Infinite had the bad luck of existing in the same time-frame as Metro Last Light...
And being from the same sub-genre that gave us RTCW, HL, TNO and Metro....
Infinite had the bad luck of existing in the same time-frame as Metro Last Light...
And being from the same sub-genre that gave us RTCW, HL, TNO and Metro....
Would it be possible to get back on topic, please?
Like always, if you don't like the topic of this thread, nobody forces you to write something here. Just go on and do something else. But this was quite a nice discussion so far so please, don't derail it with comments that add nothing to the discussion itself. Thanks.
Like always, if you don't like the topic of this thread, nobody forces you to write something here. Just go on and do something else. But this was quite a nice discussion so far so please, don't derail it with comments that add nothing to the discussion itself. Thanks.
How I would change The Caer Morhen Part of the Game
Assuming I had an unlimited budget for the Witcher 3 and not at all disastisifed with the game, I would make the following changes to the game. Take note, I'd probably throw this into the "Enhanced Edition" of the game because I didn't hate the original fact that the game picked up speed past the first thing.
1. High Level Content: The post-Kaer Morhen material will trigger some more Secondary Quests and Witcher Contracts which are High Level Content for the game. Indeed, I would make it a point that things like "Missing Brother" would only be available after a certain point of the game.
2. Personalize this Content: The Secondary Quests for the Post-Kaer Morhen material would be the following.
* A Dandelion and Priscilla adventure where they resolve their relationship issues one way or the other.
* A Zoltan adventure where you potentially have him become a hugely rich Gwent merchant so he can, at last, retire.
* Nilfgaard adventures where you see the progress of the final stretch of the war.
* Redanian adventures where you see the progress of the war.
* Finally, recover Dijkstra's treasure.
* Missions where you get to know Margeurita and Fringella as more than one scene wonders.
* A couple of missions with Emyrs where you can save him from assassination, let him die, and get a better idea of his situation.
* One more Triss and Yennefer romance scene depending on your route.
* A few Wild Hunt related missions like interrogating a captured Wild Hunt soldier and rescuing slaves from them which allow them to get more depths.
* Deal with the Clan Lugos-Clan Crach Civil War.
3. More Personal Interactions: Because this is kind of an issue. Characters who needed post-Morhen content are.
* Dandelion
* Zoltan
* Priscilla
* Fringella
* Marguerita
* Telling Yennefer about Phillipa's plotting
* Triss romance content and Triss/Geralt/Yennefer/Ciri interaction.
4. New Ending Slides
* Dandelion and Priscilla's fate
* Zoltan's fate
* What happens to the Lodge of Sorceresses
* Yennefer and Triss slides for if they DON'T romance you.
* The Bloody Baron's fate
---------- Post merged on 09-06-2015 at 02:14 AM ----------
Honestly, though, you'd just need conversation points with the characters and an expanded epilogue for most of my problems.
Assuming I had an unlimited budget for the Witcher 3 and not at all disastisifed with the game, I would make the following changes to the game. Take note, I'd probably throw this into the "Enhanced Edition" of the game because I didn't hate the original fact that the game picked up speed past the first thing.
1. High Level Content: The post-Kaer Morhen material will trigger some more Secondary Quests and Witcher Contracts which are High Level Content for the game. Indeed, I would make it a point that things like "Missing Brother" would only be available after a certain point of the game.
2. Personalize this Content: The Secondary Quests for the Post-Kaer Morhen material would be the following.
* A Dandelion and Priscilla adventure where they resolve their relationship issues one way or the other.
* A Zoltan adventure where you potentially have him become a hugely rich Gwent merchant so he can, at last, retire.
* Nilfgaard adventures where you see the progress of the final stretch of the war.
* Redanian adventures where you see the progress of the war.
* Finally, recover Dijkstra's treasure.
* Missions where you get to know Margeurita and Fringella as more than one scene wonders.
* A couple of missions with Emyrs where you can save him from assassination, let him die, and get a better idea of his situation.
* One more Triss and Yennefer romance scene depending on your route.
* A few Wild Hunt related missions like interrogating a captured Wild Hunt soldier and rescuing slaves from them which allow them to get more depths.
* Deal with the Clan Lugos-Clan Crach Civil War.
3. More Personal Interactions: Because this is kind of an issue. Characters who needed post-Morhen content are.
* Dandelion
* Zoltan
* Priscilla
* Fringella
* Marguerita
* Telling Yennefer about Phillipa's plotting
* Triss romance content and Triss/Geralt/Yennefer/Ciri interaction.
4. New Ending Slides
* Dandelion and Priscilla's fate
* Zoltan's fate
* What happens to the Lodge of Sorceresses
* Yennefer and Triss slides for if they DON'T romance you.
* The Bloody Baron's fate
---------- Post merged on 09-06-2015 at 02:14 AM ----------
Honestly, though, you'd just need conversation points with the characters and an expanded epilogue for most of my problems.
I'd like to take issue with some of the things the OP says and assumes about narratives, what constitutes an "optimal" narrative, and what the game's narrative constitutes. I'd also like to interpret the ending, particularly Ciri's taking on the White Frost, as a positive aspect of the game's narrative and not a deus ex machina as the OP portrays it.
But first, assumptions!
Really? I'd like to know what this "optimal" pattern for pacing is. I've never heard of this pattern before. If it's so optimal, then why isn't it used in every narrative? How does it manage to work for every single story one can tell? Does this mean narratives that are constructed with a different pattern in mind, such as The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman, are inherently flawed? Is Ulysses a flawed narrative because... well, everything about it? If every narrative used this "optimal" pace, wouldn't it be extremely dull?
