Why the main narrative in the last third of the game is a bad hot mess [major spoilers!!!]

[Crazytwist]

I do agree for the most part.

When it comes to Ciri's endgame choice, I liked the idea behind it. I think it could have been executed better, but it was nice that you had "influence" on a ( sort of ) NPC without making the choice for the character. And while I can see why the empress ending may not make sense for Ciri, I also get why she might choose it depending on your choices. Even though she clearly doesn't want to do it.

That is pretty much my take on the last bit of the game though; I liked it well enough and followed it but I did feel that it was lacking when it came to choices and consequences. Plus it wasn't as fleshed out as I would have liked. Most secondary characters had no dialogue beyond what was for their mission and I found it disappointing that they didn't at least have an opinion on the progression. Not to mention the only dialogue from Triss was "well?".

So I don't think it was a bad ending. I feel like it was a decent ending to a great game and if they had put more work into the main story, characters ( mosyly secondary ) and choice/consequences, it would have been great. Even with the same outcomes and storyline.

So to sum up, I feel the direction they took had potential to be great but wasn't. Though i am not sure if it was because they rushed it or because they had a open world to focus on.

P.s. sorry for not being more detailed on them, but I had to use my phone and did not feel like typing that much.

P.p.s. first time I went with

Drink
Didn't visit "father"
Talked with with lodge
Destroyed lab ( assumed she wouldn't use her powers )
And visited grave

Got the witcher ending and was quite happy, though i was a bit disapointed on the second playthough when I realized it didn't have as much impact as I thought. Which is why I feel if they excited it better than it would have been a great... mechanic I guess.

 

[Captmorgan72]

Thanks Scholdarr.452 you basically sums up all the tings I didn't like about the story but was to lazy to write.

Just a little thing ,when you said that Ciri does not have any magical abilities. She does recover her powers at the very end of the last book, that's how she is able to heal Geralt and Yennfer.

Haven't read it but if she can heal them then why not herself like in the game. Also her teleport attacks seem feasible if she travel between worlds why not a short distance?

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Haven't read it but if she can heal them then why not herself like in the game. Also her teleport attacks seem feasible if she travel between worlds why not a short distance?

It's highly questionable if Ciri recovered any "normal" magical abilities at the end of the game. I would say no. She imo only channeled Ihuarraquax' abilities.

What she is capable of in the games is up to CDPR. Only problem is that the abilities she has in the game are never explained in any way... :mellow:

 

[matmis]

There is a lot of insightful analysis in this thread, but it does not seem complete until you include the source books in the analysis. It's easy to see how much the game series draws from the books. Less easy to see is that subsequent games draws their major tropes, themes and entities from subsequent books: Witcher 1 is predominantly based on short stories collections and first volume of the novel saga; Witcher 2 heavily draws from the second volume; Witcher 3 follows with 3rd to 5th volumes. A major climax point in both books and games is that Geralt and friends fight in a castle, and afterwards he is reunited with Ciri. It falls in the middle of the last volume, so the rest of the story is relatively short and may feel rushed. During these last chapters a few things happen: Ciri with Geralt seek out what happened to remains of her dead companions; damage property belonging to some of her wrongdoers; not with Geralt, but alone, stands up to the Lodge. As far as meeting Emhyr and drinking/snowball is concerned, I wouldn't suggest any book events directly corresponding to these choices, maybe I overlooked something. Know this, though: if you need to guess right 3 out of 5 binary choices, but you only know one of them, then if you toss a coin for the other four choices, your odds are nearly 70% : 30%.

 

[whiplash27]

I would have loved if Eredin popped up throughout the game and taunted Geralt. Made everything he did seem like it was the wrong choice. Made him start to doubt himself. Kind of like in TW1, but an occurrence throughout the game. Would have been an awesome way to build up the character for the final showdown.

 

[MrPerfectionist]

This thread needs serious RED attention, since the arc after you have found Ciri felt really rushed and its delivery just felt bland and all jumbled up.

 

[Vigilance.492]

I beat the game fairly early, and have spent the last number of weeks sort of thinking things over, digesting it all and coming to my own conclusions. And whilst I don't quite agree with every point, the general gist is absolutely spot-on Scholdarr.

