What disappointed you about this game?

+
So after going through some Threads/Posts and so on...

...i came to the conclusion that most people agree with the bad storytelling that is starting with finding Ciri and the plot holes in the Witcher 3 generally.



Am i right?


Yes, there are more problems of course, but most of them start when the battle of Kaer Morhen ends, that is why people have been demanding an EE, because the game needs (and deserves) to have those problems fixed at least.
 

Guest 3847602

Guest
3- The game doesn't criticize your actions as much as in the previous games, whatever Geralt chooses the game mostly would not mind, even Ciri does not mind if he chooses Triss over Yennefer.

Of course, "real" Ciri would go medieval on Geralt's ass if he'd dump Yennefer (no matter if she's 17, 21 or 121 years old), but I didn't seriously expect them (for obvious reasons) to stay THAT faithful to the lore.
Somewhat better example would be no one (Yen, Ciri, Triss, Zoltan, Dandelion...) having anything to say about Geralt's possible participation in the assassination plot. Some of them can comment on his HoS scar, though...:teeth:
Even funnier, in "bad ending+Yen romance" scenario, Geralt & Yen cheerfully planing out their retirement at Corvo Bianco like nothing interesting happened at the end of the main game. :lol:
 
Of course, "real" Ciri would go medieval on Geralt's ass if he'd dump Yennefer (no matter if she's 17, 21 or 121 years old), but I didn't seriously expect them (for obvious reasons) to stay THAT faithful to the lore.
Somewhat better example would be no one (Yen, Ciri, Triss, Zoltan, Dandelion...) having anything to say about Geralt's possible participation in the assassination plot. Some of them can comment on his HoS scar, though...:teeth:
Even funnier, in "bad ending+Yen romance" scenario, Geralt & Yen cheerfully planing out their retirement at Corvo Bianco like nothing interesting happened at the end of the main game. :lol:

I did not expect them to stay THAT faithful, but that is where the romance crap starts affecting the storytelling of the game which angers me, also the Reasons of State quest was barely completed, even the city does not give a crap if Rad the Mad dies, the saviour of the North in their eyes that is, but an additional scar on Geralt's face? Oh that is really important to talk about!

Yeah ... Blood and Wine was great, but not in its story and giving the main game a "closure" part other than memes, I can't really treat it as "canon" if it manages to destroy one of their endings, too much fanservice for me.
 

Guest 3847602

Guest
I did not expect them to stay THAT faithful, but that is where the romance crap starts affecting the storytelling of the game which angers me

If it'll make you feel any better, there is a minimal difference on Ciri's face when Geralt talks about his waifu choices:


;)
also the Reasons of State quest was barely completed, even the city does not give a crap if Rad the Mad dies, the saviour of the North in their eyes that is, but an additional scar on Geralt's face? Oh that is really important to talk about!

I completed the assassination quest once out of curiosity expecting to see some kind of state of emergency, pandemonium on the streets of Novigrad, bells ringing, women crying... Needless to say, I reloaded and broke Dijkstra's leg again. :D

Yeah ... Blood and Wine was great, but not in its story and giving the main game a "closure" part other than memes, I can't really treat it as "canon" if it manages to destroy one of their endings, too much fanservice for me.

Incredible how the impact of genuinely touching scene at Crookback Bog can be retroactively ruined. :wallbash:
 
If it'll make you feel any better, there is a minimal difference on Ciri's face when Geralt talks about his waifu choices:

Eh, at least there is that.

I completed the assassination quest once out of curiosity expecting to see some kind of state of emergency, pandemonium on the streets of Novigrad, bells ringing, women crying... Needless to say, I reloaded and broke Dijkstra's leg again.

I am actually glad I went for the pushing aside choice in my first playthrough, it would have made it worse to experience that bad questline without knowing how bad it ends.

Sorry Djikstra.

Incredible how the impact of genuinely touching scene at Crookback Bog can be retroactively ruined.

Agreed, Geralt surviving his own suicide, hahaha
 

Guest 3847602

Guest
I am actually glad I went for the pushing aside choice in my first playthrough, it would have made it worse to experience that bad questline without knowing how bad it ends.

Sorry Djikstra.

Why sorry? The idiot should be thankful for that, knowing what would happen right after the assassination, I guess it was a matter of either saving a leg or life (like the medical treatment in Napoleonic era).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1-The last act being underwhelming in general and pulling off a deus ex machina and dealing with it with a nonsensical "Ciri is the chosen one all along!" instead of having Avallac'h actually betraying her so the decision of Ge'els of betraying Eredin when it means his people are doomed because of it would make sense.