There is a thing, in storytelling, called a climax. It usually happens around the 1/2 or 2/3 point of a story, and it's the moment that defines the story. In the OP's analogue, Star Wars, both within its movie and in the broader context of the original trilogy, that moment is when Darth Vader tells Luke that he is Luke's father. It's a moment that is more engaging, emotional, and gripping than any other part of the original trilogy, the battle on Endor included. In The Witcher 3, the climax of the game is around the 1/2 or 2/3 point of a story, from Geralt's reunion with Ciri to the Battle of Kaer Morhen. There is literally nothing wrong with that segment of the game being the best and most memorable part of it - in fact, from a storytelling perspective, it's encouraging that that is the game's high point. Why should the final battle with the Wild Hunt override that part of the story?
These are unclear terms simply through their names. What are these two types of villains? How do I know you're not making stuff up for the sake of making stuff up? And why can't there be an archetypical villain-for-the-sake-of-having-a-villain? The older James Bond movies are filled with such villains, with unexplored motivations, such as Oddjob, and yet they worked well in their role as villains.
... What?
No, seriously, where is that quote even from? And by your logic, any story that involves Ciri should heavily involve people attempting to abuse her sexually - that is not remotely sensible.
Moving on from assumptions, I'd like to present a perspective of the game's story, especially the last third of it, that is positive. The Witcher 3 is explicitly about Geralt's tale - Dandelion narrates it, as he narrates the first two games, and thus the events in the game are presented entirely from Geralt's perspective, with the exception of the Ciri parts. We can break down the parts of the game's story where Ciri is playable into two sections: flashbacks and supporting element. The flashback scenes occur exclusively before Geralt and Ciri reunite, and they are always placed in the context of someone telling Geralt about those events (The Bloody Baron narrating the fight with the basilisk, the Crones narrating her escape from the swamp, Whoreson Junior narrating Ciri's rescue of Dudu, etc.). They likely exist for the player to build a connection with Ciri, to avoid having side characters narrate endlessly about her actions without actually making her visible, to make her less of an object or a goal and more of an actual person. It also illustrates her growing power. The second type of Ciri section, the supporting elements, occur exclusively after Geralt and Ciri reunite, and they take place during the two major battles Geralt is involved in; these scenes are basically her helping Geralt out during those battles. The important thing is that those scenes serve to supplement Geralt's story, not tell a separate one about Ciri.
That's why the ending is as it is. The player's objective, as Geralt, is to defeat the Wild Hunt and protect Ciri from them. He accomplishes this in the final part of the game, before thinking that Avallac'h has kidnapped Ciri and rushing after him, only to be informed otherwise by Ciri. Ciri's defeating the White Frost is an altogether different quest from Geralt's quest, and the fact that it isn't shown is actually a good thing. It fits with the entire theme of the last third of the game - Geralt, as a father figure to Ciri, is supposed to prepare her for her own, separate adventures; and he is preparing himself for when he has to let go of Ciri and let her have her own story. In Geralt's story, it doesn't matter how Ciri defeated the White Frost: what matters is that she is either successful in doing so, meaning Geralt has succeeded in enabling her confidence, or she is unsuccessful, and Geralt has failed in enabling her confidence.
Let me establish my own analogy here: Ciri is like Bruce Lee, and Geralt is like Ip Man. They were both brilliant martial artists in their own right, and Ip Man was one of Bruce Lee's teachers. But if you were to tell a story about Ip Man, you wouldn't talk about Bruce Lee's role in Enter the Dragon. You wouldn't define Ip Man by the accomplishments of his protege. You would talk about how Ip Man taught and mentored Bruce Lee, or how Ip Man enabled Bruce Lee to become the top martial artist that he was. That's assuming you tell a story about Ip Man that involves Bruce Lee, of course; you could easily talk about Ip Man's accomplishments before he met Bruce Lee. This is the exact same way the story works with Geralt and Ciri: Ciri is Geralt's protege, and Geralt mentors and enables her to do great things, but he doesn't go out with her to defeat the White Frost. That's Ciri's story, her legend if you will; while Geralt's legend is defeating Eredin and the Wild Hunt. That's what the game focuses on. It also fits thematically: the overall moral of the story, of the last third of the game, is about allowing, and enabling, your children be better than you, and to not helicopter them on everything. Let's run down the list of major moral choices:
1. Vesemir's death and consoling Ciri: you have a choice between telling Ciri that she may be literally incapable of doing something, or giving her a fun break from her studies. The second choice enables Ciri to become better, and is thus considered the "good" choice.
2. Accepting or refusing the emperor's reward for finding Ciri: contrary to OP's post, the choice isn't whether to go to Velen or to go to the emperor first, but whether to accept or refuse the emperor's coin if you do go. Accepting his coin in front of Ciri tells her you're out for personal gain, while denying it affirms that you brought her to the emperor simply for Ciri's sake, so she can hear him out and make her own decision, hence, it is considered the "good" choice.
3. Interceding on Ciri's behalf to the Lodge or letting her go on her own: this is, again, about helicoptering a child. The "good" choice is to encourage her to handle the Lodge by herself, while the "bad" is to go yourself, speak for her, and basically shelter her. The bad choice tells your child that you think them incapable of fighting their own battles.