I don't really have much of a problem with Ciri (A few minor gripes), nor how any of the Epilogues played out, but definitely The Wild Hunt got severely neutered and were horribly portrayed, The White Frost was completely lacking in build-up, and some characters (Fringilla/Magarita etc, and even A'vallach/Triss/Philippa/Radovid/Emhyr etc to a lesser extent) didn't have nearly the depth I expected.
Above all though, the pacing is I believe absolutely the largest and most frustrating narrative issue in the entire game. The only Act which I think worked ok was 2, pretty much from the moment you retrieve Uma to the end of The Battle at Kaer Morhen. The other Acts were just a mess. Sadly I think it just confirms fears of the open world, I was willing to give CDPR a chance but it's clear to me that an open world is just not the right place to tell a great narrative, even if you get everything else right I don't think perfect pacing can be achieved, and pacing is crucial.

I dunno, I don't really think much can be done. I guess they could introduce more content to help portray The Wild Hunt & The White Frost better, and whilst that would be fantastic, it still wouldn't fix the egregious pacing issues (Actually I think it would probably just make it worse).
Certainly I'm not expecting anything to come of this, but I figured it was about time to add my thoughts to the pile, and of course Sholdarr you already did the bulk of the work here anyway, so I didn't have to go into the little, tiny details. So props.

 

[swordsandroses]

This thread needs serious RED attention, since the arc after you have found Ciri felt really rushed and its delivery just felt bland and all jumbled up.

I know right?
Literally the best thread on this forum and not a single RED reply. I've not seen anyone go into such detail to leave me speechless on all of my thoughts after beating the game.

I mean, we could keep going on for 800 pages, or they could just acknowledge the front post with one of their ambiguous replies that they've noticed it and it's being discussed internally at the very least.

 

[MrPerfectionist]

This would be awesome

 

[Scholdarr.452]

There is a lot of insightful analysis in this thread, but it does not seem complete until you include the source books in the analysis. It's easy to see how much the game series draws from the books. Less easy to see is that subsequent games draws their major tropes, themes and entities from subsequent books: Witcher 1 is predominantly based on short stories collections and first volume of the novel saga; Witcher 2 heavily draws from the second volume; Witcher 3 follows with 3rd to 5th volumes. A major climax point in both books and games is that Geralt and friends fight in a castle, and afterwards he is reunited with Ciri. It falls in the middle of the last volume, so the rest of the story is relatively short and may feel rushed. During these last chapters a few things happen: Ciri with Geralt seek out what happened to remains of her dead companions; damage property belonging to some of her wrongdoers; not with Geralt, but alone, stands up to the Lodge.

Nice comparison although it seems a little bit constructed to me. I don't know if CDPR had something that "formal" in mind, following the pacing of the books. But it's a nice find.

As far as meeting Emhyr and drinking/snowball is concerned, I wouldn't suggest any book events directly corresponding to these choices, maybe I overlooked something. Know this, though: if you need to guess right 3 out of 5 binary choices, but you only know one of them, then if you toss a coin for the other four choices, your odds are nearly 70% : 30%.

If I have to guess "correct" answers in choice situation there is something deeply wrong with the situation itself. Meaningful choices and correct answers are two completely different approaches. That's the central criticism of mine here, on the topic of choice (and consequence).

 

[Visarean]

I have faith that CD Projekt Red will listen to its fans and make the necessary changes to its great game. It is as we all know a competent developer who listens to its fanbase and with the proper constructive criticism I believe we can get them to make these changes. In another post I said my piece on what has to change to make the game perfect. Instead of going on and on I will make a short list which I think will suffice.

* Leave Avallach as a traitor in the end. Keep him as a behind the scenes villain and make him the final boss.
* Develop Eredin. Give him a few cutscenes to make him a worth antagonist.
* I am not sure about future plans but the lack of Iorveth should be corrected. I was never a massive fan of his and I have always preferred Roche but he has to be in it for the people that chose to support his cause. If nothing else just have him in a side quest to show his struggle.
* This next suggestion isn't important but it would be fantastic if it were to be included. Have Dethmold appear for those who accidentally let him escape. He could appear in a side quest with Roche.

I realise that I am asking for a lot but from what I gather these are things the players want to see. The top two suggestions are definitely the most popular and most important choices but if all four suggestions were included then this game could not be faulted.

 

[matmis]

If I have to guess "correct" answers in choice situation there is something deeply wrong with the situation itself. Meaningful choices and correct answers are two completely different approaches. That's the central criticism of mine here, on the topic of choice (and consequence).

Players who follow the books, by way I described, will get three choices contributing towards the good ending, and whatever the remaining two choices they pick, they will have good ending.

Players who role-play Geralt, how would I say it, "chivalrous"? they will also get three choices contributing towards the good ending (snowball, emhyr, skjall) and whatever they pick for the remaining two choices does not matter.