2- Eredin and the Wild Hunt, the main nemesis of Geralt and Ciri, being criminally underdeveloped.

Yes, it is more or less generally accepted that the final act could have used some more work, and the Wild Hunt being under-developed might be partly the result of the same issue (since they would have had more quest content there before some cuts were made). Although I suspect even in a fully finished game, Eredin would not have been a particularly complex antagonist, but he could have been about at the level of Dettlaff at least.

3- The game doesn't criticize your actions as much as in the previous games, whatever Geralt chooses the game mostly would not mind, even Ciri does not mind if he chooses Triss over Yennefer.

There are several actions in the game that can have negative consequences, the bad ending being an obvious example. And Ciri does mind to some extent, even if not necessarily as much as you would like, but it is not unrealistic for her game character.

4- Too few pure Yen/Ciri moments, as Ciri was closer to Yennefer than Geralt himself in the books.

The games are different from the books, they tell the story from Geralt's point of view and focus on his interactions with NPCs. There is just not much interaction shown between NPCs in general, and Ciri and Yennefer are no exception to this.

5- Ciri being way too diluted when compared to her book-self.

Of course, she is not the same as in the books, in the game you see how CDPR imagined she would be like after growing up and after the events that happened between the books and games, but whether that is a good or bad thing is subjective.

6- Oversimplified politics from a complex situation to a "Mad Rad Redania burning mages and nonhumans" vs "Lesser Evil Nilfgaard" conflict.

To be fair to the game, I do not think it was ever promised to be about complex politics, it is more of a personal story intended to be the end of Geralt's saga.

8- Lack of actual puzzles in the game when compared to Witcher 2's puzzles.

That is a fair point, although The Witcher 2 might be the exception here, since as far as I can remember, there weren't that many puzzles or riddles in the first game, either. Wild Hunt does also rely too much on the Witcher Senses, but more as a storytelling device than something that has anything to do with puzzles or problem solving.

9- The Points of Interest and loot were mostly forgettable and the time spent into them should have been used in the last act of the main story instead.

Many of those POIs were added very late in the development, and they required much less resources (especially in terms of voice acting, cutscenes, etc., all the expensive "cinematic" stuff) than adding more main quests would have. Adding one more smugglers' cache or monster nest to the map is only a minor work.

11- The focus on the romances, I don't mind having "muh waifus" in videogames, but not when they start potentially taking away from the main story at hand, even Hearts of Stone suffered from this.

Relative to the size of the game, I doubt there is significantly (if at all) more focus on romances than in The Witcher 1. And with TW3 being the end of Geralt's story and with its more "personal" focus, it was perhaps not too unreasonable to devote a few percents of the content to his relationships. Which also do not take away from the main story, unless you mean it in the sense of "the resources could have been better spent on something else", but then the same could also have been said of a lot of other things.

Of course, "real" Ciri would go medieval on Geralt's ass if he'd dump Yennefer (no matter if she's 17, 21 or 121 years old), but I didn't seriously expect them (for obvious reasons) to stay THAT faithful to the lore.

If there are obvious reasons, perhaps they can be proven with a link to an interview, developer post, or something like that ? So far, I have only seen developer posts claiming that Ciri's portrayal has nothing to do with romances. Also, Ciri becoming independent is an important part of the game. However, that works both ways, she demands her independence to be respected, but she also does the same to Geralt, which I see as a positive trait of her character. Thus, I think her responses to the romance choices (she is happier about Yennefer, but she does not want to interfere with Geralt's personal affairs, which is realistic for an adult who no longer lives together with her parents) are consistent with her general portrayal in the game.

Somewhat better example would be no one (Yen, Ciri, Triss, Zoltan, Dandelion...) having anything to say about Geralt's possible participation in the assassination plot. Some of them can comment on his HoS scar, though...:teeth:

They comment on the scar because Geralt asks them, and it is something they can easily see on his face. Not sure if he ever shares with any of them during the time frame of the game that he takes part in a secret conspiracy to assassinate a king, at least I do not recall that being shown on screen.

Even funnier, in "bad ending+Yen romance" scenario, Geralt & Yen cheerfully planing out their retirement at Corvo Bianco like nothing interesting happened at the end of the main game. :lol:

That scene is at least a year after the ending of the main game, if not more. While it may look odd the way it is presented in the game, at some point they do have to stop mourning and move on. That, or they actually know that Ciri is alive, too, it is just not shown to the player because it is meant to be a surprise for the next game. :shuriken:

also the Reasons of State quest was barely completed, even the city does not give a crap if Rad the Mad dies, the saviour of the North in their eyes that is, but an additional scar on Geralt's face? Oh that is really important to talk about!