4. Destroying Avallach's lab or holding Ciri back: while not a nice or a professional thing to do, and while it's not a "witcherly" thing to do, it's not about what Geralt decides, it's about what Ciri decides. Again, supporting her is the "good" option, as it should be. It's about breaking free of the chains of Avallach's tutorship of Ciri, that Ciri can do whatever she damn pleases.
5. Visiting Skjall's grave or not visiting Skjall's grave: again, this is about what Ciri wants, and not helicoptering her. If she wants closure, a good parent will damn well help her get some closure. I'm not even sure this one is up for debate.
All of them are tied to the same theme of enabling Ciri, of allowing her the use of her skill and power. The OP speaks of a flawed chain of causality, where our choices feel insignificant compared to the consequences. Nevermind that the OP praises Chrono Trigger immediately beforehand for having the exact same type of chain of causality, the point is that the choices the player makes in The Witcher 3 are tied into their consequences. The fate of the North is dependent on whether Geralt aided in the attack on Radovid and whether he supported Djikstra or Roche afterwards; this effects Emhyr's fate, since Emhyr either wins or loses the war depending on who's leading the North. That's a solid chain of causality. Whether mages or nonhumans are persecuted in Novigrad - that's tied directly to whether Geralt helps the mages escape the city. If the OP is wondering about the endings themselves, about enabling Ciri through small actions, then the explanation is simple: the consequences are based on Ciri's choices, which are based on Geralt's choices. Either Ciri doesn't have the confidence to fight the White Frost and she dies, leaving Geralt in shambles; Ciri defeats the White Frost and met with Emhyr, where she makes the choice to become the queen of Nilfgaard; or Ciri defeats the White Frost, did not meet with Emhyr, and becomes a witcher like her adopted father. Your choices impact Ciri's choices, and you learn the consequences of those choices as well. If that's too disappointing for the OP, well, that's the OP's problem, not one with the game's narrative.
A few other notes, since I've been rambling on and on:
Did you miss the entire explanation of: Eredin usurped the previous ruler of the Aen Elle to take power, discovers his people are about to be consumed by the White Frost, and wants Ciri and her power so he can save his people? Or are you upset that Eredin didn't sit down for 5 minutes with Geralt and monologue his motivations to the audience? His motives and personality are quite clear, it's just that they're established through secondary sources like Ge'els and Avallac'h.
This ties directly into the issue of perspective. We don't know much about the sorceresses and their role in the end because Geralt doesn't hang around them, he's busy preparing for the battle in other ways. If Yen was a secondary protagonist, we would almost definitely see more, but again, this is Geralt's story set at a particular point in time. His experience with these sorceresses comes prior to this point, and for some members, it's covered fairly well in the second game.
Perspective again. Why would Geralt tell Dandelion about moments that Ciri and Yen had by themselves? That's part of Ciri's story, not his.
The game is about Geralt's personal quest, and that's what the ending is for. The epilogues are supposed to tie up loose ends relating to the overall picture around the story, hence the focus on politics. And events on the Skellige Isles are explained? I assumed the "upcoming civil war" was led by Madman Lugos, who Geralt and Ermion kill during the game, and the "Nilfgaardian invasion" isn't an invasion, it's just Emhyr dedicating his resources to the fight with the Wild Hunt. Even if he was invading, he surely wouldn't have the forces to do so after that battle. The epilogues then go on to explain what happens in Skellige in the future, depending on the ruler: Cerys promotes peace, Hjalmar raids Nilfgaard from time to time, or Bran's kid becomes the first in a line of hereditary monarchs and the Isle's influence wanes.
Ciri is anything BUT weak throughout the entirety of the game. Don't confuse everyone's desire to protect her, and their locking her down, as a sign that she is weak. Her power is established very clearly at the Battle of Kaer Morhen. I don't understand how anyone could think she was weak, when pretty much the entire point of the game is that she's extremely powerful.
And as for detail about Ciri's capabilities, this goes into an argument about fantasy in general, and magic in fantasy, that I don't want to get into, but can be summed up fairly well by this 9 minute video:
So, in conclusion, I think the last third of the game, its Act 3, isn't "a bad, hot mess". I think it's respecting of the story's narrative structure, the story's objective, and it doesn't break from either the story's structure or its theme simply to satisfy the player. I don't believe the ending is perfect. I think the relationships between Geralt and Yen or Geralt and Triss (and particularly Triss) aren't fleshed out enough and aren't handled well near the end. Perhaps that would have reminded players of who the story is really about here. But I don't think the ending is fundamentally flawed; quite the opposite, it's an interesting ending. I feel like book readers are disappointed by a lack of detail that I feel shouldn't even attempt to be replicated in a video game or a movie, if only because it robs the audience of that detail. And I feel that pure video game players are disappointed by not being able to see Ciri take on the White Frost, even though that's sort of the point. I'm not inventing a cop-out for CDPR here, I'm simply presenting what I feel to be a plausible, and well handled, interpretation of what the story of The Witcher 3 is really about. It's how I interpreted the ending as I was playing through it.
But first, assumptions!
Really? I'd like to know what this "optimal" pattern for pacing is. I've never heard of this pattern before. If it's so optimal, then why isn't it used in every narrative? How does it manage to work for every single story one can tell? Does this mean narratives that are constructed with a different pattern in mind, such as The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman, are inherently flawed? Is Ulysses a flawed narrative because... well, everything about it? If every narrative used this "optimal" pace, wouldn't it be extremely dull?
