their place but for this specific scene in this specific context I feel like I would have liked to be told in addition to being shown. But I can totally see where you are coming from. And maybe a small part of why I feel this way is because of how PC games still look. I think actual actors in a movie would have made the scene look perfect the way it was in the game but because of the visual limitations... I don't know. As impressive as the graphics are, they still can't convey everything yet.
 
Interesting discussions here, thanks for the insightful reads.

My current thoughts on the matter is that I want more scenes where Geralt's best friends try to pick his brain. The reunion with Ciri was fantastic and I also really liked it when Dudu changed into Ciri. Like inanimate_object said, the minimalistic expressions work perfectly for Geralt as a character. Seeing the cracks in his otherwise solid armour is always powerful and gripping. Yet I also agree with Tiphereth that there were a number of relationships or events that weren't really shown enough.

It tends to be other characters that try to extract feelings from Geralt and there were a lot of missed opportunities to explore his relationships and outlook on life, especially after finding Ciri.
 
Well, I'm not really fond of tha kind of rules. Too extreme point of view. :p

For me, some things can be said by gesture, situations or other things, and some things can be said by words. I'm not agree with the idea words would be a "bad" way to express the feeling of your characters. But I'm totally agree it can't be the only way to tell things about your characters. I'm just also totally disagree to tell it's a bad way. : )

About Geralt, I can be agree with you. He's definitely not the expressive guy. But even with that, I found him really more expressive in the relationship he had with women, for example (Yennefer/Triss). And the way the game quickly conclude Geralt spoke about Emhyr when I did Geralt say "she's like her father" just tell me it was not only a choice from CD Projekt, but also a lack of consistense on this matter. And it deprives us from an interesting subject (what's a father?) for the game.

But, well, let's say Geralt is okay for not expressing his feelings. Not really agree with that (a bit, but not totally), but I can understand what you'r saying. Except for the books you talked about: I thought Geralt was really much talkative in the books than in the game. Not really a problem with that, I like the Geralt of the game, but I think he's a bit different. : )

For Ciri, you said Ciri should mention that once, but she never did. Well, not in the game. I think it's a mistake. First, for not everyone read the books, and add some more explicit lines between Ciri and her adoptives parents for those players could have been a good idea. Second, Ciri did not see Geralt and Yennefer for many years, and they risk their lives on this journey. The fact there is never one intimist talk between them is really a lack for me. Sure, there are some scenes. Some of them excellent. But the relationship were never so clear as it was in the books, to my mind. I would be agree to say : not too emotional scenes, not everytime or everywhere. But some strong feelings during some strong scenes, just like in the books, that's what I'm missing. Same thing with Yennefer, who is cold with everyone, except Geralt and Ciri (and, well, Triss, sometimes). The warmer side of the character is well writen when it's Geralt, but for Ciri? Not so much. We can't see the two of them as much as we see Geralt/Yennefer, but few more scenes wouldn't be bad (and the reunion scene, like I said, was not really good).

And again, there is this damn ellipsis I can't forget. : (

The subject is really one of my favourite in the game, so my expectations on this matter were really high, I have to say.



Just to see some characters express feelings with voice? It's far more exaggerated to me (like your golden rule, too extreme opinion for me :p). The baron expressed his feelings that way. We can hear him cry when he have to name his child, and for me he was really one of the best characters of the game, and the scene was one of the best on the game. Maybe I'm the only one who think that, but the scene would have been totally different if it would have been done in a muet style like the scene of the reunion between Geralt and Ciri.

The Japanese-RPG are not bad because they have too much feeling expressed, but because the characters writing is often naive and not really good (in every way, not only on the emotional part).

But, well, I think we can't be agree. You seem to consider words and voice are a bad way to express feelings, when I consider these things are important to define someone, just like gesture (even when it's a not so talkative character like Geralt). When you say the gesture of Geralt says a lot more than he could express with voice, I don't see why. There is not really a reason to that. I don't say it's not true that the scene express things (like I said, the scene was really good), but I don't see why it should be the better way to express feelings of a character. It seems to me it's totally subjective.There is not a better way to express feelings. It depends of characters (like you said yourself, there is characters like Geralt who are not talking so much), situations, staging (not sure of my english with that word :s ) in the case of fiction. But in the end, gesture, facial expressions, or voice are things who define ourselves, and so I'm considering all these things at the same level. There is no bad way or good way to express feelings, just different ways.
The point is, you should never add anything that isn't necessary. The reunion scene purposefully strips away sound effects and dialogue to go as minimalist as possible. This way, you are never distracted by anything else than Geralt's face, which is the center of the shot, and the most expressive and important frame in the scene. This is why it is powerful when he turns away - because the center of the shot is missing and you are left with nothing just as Geralt is left with nothing. If he speaks, he is voicing an emotion that we can already see and experience ourselves. It is a tremendously emotionally charged scene. For a plot as convoluted as Geralt's to do all these favors and to go to all these places as a roundabout way to find Ciri, for the actual reunion to be simple and silent is far more intimate. It's one of the most artistically perfect cinematics I've seen in video games and far more heartfelt and mature than anything I've seen from ultra-cinematic studios like Naughty Dog.
 
-Politics in the North
-Eredin
-Triss romance content
-Using the last wish as a way to break up Geralt and Yen
-Saskia and Anais got the Adda treatment
-Emyhrs secret is like free candy
-No Friggila one night stand

Those are all my bones with the game.
 
The point is, you should never add anything that isn't necessary.

Okay, that's another story that saying dialogues are bad because we don't want to hear cries and other things like that. :p
This time I'm more agree with you. On the idea I mean. :p Cause on this one scene, I actually think it would be not useless to add voices in the scene. : )

This way, you are never distracted by anything else than Geralt's face

In fact, I could be agree if we could actually have a good view from Geralt's face. The gesture is okay, but for the rest I'm sceptical with the scene.

I was not really convinced by the stage production (again, hope I'm understandable with my poor english). We have no zoom on Geralt's face, he turns back to the camera during a moment, when he hug the body we can't see his face, and after the awake of Ciri we have just one brief moment of surprise. I have the feeling the scene was not enough focus on Geralt face, and the movements were not enough for me. The same goes with Ciri. When the two of them hug, we don't see their faces, their expression, their relief, their suprise, their love, maybe even tears. We can't see that at all.

And there is what's Tharkey was saying about technological limitations. I found out the character expressions in The Witcher 3 was not enough good to rely just on them to express feelings of the characters. In most case I relied more about voice-acting (excellent in The Witcher 3) than on faces, who was just a... "support", I suppose.

I have to tell I love many things in this scene (we could think otherwise!). The slow pace when Geralt enters the room, the subit surge of the violons when Ciri open her eyes, and the wonderful flashback with Ciri and Geralt (so beautiful). I just think the scene would have been better with some voice acting, 'cause I'm not really satisfied with the way the scene is directed. I understand perfectly it was not how the scene was thinking by the devs, but I just can't stop to think it could have been better. : ) (EDIT : Almost forgot the Snow White symbolism of the scene of course. Great. : D)

Funny thing is, unlike what you said, that sort of things is really more effective in The Last of Us, where the facial expressions are one of the best (and the game has some scene without dialogues :p ).
 
Last edited:
The subject is never really deepen. When I said to Avallac'h "She's like her father.", I did not mean to say she was like Emhyr, like the game force me to do. I wanted to say she was like me, Geralt!

Can't say i agree. I think the line is there to show Avallac'h really doesn't get Ciri. Geralt to me is completely talking about himself as her father, with Avallac'h getting wrong end of stick. During the Ciri portions she clearly refers to Geralt as her father.
 
Can't say i agree. I think the line is there to show Avallac'h really doesn't get Ciri.

Nothing in the pursuit of the discussion can let us think that, sadly. Geralt doesn't correct Avallac'h, so it's entirely supposition. Just after that, Avallac'h said "Ciri is an idealistic, Emhyr is a pragmatic man", or something like that, and there is a choice of dialogue. In my version, Geralt just asked Avallac'h why he said that. He never told him he had misundertood what he said. If you'r right, the devs would have let us hints to understand the thing. I did not see any in the scene. : (

And I'm agree there is scenes the relationship between the two characters is expressed. I'm just sad there is no more scene between the two of them (and with Yennefer). : '(
 
One night stand?Come on!She deserves a full blown romance!
I was trying not to be greedy :p Really I just can't fathom why they introduced her at last and do nothing. Like at least with Rita being in such bad shape it makes sense, but her? CDP plz
 