It is told after the ending of the game that the world is in the state it was in before the final chapter. While it may look like a lazy solution, it explains why the "post-ending" world does not show any consequences to the endings, they only affect the epilogues. Of course, it is another matter that Blood and Wine breaks that explanation. Also, adding a few lines about Geralt's mark is less work by far than making the entire world of the game properly represent the different political outcomes.

Incredible how the impact of genuinely touching scene at Crookback Bog can be retroactively ruined. :wallbash:

Just wait until the next game comes out and confirms that Ciri survives the bad ending, too (assuming she is planned to be the protagonist, not that I find that particularly desirable), and she ends up being a witcher no matter what. So much about meaningful choices and impactful consequences.

Agreed, Geralt surviving his own suicide, hahaha

It was not actually shown as suicide even before Blood and Wine, his fate was left open to interpretation. Even the journal says at the end of that epilogue that "What happened then, you ask? That, my dear reader, is another story altogether". But confirming it in a DLC that he is alive does make the "bad" ending weaker, and doing the same with Ciri in a sequel would make it pretty much meaningless.
 
Yes, it is more or less generally accepted that the final act could have used some more work, and the Wild Hunt being under-developed might be partly the result of the same issue (since they would have had more quest content there before some cuts were made). Although I suspect even in a fully finished game, Eredin would not have been a particularly complex antagonist, but he could have been about at the level of Dettlaff at least.

I would argue that because Dettlaff goes out of character in Blood and Wine, that Eredin even with his lack of presence in the game, is more of a character than Dettlaff is, sure, he has four times the lines and presence, but this is what I think about it, but at least having the book Eredin fighting for the survival of his people would have made the story better in my opinion.

There are several actions in the game that can have negative consequences, the bad ending being an obvious example. And Ciri does mind to some extent, even if not necessarily as much as you would like, but it is not unrealistic for her game character.

Yeah, her game character trusts Avallac'h, so I did not expect her to be like her book-self, but the "waifu" choice would be at least the only thing she would go ballistic about, no matter if she spent over 5 years hopping around worlds chased by some elves in power armor or not.

The games are different from the books, they tell the story from Geralt's point of view and focus on his interactions with NPCs. There is just not much interaction shown between NPCs in general, and Ciri and Yennefer are no exception to this.

They do, but even when Geralt is around both of them, Ciri does not treat her like she used to, because she has PLANS! PLANS ARE EVIL! Which I find to be really hilarious, but since they originally planned to have Yennefer betray the lodge, maybe they forgot to edit that line in that particular ending, but even then, why would Ciri be angry at her if she shared her own desire for vengeance? The Lodge were not their friends.

Of course, she is not the same as in the books, in the game you see how CDPR imagined she would be like after growing up and after the events that happened between the books and games, but whether that is a good or bad thing is subjective.

They also intentionally made her a character that ALL players would want to protect, that was a step too far in my opinion, says the guy who hated most of her parts in the books.

To be fair to the game, I do not think it was ever promised to be about complex politics, it is more of a personal story intended to be the end of Geralt's saga.

Well yes, and I personally wanted that, but the war was too oversimplified, I like that they focused more on the effects of the war itself, but even then the politics were really oversimplified, the Fake Ciri thing was gone, Emhyr suddenly could tell his entire loyal nobles that Fake Ciri is fake and get away with it after he wins the war, etc.

That is a fair point, although The Witcher 2 might be the exception here, since as far as I can remember, there weren't that many puzzles or riddles in the first game, either. Wild Hunt does also rely too much on the Witcher Senses, but more as a storytelling device than something that has anything to do with puzzles or problem solving.

Yes, but I really liked the ones in Witcher 2, the guardian in the sewers came to mind, you had to learn a new language just to get through him.

Many of those POIs were added very late in the development, and they required much less resources (especially in terms of voice acting, cutscenes, etc., all the expensive "cinematic" stuff) than adding more main quests would have. Adding one more smugglers' cache or monster nest to the map is only a minor work.

The "minor" work would have been possibly enough for them to actually squeeze in more cutscenes and fleshing out of the main story itself, considering they managed to make Blood and Wine in under six months.