There is a thing, in storytelling, called a climax. It usually happens around the 1/2 or 2/3 point of a story, and it's the moment that defines the story. In the OP's analogue, Star Wars, both within its movie and in the broader context of the original trilogy, that moment is when Darth Vader tells Luke that he is Luke's father. It's a moment that is more engaging, emotional, and gripping than any other part of the original trilogy, the battle on Endor included. In The Witcher 3, the climax of the game is around the 1/2 or 2/3 point of a story, from Geralt's reunion with Ciri to the Battle of Kaer Morhen. There is literally nothing wrong with that segment of the game being the best and most memorable part of it - in fact, from a storytelling perspective, it's encouraging that that is the game's high point. Why should the final battle with the Wild Hunt override that part of the story?
These are unclear terms simply through their names. What are these two types of villains? How do I know you're not making stuff up for the sake of making stuff up? And why can't there be an archetypical villain-for-the-sake-of-having-a-villain? The older James Bond movies are filled with such villains, with unexplored motivations, such as Oddjob, and yet they worked well in their role as villains.
... What?
No, seriously, where is that quote even from? And by your logic, any story that involves Ciri should heavily involve people attempting to abuse her sexually - that is not remotely sensible.
Moving on from assumptions, I'd like to present a perspective of the game's story, especially the last third of it, that is positive. The Witcher 3 is explicitly about Geralt's tale - Dandelion narrates it, as he narrates the first two games, and thus the events in the game are presented entirely from Geralt's perspective, with the exception of the Ciri parts. We can break down the parts of the game's story where Ciri is playable into two sections: flashbacks and supporting element. The flashback scenes occur exclusively before Geralt and Ciri reunite, and they are always placed in the context of someone telling Geralt about those events (The Bloody Baron narrating the fight with the basilisk, the Crones narrating her escape from the swamp, Whoreson Junior narrating Ciri's rescue of Dudu, etc.). They likely exist for the player to build a connection with Ciri, to avoid having side characters narrate endlessly about her actions without actually making her visible, to make her less of an object or a goal and more of an actual person. It also illustrates her growing power. The second type of Ciri section, the supporting elements, occur exclusively after Geralt and Ciri reunite, and they take place during the two major battles Geralt is involved in; these scenes are basically her helping Geralt out during those battles. The important thing is that those scenes serve to supplement Geralt's story, not tell a separate one about Ciri.
That's why the ending is as it is. The player's objective, as Geralt, is to defeat the Wild Hunt and protect Ciri from them. He accomplishes this in the final part of the game, before thinking that Avallac'h has kidnapped Ciri and rushing after him, only to be informed otherwise by Ciri. Ciri's defeating the White Frost is an altogether different quest from Geralt's quest, and the fact that it isn't shown is actually a good thing. It fits with the entire theme of the last third of the game - Geralt, as a father figure to Ciri, is supposed to prepare her for her own, separate adventures; and he is preparing himself for when he has to let go of Ciri and let her have her own story. In Geralt's story, it doesn't matter how Ciri defeated the White Frost: what matters is that she is either successful in doing so, meaning Geralt has succeeded in enabling her confidence, or she is unsuccessful, and Geralt has failed in enabling her confidence.
Let me establish my own analogy here: Ciri is like Bruce Lee, and Geralt is like Ip Man. They were both brilliant martial artists in their own right, and Ip Man was one of Bruce Lee's teachers. But if you were to tell a story about Ip Man, you wouldn't talk about Bruce Lee's role in Enter the Dragon. You wouldn't define Ip Man by the accomplishments of his protege. You would talk about how Ip Man taught and mentored Bruce Lee, or how Ip Man enabled Bruce Lee to become the top martial artist that he was. That's assuming you tell a story about Ip Man that involves Bruce Lee, of course; you could easily talk about Ip Man's accomplishments before he met Bruce Lee. This is the exact same way the story works with Geralt and Ciri: Ciri is Geralt's protege, and Geralt mentors and enables her to do great things, but he doesn't go out with her to defeat the White Frost. That's Ciri's story, her legend if you will; while Geralt's legend is defeating Eredin and the Wild Hunt. That's what the game focuses on. It also fits thematically: the overall moral of the story, of the last third of the game, is about allowing, and enabling, your children be better than you, and to not helicopter them on everything. Let's run down the list of major moral choices:
1. Vesemir's death and consoling Ciri: you have a choice between telling Ciri that she may be literally incapable of doing something, or giving her a fun break from her studies. The second choice enables Ciri to become better, and is thus considered the "good" choice.
2. Accepting or refusing the emperor's reward for finding Ciri: contrary to OP's post, the choice isn't whether to go to Velen or to go to the emperor first, but whether to accept or refuse the emperor's coin if you do go. Accepting his coin in front of Ciri tells her you're out for personal gain, while denying it affirms that you brought her to the emperor simply for Ciri's sake, so she can hear him out and make her own decision, hence, it is considered the "good" choice.
3. Interceding on Ciri's behalf to the Lodge or letting her go on her own: this is, again, about helicoptering a child. The "good" choice is to encourage her to handle the Lodge by herself, while the "bad" is to go yourself, speak for her, and basically shelter her. The bad choice tells your child that you think them incapable of fighting their own battles.
4. Destroying Avallach's lab or holding Ciri back: while not a nice or a professional thing to do, and while it's not a "witcherly" thing to do, it's not about what Geralt decides, it's about what Ciri decides. Again, supporting her is the "good" option, as it should be. It's about breaking free of the chains of Avallach's tutorship of Ciri, that Ciri can do whatever she damn pleases.
5. Visiting Skjall's grave or not visiting Skjall's grave: again, this is about what Ciri wants, and not helicoptering her. If she wants closure, a good parent will damn well help her get some closure. I'm not even sure this one is up for debate.
All of them are tied to the same theme of enabling Ciri, of allowing her the use of her skill and power. The OP speaks of a flawed chain of causality, where our choices feel insignificant compared to the consequences. Nevermind that the OP praises Chrono Trigger immediately beforehand for having the exact same type of chain of causality, the point is that the choices the player makes in The Witcher 3 are tied into their consequences. The fate of the North is dependent on whether Geralt aided in the attack on Radovid and whether he supported Djikstra or Roche afterwards; this effects Emhyr's fate, since Emhyr either wins or loses the war depending on who's leading the North. That's a solid chain of causality. Whether mages or nonhumans are persecuted in Novigrad - that's tied directly to whether Geralt helps the mages escape the city. If the OP is wondering about the endings themselves, about enabling Ciri through small actions, then the explanation is simple: the consequences are based on Ciri's choices, which are based on Geralt's choices. Either Ciri doesn't have the confidence to fight the White Frost and she dies, leaving Geralt in shambles; Ciri defeats the White Frost and met with Emhyr, where she makes the choice to become the queen of Nilfgaard; or Ciri defeats the White Frost, did not meet with Emhyr, and becomes a witcher like her adopted father. Your choices impact Ciri's choices, and you learn the consequences of those choices as well. If that's too disappointing for the OP, well, that's the OP's problem, not one with the game's narrative.
A few other notes, since I've been rambling on and on:
Did you miss the entire explanation of: Eredin usurped the previous ruler of the Aen Elle to take power, discovers his people are about to be consumed by the White Frost, and wants Ciri and her power so he can save his people? Or are you upset that Eredin didn't sit down for 5 minutes with Geralt and monologue his motivations to the audience? His motives and personality are quite clear, it's just that they're established through secondary sources like Ge'els and Avallac'h.
This ties directly into the issue of perspective. We don't know much about the sorceresses and their role in the end because Geralt doesn't hang around them, he's busy preparing for the battle in other ways. If Yen was a secondary protagonist, we would almost definitely see more, but again, this is Geralt's story set at a particular point in time. His experience with these sorceresses comes prior to this point, and for some members, it's covered fairly well in the second game.
Perspective again. Why would Geralt tell Dandelion about moments that Ciri and Yen had by themselves? That's part of Ciri's story, not his.
The game is about Geralt's personal quest, and that's what the ending is for. The epilogues are supposed to tie up loose ends relating to the overall picture around the story, hence the focus on politics. And events on the Skellige Isles are explained? I assumed the "upcoming civil war" was led by Madman Lugos, who Geralt and Ermion kill during the game, and the "Nilfgaardian invasion" isn't an invasion, it's just Emhyr dedicating his resources to the fight with the Wild Hunt. Even if he was invading, he surely wouldn't have the forces to do so after that battle. The epilogues then go on to explain what happens in Skellige in the future, depending on the ruler: Cerys promotes peace, Hjalmar raids Nilfgaard from time to time, or Bran's kid becomes the first in a line of hereditary monarchs and the Isle's influence wanes.
Ciri is anything BUT weak throughout the entirety of the game. Don't confuse everyone's desire to protect her, and their locking her down, as a sign that she is weak. Her power is established very clearly at the Battle of Kaer Morhen. I don't understand how anyone could think she was weak, when pretty much the entire point of the game is that she's extremely powerful.
And as for detail about Ciri's capabilities, this goes into an argument about fantasy in general, and magic in fantasy, that I don't want to get into, but can be summed up fairly well by this 9 minute video:
So, in conclusion, I think the last third of the game, its Act 3, isn't "a bad, hot mess". I think it's respecting of the story's narrative structure, the story's objective, and it doesn't break from either the story's structure or its theme simply to satisfy the player. I don't believe the ending is perfect. I think the relationships between Geralt and Yen or Geralt and Triss (and particularly Triss) aren't fleshed out enough and aren't handled well near the end. Perhaps that would have reminded players of who the story is really about here. But I don't think the ending is fundamentally flawed; quite the opposite, it's an interesting ending. I feel like book readers are disappointed by a lack of detail that I feel shouldn't even attempt to be replicated in a video game or a movie, if only because it robs the audience of that detail. And I feel that pure video game players are disappointed by not being able to see Ciri take on the White Frost, even though that's sort of the point. I'm not inventing a cop-out for CDPR here, I'm simply presenting what I feel to be a plausible, and well handled, interpretation of what the story of The Witcher 3 is really about. It's how I interpreted the ending as I was playing through it.
Well, it of course depends on both the medium and the story you want to tell. There is an inherent difference between a classical drama and a modern work of entertainment like an action movie. Surprisingly Witcher 3 follows pretty much the arc of suspense of a classical drama, that's right. You could separate Witcher 3 in the classical five acts of the drama, exposition, exciting moment, peripteia, retarding moment and catastrophy. The question: is that a fitting pattern for a video game that doesn't just want to exist as a work of art but also a work of entertainment.
There is a certain goal in modern entertainment coming from prose (instead of drama) to keep up tension to the very end, to keep the readers, watchers or players hooked until the end.
First, I think it's debatable whether the moment when Darth Vader tells Luke that he is his father is emotionally more engaging than the very end. I personally don't think so. But you're right, it's a climax in between and there is nothing wrong with it. Where Episode IV is building up tension slowly, like in prose, Episode VI is more following the rules of classical drama. What's better suited for a game like Witcher 3? Well, we're still talking about narrative and there isn't a definite and ultimate answer to it, just different opinions, perspectives and priorities. We obviously disagree here but that's ok. That happens all the times in discussions about narratives.
Of course there can be an archetypcial villain. But then it's a stereotype. The villains in Bond movies work because the whole work is based on stereotypes and the whole work uses elements of comedy to break them up. The problem in Witcher 3 is that the whole point of the work is that there are no stereotypes. If every other character of your work is made to look multi-levelled and complex it's weird and unfitting to have a simply stereotypical villain. And different to Bond movies the Witcher games are based on emotional storytelling, building on character relationships. If there is no satisfying emotional connection to the villain there is something I'd call underdevelopment.
Do I make something up here? Maybe. It's still all theoretical so basically everything is "made up". That's pretty much the nature of every interpretation of a work of art, including the narrative of a video game. The question is whether it makes sense what you say in the broader context and whether you have arguments for your points or not. I think I have them but of course that's debatable.
That's not a real quote, just a simplification of the basic motives of pretty much every villain in the novels. I think I've explained that part pretty well in chapter 5 of my analysis.
Well, while I agree with you that the whole story is basically told from Geralt's perspective I very much disagree with your point on the ending. It DOES matter how Ciri defeated the White Frost for multiple reasons. First, the White Frost itself and Ciri's abilities obviously deviate from the ones described in the books. And there is no reason or explanation given for that. That is just confusing, no matter the perspective. Second,
The problem with these choice options and the whole "moral of the story" thing is that the developers obviously want to shove their view on a healthy father-daughter relationship down our throuts, basically based on the few situtions you mentioned above. That's simply oversimplification and weird generalization of human behaviour that stands against the notion of creating complex and nuanced characters. It's almost like they want to tell us that laissez-fair upbringing is the way to go and you should let your children do whatever they want, no matter if it's reasonable or makes sense in the broader context or not. And let's be honest here: Geralt is far from being a helicopter dad in Witcher 3, no matter what he does. Nothing of what he does in Witcher 3 is really "preparing her for her own adventures". And even when that's true it's bad character design by using a character to just empowering another. It's basically making Geralt a tool for storytelling reasons or to make a point instead of exploring real human relationships like I'd expect in a good narrative based on emotional storytelling. The point is that these choice moments take away complexity of the character for the sake of following a simple, completely flat and uncomplex psychological agenda ala "enabling vs protection" without any inclusion of context. That's what I call bad storytelling and a bad selection and execution of choice moments, sorry.
And you're wrong. None of that choice moments is of MORAL nature and that's where the problem actually begins.
The chain of causality argument was solely about the Ciri ending, not the political consequences.
Actually, if the reader, watcher or player is disappointed by a narrative that's very much the problem of it's creator as well, at least if they want people to like the stuff they wrote...
And besides that the core of the problem are still the choice situations. You obviously think that they are fitting and well done, I pretty much think the opposite. Of course that's finally MY problem. That doesn't come as a suprise. But I also think I have the right to explain why I think so. It's up to other people to decide whether that's a general problem or if that's just a problem I exclusively have with the game and its narrative.
Actually it was the other way round, the witcher world was about to be consumed by the White Frost (inconsistency no 1). And then Ciri was initially meant to give birth to a child with Auberon, the former king. As I've said before, she was never meant to have great powers herself (inconsistency no 2). But that aside, my problems with Eredin should be pretty clear, like others pointed out as well. He has exactly 12 lines of cheesy one-liners in the game, like he was the most one-dimensional and dumb character in the whole game. You might not care about that but I do. He just feels underdevelopment and more like a storytelling tool than a living and breathing character for himself. And no, I don't need a 5 minutes monologue. You can also develop a character with more subtely, even visually. In the very rare moments we can see Eredin without the helmet he almost looks like a madman, full of hatred without any nuances. Or take Imlerith. He looks like a typcial thug and not like a slender, but big elf with long hair like they are described in the books. He sits on a throne at the witch's sabbath with succubi playing around his feet, like you'd imagine the devil sitting in hell. I don't like the way the Aen Elle and the riders are demonized in the game, trying with such cheap methods to created hatred against them, while they could be much more nuanced and complex characters. If Eredin really wants to save his people for example, he's not only bad and evil. He actually has a worthy goal although he might feel nothing for humans or even detests them. I just think that the depiction of the hunt and its characters in the games is underdevelopment. Of course they somehow worked but they could have been better. It's a matter of not using the full potential.
The point here is not the perspective but the reason that the sorceresses aren't needed for the narrative after all. They have no real impact, are just staffage, tools. That's something I don't value in a good narrative, characters that just work as tools or are only invented to work as narrative tools.
If it's not important what they do in the end, why letting the player rescue them? Just for the sake of having more quests? For making the game longer?
There are moments in the game when all three are together. And then again, you said yourself that Ciri was invented early in the game to give the player the opportunity to establish an emotional connection with her. Why not extending that? Why stopping there? Why not even making that emotional connection even bigger by showing some actual depiction of relationships instead of just action sequences?
Emrion said that the killing of Lugos won't end the civil war. I mean I don't have much problems with the civil war not happening. It just feels weird that you have to kill Lugos just before the end and Ermion tells you about the civil war and it's never mentioned again afterwards. That feels inconsistent. I don't think it would have hurt to just extend the political video about Skellige at the end with one or two sentences about the civil war. And the epilogues are indeed supposed to tie up loose ends. I just think that they do a pretty lousy job in doing so, especially the things people care about. Obviously the epilogues don't follow Geralt's perspective anymore. So why not telling us anything about Dandelion for example? You know, for many people the characters in this game and world are of much bigger importance than the question whether Nilfgaard or the North won the war or how the future on Skellige will look like...
First, inconsistencies again. If she is so powerful, why the deep sleep on the Isle of Mists? Why the constant escape from the hunt when she is much more powerful than everyone else? And no, her power isn't established at the battle of Kaer Morhen. She showed pretty much the same ability there her mother Pavetta already had in the books. That didn't make her the most powerful person in the world. And then again Avallac'h quite obviously say at the very same event that Ciri can't control her abilities. Only a few days later she is already able to save the world. It might work somehow but I don't call that good storytelling.
That's completely unrelated to what I said here. I don't have problems with fantasy in general, or magic in fantasy. I have problems with inconsistencies in the very same story.
I have no problems with that. Narratives are naturally interpreted in different ways. And while I agree on your point that the narrative is presented through Geralt's eyes I don't let that count as a general excuse for inconsistencies in the story and just bad staging of events, including underdeveloped characters that work more like storytelling tools than like real characters. And the lack of detail for book readers isn't the primary problem, it's the obvious inconsistencies with the books that remain unexplained until the very end. It might be a much less pressing issue for non-book readers though, I don't know.
I hate Deus Ex Machina endings as everybody else, but I interpreted it, as the moment when Ciri realizes she is finally ready and that Avallach thinks the same, however she could have done that way later, I don't see why was it necessary after the battle, like what was the rush about it.
I agree, and it's kind of strange, given that Avallach wants her to stay away from battles... not just because she'd be caught, but because she's a danger to them all. They even go into a scene with the former lodge members, iirc, discussing helping her harness the power and joining them. Then, they leave for Skellige and she's mastered it. That's some serious training on the boat.
While I agree with some points and disagree with others I want to hook in here, because you missed...or rather I feel you missed an important point:
The Witcher 3 is a video game.
What you want here is basically "more", more character development, more dialogues and more scenes with different characters and that is not, how game development works.
You might make that criticism towards books, but towards video games it isn't as easy as you make it. A lot of the stuff you demand regarding the relationship between Yen and Ciri for example would be REALLY difficult to pull off. How would you do it? More dialogue and cut scenes? But what would the players role be in these cut scenes? Specially when it is a dialogue between two characters and neither of them is Geralt? Would Geralt just stand there listening? There need to be interaction, something to do for the player. Just putting in another hour of dialogues between different characters doesn't improve the game, specially not for people, that haven't read the book, they would just feel bored.
You just have to imagine, that those stuff happens at the side, when Geralt isn't present, simple as that.
Also about the other Sorceresses: How exactly would you have built them up? What would they and Geralt talk about to deepen their characters and make them more involved? Would that actually add something substantial to a game, that is already 100+ hours long and that a lot of people at this point in the story want to finally finish? For me the job for Geralt was done rescuing them. The rest is between Yen, Philippa and them.
Sure, there can always be more of everything in a good game, more quests, more dialogues, more characters, but you have to make a cut somewhere AND it has to stay a game, an interactive media that doesn't sideline the player just to add a little bit more to a relationship between two characters that are essentially just NPCs. If it would be a book, it would be different, if need be one could just split it up into two volumes (hello Mr. Martin).
But a game runs on a budget, actually on at least two budget: time and money. It also has to adhere to certain ground rules for games and both leads to things being cut from the game and to a limited interaction between characters, if not at least one of them is the PC.
Again: I agree with a lot you wrote, but I just wanted to mention this part of the argument: It is a video game.
I also disagree that Ciri's fight against the White Frost is a Deus Ex Machina, because the White Frost isn't really the enemy Geralt was facing at any time. If anything here stopping it could have been shown more, yes, but never through the game was I thinking "how will Geralt ever stop the White Frost" only for Ciri to just do it in the end. It was more a "bonus" a "the way is open now, to do it, after the main villain is defeated" kinda moment.
Last edited:
Not more.
Just a not shitty plot, a not shitty villains, a not shitty consequences.
---------- Updated at 01:15 PM ----------
Seriously?
Goddamit.
It's an RPG. A fucking RPG is all based on dialogues.
If there are noobs which feel bored, it's their problem.
---------- Updated at 01:17 PM ----------
Wow...I had to look that up <blush>
ad hominem
adjective ad ho·mi·nem \(ˈ)ad-ˈhä-mə-ˌnem, -nəm\
Definition of AD HOMINEM
1
: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2
: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
Hope that helps other who might want to know...
It obviously hasn't met your expectations, but I don't see a lot of players talking about the story or the characters like that.
a) that is not the point
b) no, it apparently is only your problem
Didn't had that many (if any) dialogues between two people that weren't the PC either, also: Torment was actually more of a book than a game in many ways. It's game play was rather weak, dialogues were basically text only and so on. Not a good bases to compare here. If you want an RPG like that, play the upcoming Torment and shorten the waiting time by playing Pillars of Eternity.
Action RPGs are the ones that are just fighting with very lttle if ANY dialog right? Diablo and Neverwinter Nights Online are like that right? I gots NO use for them...
Sorry, wasn't trying to derail the conversations just wanted clarifications...