These two triples are different, only one (skjall grave) appears in both of them. Together they cover all five choice points. I don't know if CDPR had something that cunning in mind, but it seems to challenge your choice/consequence approach to criticism.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Players who follow the books, by way I described, will get three choices contributing towards the good ending, and whatever the remaining two choices they pick, they will have good ending.

Players who role-play Geralt, how would I say it, "chivalrous"? they will also get three choices contributing towards the good ending (snowball, emhyr, skjall) and whatever they pick for the remaining two choices does not matter.

These two triples are different, only one (skjall grave) appears in both of them. Together they cover all five choice points. I don't know if CDPR had something that cunning in mind, but it seems to challenge your choice/consequence approach to criticism.

These are no real meaningful choices and what you say doesn't refute my argument at all. A meaningful choise isn't about getting the right consequences. And a well written consequence doesn't punish the player for making their own thoughts. That's just plain bad game design.

 

[matmis]

Really I don't perceive it as a choice-consequence gizmo - because the "consequence" is shown only at ending epilogue, and so it does not matter during further gameplay, since there is no further gameplay. It is simply a test. "You've been weighted, you've been measured, and you've been found belonging to the club of people who got good ending. Or not."

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Really I don't perceive it as a choice-consequence gizmo - because the "consequence" is shown only at ending epilogue, and so it does not matter during further gameplay, since there is no further gameplay. It is simply a test. "You've been weighted, you've been measured, and you've been found belonging to the club of people who got good ending. Or not."

And do you consider that meaningful choices? And do you consider them reflecting the "the lesser evil" mantra?

That the consequence is not shown before the very end makes it only worse for everybody who "failed". These people are literally punished for no apparent reason and that's something game developers should never ever do...

 

[Wendek]

Players who follow the books, by way I described, will get three choices contributing towards the good ending, and whatever the remaining two choices they pick, they will have good ending.

Players who role-play Geralt, how would I say it, "chivalrous"? they will also get three choices contributing towards the good ending (snowball, emhyr, skjall) and whatever they pick for the remaining two choices does not matter.

These two triples are different, only one (skjall grave) appears in both of them. Together they cover all five choice points. I don't know if CDPR had something that cunning in mind, but it seems to challenge your choice/consequence approach to criticism.

The problem is that the snowball dialogue is stupid. The player has absolutely no way of knowing that "Relax, you can't be good at everything" is going to lead to a sad drinking session. I thought it was comforting when I picked this option, the first one just seemed like it'd be something shallow and perhaps even offend her. (I still got the good ending in the end, so I don't really care, but that sequence is silly)

 

[matmis]

Yup. If someone asked me what is the highlight of W3's narrative, it wouldn't be this.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

At last I had enough time to read Scholdarr.452's take on the plot. Some things are arguable, but in general I agree. I found it very puzzling why the outcomes of Ciri's story depend on Geralt's reaction, and the only possible reason I see is that CDPR wanted to make Geralt the center of the narrative, the real driving force. But it does not make any sense, at least not for Ciri as I see it. She is already about 23, so she is not a child anymore. She was to Hell and back, and she was on her own for the last 5 years. To base her life-changing decisions exclusively on her father-figure attitudes is simply immature. She should be already well above constant approval-seeking and reinforcement from him, or anyone else, for that matter, because it is simply how normal, well-adjusted adults behave.
So, in the end of the day, I just said "screw it". In my playthroughs she does what she does, and I simply prefer to forget that it is based on these 5 dialogue choices. I managed to hit three of them right the first time, so I got my perfect ending. I have to be content with that.

 

[swordsandroses]

The problem is that the snowball dialogue is stupid. The player has absolutely no way of knowing that "Relax, you can't be good at everything" is going to lead to a sad drinking session. I thought it was comforting when I picked this option, the first one just seemed like it'd be something shallow and perhaps even offend her. (I still got the good ending in the end, so I don't really care, but that sequence is silly)

Absolutely agree with you. The ending is perfect build up to finally and unexpectedly see the results of your multiple decisions, and that was perfect.

But, they needed to be clearer on the meaning of certain things we have as an option to say. Mass Effect dialogue has absolutely no room in a Witcher game.

Not everything requires a consequence immediately, as a matter of fact, it adds to realism if it hits us latter and with a much greater force.

But even with all of that said, whoever got the bad ending kinda feels like they've failed the parent test. 2 out of 5 correct decisions needed to be made to avoid it, it's more than enough, even with all the flaws in the current system.

 

[Scryar]

Any response from CDP would be appreciated