Relative to the size of the game, I doubt there is significantly (if at all) more focus on romances than in The Witcher 1. And with TW3 being the end of Geralt's story and with its more "personal" focus, it was perhaps not too unreasonable to devote a few percents of the content to his relationships. Which also do not take away from the main story, unless you mean it in the sense of "the resources could have been better spent on something else", but then the same could also have been said of a lot of other things.

I did not mind the romance being around, as a book fan I wanted to see that side of the story, but when it starts changing some characters like Ciri just to justify player choice, it irritates me, not to mention each damn expansion having its own damn "waifu" just for the hell of it.


It is told after the ending of the game that the world is in the state it was in before the final chapter. While it may look like a lazy solution, it explains why the "post-ending" world does not show any consequences to the endings, they only affect the epilogues. Of course, it is another matter that Blood and Wine breaks that explanation. Also, adding a few lines about Geralt's mark is less work by far than making the entire world of the game properly represent the different political outcomes.

Well yes, but when you know they planned that quest's climax to be during the battle of Novigrad, things start making more sense, I will try to avoid that damn questline from now on.

It was not actually shown as suicide even before Blood and Wine, his fate was left open to interpretation. Even the journal says at the end of that epilogue that "What happened then, you ask? That, my dear reader, is another story altogether". But confirming it in a DLC that he is alive does make the "bad" ending weaker, and doing the same with Ciri in a sequel would make it pretty much meaningless.

Dandelion loves to embellish, but even embellishing the fate of his best friend was weird, but yes, they managed to ruin one of their endings with an expansion, as for Ciri, it can be interpreted that she just leaves Geralt to another world, but yeah, it would make a meaningless ending.




Phew, that was a long post.
 
Last edited:

Guest 3847602

Guest
If there are obvious reasons, perhaps they can be proven with a link to an interview, developer post, or something like that ? So far, I have only seen developer posts claiming that Ciri's portrayal has nothing to do with romances. Also, Ciri becoming independent is an important part of the game. However, that works both ways, she demands her independence to be respected, but she also does the same to Geralt, which I see as a positive trait of her character. Thus, I think her responses to the romance choices (she is happier about Yennefer, but she does not want to interfere with Geralt's personal affairs, which is realistic for an adult who no longer lives together with her parents) are consistent with her general portrayal in the game.

Do I seriously need to explain that Ciri (the most important character in the game beside Geralt) reacting angrily to Triss romance would be negatively received by the crowd that pursue this romance?
Do you not remember all the posters who claimed they felt pushed towards Yennefer? How do you think they'd react if Ciri gave them an earful for dumping Yennefer? Do you really expect someone from CDPR to come out and say: "Yup, we didn't want to screw people who chose Triss, that's why Ciri didn't went berserk"?
Like I said already, I don't even care too much about it. Triss romance and Ciri's mellow reaction on it is something that I'm not experiencing personally, ever. It's obvious enough to me why they did it and I can accept it as a reasonable thing to do in order to avoid backlash.

They comment on the scar because Geralt asks them, and it is something they can easily see on his face. Not sure if he ever shares with any of them during the time frame of the game that he takes part in a secret conspiracy to assassinate a king, at least I do not recall that being shown on screen.

How about Phillipa, then? How about nobody in Novigrad giving a damn the regicide just happened? People on the streets do react on the choice of name of Priscilla's play, btw.

That scene is at least a year after the ending of the main game, if not more. While it may look odd the way it is presented in the game, at some point they do have to stop mourning and move on. That, or they actually know that Ciri is alive, too, it is just not shown to the player because it is meant to be a surprise for the next game.

It could happen the decades after the main game, still wouldn't make any sense for Geralt's and Yen's characters to behave like that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My biggest gripe with Witcher 3 is the lack of persistent pressure from villains. The Wild Hunt are the worst for this, because there are huge sections of the game where you could easily forget they exist. If not for Keira's Wandering in the Dark quest, there would be no contact with the Hunt from the prologue until the Kaer Morhen battle. The idea that Yen is being pursued drops away entirely. Luckily Velen has the Crones, who provide a suitably ominous atmosphere to the region.

Then there is Novigrad. Menge gives a threatening speech when you first arrive, but the next time you see or hear from him you kill him. Menge could have been a long-term menace, following Geralt, arresting people Geralt meets, and generally making life difficult. Instead he gives a brief speech and vanishes again, leaving only anonymous witch hunters as foes. Junior is a similarly short-lived villain. You hear about him in the bathhouse, and you can kill him off an hour of gameplay later. Radovid persists for most of the game as a semi-villain, but his actions have very little to do with what happens to Geralt and his friends.