I was trying not to be greedy :p Really I just can't fathom why they introduced her at last and do nothing. Like at least with Rita being in such bad shape it makes sense, but her? CDP plz

I would be very surprised if she wouldn't play a major role in the toussaint expansion. (including a romance option)
 
I loved 95% of the game but there were some glaring problems
1.the wild hunt and ereden were never fleshed out and the white frost came out of nowhere at the end and is never explained.
2.3rd act felt rushed and weird.the final battle felt anti climatic and had no build up compared to Kaer Morhen.
3,skellige compared to velen and nordibad,s plot was pretty short and the map seemed rather small compared to velen
4.combat got very easy halfway through game
5.oxenfurt was pretty small and had little plot
 
Iorveth is not in the game
The lighting system, orange light
The slideshows instead of cinematics for the endings
Seeing Imlerith just sitting doing nohing
The demon in the croockback bog, just another monster to kill
not enough screen time for the wild hunt
orange grass
 
Last edited:
I would be very surprised if she wouldn't play a major role in the toussaint expansion. (including a romance option)

Well, it is something that was posted a long time ago, but for those who hoped that Fringilla Vigo would play an important role in Blood and Wine, her being completely absent from the expansion might be one of the major disappointments.
 
In this order:

Iorveth, Saskia and the scoia'tel are not in the game. And what is more important, Iorveth was promised
The politics. It's just sucks
The save import. Nothing which was done in TW2 had it's impact in the current game
The choice and consequences system. Especially after finishing the main story
The story has major holes once you begin the second act
Nilfgaard whitewashed.
Some characters had uncomprehensible behaviours (Roche surrendering to Nilfgaard, Dijkstra fighting against Geralt, Ciri acting totally different as the one of the books...)
The complexity of characters and moral choices. 75% of the game it's just good vs. evil.
The Wild Hunt are probably the worst antagonist that I've ever seen. Mainly because lack of screentime
Sheala appearing just for 3 minutes
Fringilla appearing at the end of the game but not in Toussaint (that was really mind-blowing)
Living in war time but you can't see a real battle or skirmish
In general, the story doesn't give a closure to around 10 or maybe more characters
 
Last edited:
In this order:

Iorveth, Saskia and the scoia'tel are not in the game. And what is more important, Iorveth was promised
The politics. It's just sucks
The save import. Nothing which was done in TW2 had it's impact in the current game
The choice and consequences system. Especially after finishing the main story
The story has major holes once you begin the second act
Nilfgaard whitewashed.
Some characters had uncomprehensible behaviours (Roche surrendering to Nilfgaard, Dijkstra fighting against Geralt, Ciri acting totally different as the one of the books...)
The complexity of characters and moral choices. 75% of the game it's just good vs. evil.
The Wild Hunt are probably the worst antagonist that I've ever seen. Mainly because lack of screentime
Sheala appearing just for 3 minutes
Fringilla appearing at the end of the game but not in Toussaint (that was really mind-blowing)
Living in war time but you can't see a real battle or skirmish
In general, the story doesn't give a closure to around 10 or maybe more characters

Add to your list non existing Ciri-Yennefer relacions and it will be all :smile:
 
In this order:

Iorveth, Saskia and the scoia'tel are not in the game. And what is more important, Iorveth was promised
The politics. It's just sucks
The save import. Nothing which was done in TW2 had it's impact in the current game
The choice and consequences system. Especially after finishing the main story
The story has major holes once you begin the second act
Nilfgaard whitewashed.
Some characters had uncomprehensible behaviours (Roche surrendering to Nilfgaard, Dijkstra fighting against Geralt, Ciri acting totally different as the one of the books...)
The complexity of characters and moral choices. 75% of the game it's just good vs. evil.
The Wild Hunt are probably the worst antagonist that I've ever seen. Mainly because lack of screentime
Sheala appearing just for 3 minutes
Fringilla appearing at the end of the game but not in Toussaint (that was really mind-blowing)
Living in war time but you can't see a real battle or skirmish
In general, the story doesn't give a closure to around 10 or maybe more characters

Add to your list non existing Ciri-Yennefer relacions and it will be all

+ The bad ending of the main game and deal ( also the B&W ending is not really that i was expecting...) :ugh:
 
Top Bottom