Last edited:
The problem is that the White Frost was never meant to be stopped! It was never be presented as an "enemy" that can be stopped by any means. From what we know from the books the White Frost is a climatical change, like an ice age, a force of nature so big that it cannot be prevented. What Ciri's power is all about is an escape from the annihilation of people and cultures by travelling to other worlds. The end of the game presented very much a completely different concept of the White Frost that was never described or explored before. We know that Eredin wants to capture Ciri in order to use her to save HIS people from the White Frost althought that is already an inconsistency with the books in which the witcher world is primarily threatened by the White Frost and not the one of the Aen Elle. If Ciri had the power to just stop the White Frost herself (by whatever means) there is no point in fighting against her or capturing her. They'd just have to convince her to take on that fight. The sudden change of the very concept of the White Frost in the end and the sudden reveal that Ciri is much more powerful than ever mentioned before the whole story (of not only the games but also the whole witcher saga inlcuding all the books) is turned upside down, making most of the struggles and concepts presented there unnecessary, pointless and arbitratry. That's why I call that a weird deus ex machina moment.
Last edited:
Really good food for CDPR-thought. I hope they take note and find some way to amp up the endgame with an Enhanced Edition or Extended Cut.
I feel like, with ME3 a lot of people booed and moaned even when they announced they were going to extend the endings. I completely understood that because it needed fixing to work even on a basic level, not an expansion and as a result it's still pretty darn unbearable today. Witcher 3 on the other hand, while it does need a bit of fixing and rollbacks to be perfect, can do just fine with an Extended Cut that adds a few more scenes to better expand the climax and the closure for Triss/Yen and side-characters like Dandelion, Zoltan and Priscilla.
For the climax, my problem is that the whole Deus Machina part is introduced way too quickly and then the game just skips 2 weeks before you can even sink in what just happened, and then it tries to trick you if Ciri is alive and has a little reveal moment but only a minute after that reveal the entire story ends. I desperately wanted a conversation with Avallac'h leaving to his him being at the mercy of Geralt's blade or not after Ciri goes through the portal. Avallac'hs influence on Ciri felt too inconsequential, and it felt like Avallac'h's character arc stopped before it was closed properly off.
It feels like it abandons its climax, then skips straight to the resolution but it doesn't even let itself fade out properly (in the Ciri becomes a Witcher ending anyway) and it all feels too unfitting.
I feel like, with ME3 a lot of people booed and moaned even when they announced they were going to extend the endings. I completely understood that because it needed fixing to work even on a basic level, not an expansion and as a result it's still pretty darn unbearable today. Witcher 3 on the other hand, while it does need a bit of fixing and rollbacks to be perfect, can do just fine with an Extended Cut that adds a few more scenes to better expand the climax and the closure for Triss/Yen and side-characters like Dandelion, Zoltan and Priscilla.
For the climax, my problem is that the whole Deus Machina part is introduced way too quickly and then the game just skips 2 weeks before you can even sink in what just happened, and then it tries to trick you if Ciri is alive and has a little reveal moment but only a minute after that reveal the entire story ends. I desperately wanted a conversation with Avallac'h leaving to his him being at the mercy of Geralt's blade or not after Ciri goes through the portal. Avallac'hs influence on Ciri felt too inconsequential, and it felt like Avallac'h's character arc stopped before it was closed properly off.
It feels like it abandons its climax, then skips straight to the resolution but it doesn't even let itself fade out properly (in the Ciri becomes a Witcher ending anyway) and it all feels too unfitting.
Last edited:
I know they've said they have no intention of doing an Enhanced Edition, but perhaps a "GOTY" edition could address some of the holes in Act 3. I just commented in another thread, but the "Reason of State" quest's resolution is so absolutely immersion breaking as to still annoy me over a week after finishing the game.
A character in that quest does something so stupid, and so out of character, simply for the sake of forcing the player to 'make a choice' that it boggles the mind.
A character in that quest does something so stupid, and so out of character, simply for the sake of forcing the player to 'make a choice' that it boggles the mind.
....and the cash is in....http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/06/09/the-witcher-3-sells-over-4-million-copies-in-2-weeks
Right, now that they're head over heels with the ROI on W3, how about CDPR now address some of the critical holes in their plot that people have raised on this forum (like a bland 3rd Act or The Wild Hunt's underwhelming presence...to name a few)???
Right, now that they're head over heels with the ROI on W3, how about CDPR now address some of the critical holes in their plot that people have raised on this forum (like a bland 3rd Act or The Wild Hunt's underwhelming presence...to name a few)???
But CDPR is mainstream now. They actually care about whether they bore those people, and that's gonna be a problem for all future games.
And if they said No Enhanced Edition this time then that's how it's gonna be. I still hope they care enough to make an Extended Cut DLC for free.
And otherwise, they can take their dumb expansion pass up their...! That's the last time I pay beforehand for upcoming DLC in a CDPR game if it means I'm gonna have to live with a main story that is rushed to shit. It was good until act 3, and now I regret having purchased the expansion pass. I don't care about reuniting with Iorveth and other fanservice cameos if the conclusion remains this terrible.
And if they said No Enhanced Edition this time then that's how it's gonna be. I still hope they care enough to make an Extended Cut DLC for free.
And otherwise, they can take their dumb expansion pass up their...! That's the last time I pay beforehand for upcoming DLC in a CDPR game if it means I'm gonna have to live with a main story that is rushed to shit. It was good until act 3, and now I regret having purchased the expansion pass. I don't care about reuniting with Iorveth and other fanservice cameos if the conclusion remains this terrible.
Last edited:
....*sigh*...not a word about all the issues their fans have raised on the forums but enough time to reach out to the masses about their sales figures...at the end of the day $ is what it comes down to.