And worst of all is Skellige, which lacks the menace of a villain entirely. You have some Ciri flashbacks to remind you the Hunt exists, but the rest of the time Skellige is just a big vacation.
 
Yep, hear you.
Think the devs are between a rock and a hard place here..trying to create both a sandbox feel and a game with a captiviating story..very difficult!
In my opinion it's not been done yet.TES to me is the king of Sandbox while the Witcher has the better characters and story..the game that could combine both
elements at similar levels hasn't imo been written/built yet.still,we hopes eh? ;)
 
The Wild Hunt was to play a much bigger role before the cuts - CDPR has long confirmed the cut infiltration quest somewhere in the third act, which would have given the Red Riders way more screentime. Menge and the whole Novigrad act probably also contained much more depth initially. Iorveth was supposed to appear in the city, so the Squirrels were probably involved in the original political power struggle for the city as well.
It seems like due to time and budgetary constraints, however, CDPR had to decide whether they will focus on populating the huge open world, or avoid major cuts in the story. They chose the former - probably because they wanted to impress and draw in new players with the amazing open-world rather than cater to established fans. That's why the whole world of The Witcher 3 is littered with smuggler's treasure and non-consequential small side quests, but absolutely essential parts of its story that would have given the game its deserved depth were thrown overboard.
 
The Wild Hunt was to play a much bigger role before the cuts - CDPR has long confirmed the cut infiltration quest somewhere in the third act, which would have given the Red Riders way more screentime. Menge and the whole Novigrad act probably also contained much more depth initially. Iorveth was supposed to appear in the city, so the Squirrels were probably involved in the original political power struggle for the city as well.
It seems like due to time and budgetary constraints, however, CDPR had to decide whether they will focus on populating the huge open world, or avoid major cuts in the story. They chose the former - probably because they wanted to impress and draw in new players with the amazing open-world rather than cater to established fans. That's why the whole world of The Witcher 3 is littered with smuggler's treasure and non-consequential small side quests, but absolutely essential parts of its story that would have given the game its deserved depth were thrown overboard.

Don't worry, all those holes will be perfectly solved with a card game (hope the irony is clear)
 
Two things that disappointed me most about this game. The first is how choices are made for you behind the scenes almost all of which can be attributed to the lack of a save import. The other is the lack of characterization of certain characters. This is particularly prevalent within the Triss romance. Contrary to some, I've never had an issue with Yennefer being in the game (in and of herself), what disappointed me is that the game wants me to romance her and not Triss, rather than allowing me the freedom to make that choice myself. The forced break up, the magical appearance of Vesemir, both of which ran contrary to how I finished the previous game. My choice was deemed less important than the writer's choice and to me, that's not the way to go about making a good game.

The other is the lack of characterization of certain characters, leading to inconsistent writing. Eredin's lack of dialogue, and interaction with Geralt, the lack of exploration into Radovid's descent into madness, resulting in both the game's two antagonists being reduced to caricatures. At no point is Eredin's motivation examined, at no point do we find out why Radovid turned into a frothing at the mouth lunatic, we're just told this is the way it is and get on with it. Piss poor writing if ever I've seen some.

Actually, no, I take all this back. The thing that disappointed me most was CDPR's refusal to address these issues by way of an Enhanced Edition or retrospective patching. To leave this game with such glaring issues was, I felt, nothing short of a slap in the face for those of us who have been loyal to the (game) Franchise, and it is for this reason that I will not be buying Cyberpunk and will likely never buy another CDPR game again. This could and should have been the finest RPG for a generation, as it stands, whilst still good, will forever remain a lost opporutnity.
 
Don't worry, all those holes will be perfectly solved with a card game (hope the irony is clear)



Exactly my thought!

Not saying that it is bad that CDPR is making a Gwent Game...but...they still could have solved all the problems in TW3 first before making a Card game..?! ???

But the most annoying thing is still that they know about the problems in TW3...but really don't care. What upsets me the most!
>.<
 
Exactly my thought!

Not saying that it is bad that CDPR is making a Gwent Game...but...they still could have solved all the problems in TW3 first before making a Card game..?! ???

But the most annoying thing is still that they know about the problems in TW3...but really don't care. What upsets me the most!
>.<

The card game is another signal that there won't be a EE not even in the future. If they put the stories they didn't want to put in the main game, they are not going to put them in the real game. It's what KingHochmeister said once. All the decisions were taken before the release and the company it's following the steps that were planned then with any kind of doubt

I know, off topic. I won't continue
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom