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

[Scholdarr.452]

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.

More only where more leads to a better quality. But much could be reach with just changing some stuff that is already there or just enhancing it with more nuanced writing. And some things are imo just wrong or lacking on a very basic level which has nothing to do with "wanting more", like most of the choice moments that lead to Ciri's choice at the very end.

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.

The assessment of a work of art or a product in general is separated from the possiblities to make "something better". We don't talk about politics here. It' not the taks of the critic to deliver a better product. It's his task to evaluate the product or work of art, interpreting in and asking the question whether it reached its intended goal or not. Asking the question for improvements is a different, a second step. But without a proper assessment and evaluation, there can't be any real improvement. So I don't say it's "easy" to change some things. That was never the point. Maybe they are how they are because it was too hard to make them differently. I guess in some cases this is in fact the truth. That doesn't automatically mean that the result is good or satisfying. That's actually the "sad" nature of any critic: the creator of a product or work of hard could indeed have given their very best and nevertheless the result can be lacking on many levels. That's just a reality of life.

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.

Absolutely right. But this is the problem when you make a sequel to another work and another medium from another creator. You cannot ignore it but you also don't want to copy it. The problem is your basic decision to use not only the same world, but also the same characters, heavily building on the work previously created by someone else. You cannot expect people to just ignore that stuff if they know (and love) it. On the other hand, you probably bore some people who don't know the previous work. That's a problem withou any chance of real solution to be honest. No matter what you do some people will criticize you because people have different experiences and expectations here, even more so than usually.

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.

The point is that they aren't substantial for the game at all. The game would be almost completely the same without them. So why introducing them in the first place. That's the question. I admit it, I believe in certain (maybe weird) principles in storytelling like not to introduce characters without giving them some space to be explored as nuanced and complex human being. They should never serve just as storytelling tools or vessels. It's not the biggest issue though, to make that clear. I just felt that they are underdeveloped which means that there could have been some more interaction with them if you decided to introduce them. Maybe it would have been better to introduce them earlier in the game and not just before the very end.

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.

That's all true and all obvious. But I fear it has nothing to do with this assessment. A limited budget can never be an excuse for a lacking quality of a work of art or a product in general. That doesn't mean that we don't understand why some things are how they are. We do. At least I do. But it can be still lacking and by exloring the reasons why someone things that they were lacking we might give valuable inputs to a possible improvement. And if not that's not that sad neither. Then it's just "cultural criticism" for people who enjoy reading that stuff and people who like to know what other people think of the games they play. I think some people (like me) just enjoy talking about video games and other mediums and we like to exchange our opinions and ideas. So don't take that too serious. This critic of mine won't have any input on the sales or anything.

I just wanted to mention this part of the argument: It is a video game.

I know the argument. But I think most of the things I've talked about could be improved within the limits of a video game. Gameplay doesn't limit the narrative that much here. For example, I do think that the first two parts of the main narrative are rather "slow" which is probably at least partially the case in order to enable some open world exploration. In that case the gameplay or overall game design influenced and limits the narrative design. But the last third is much more narrowed (in order to avoid the term linear) and focused with clear bits of gameplay between the storytelling bits and that's ok. What I'm mostly not happy with are the narrative bits that are not based on direct gameplay.

 

[moonknightgog]

I don't care about reuniting with Iorveth and other fanservice cameos if the conclusion remains this terrible.

I hate this kind of useless fanservice. Those characters should be in the main quest, not in some pointless expansion.

 

[TudorAdrian]

I hate this kind of useless fanservice. Those characters should be in the main quest, not in some pointless expansion.

Well said, well said..

 

[moonknightgog]

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.

Torment actually is the interactive manual entitled : "How to make a good RPG"
Look. In an RPG, you are playing as a character. In order to do it, you need an interpretative toolset. This one is assebled with three patterns: quest design, dialogues three and C&C system. Dialogues, in an RPG, are actually gameplay. Real gameplay, because the genre was never meant to be based on combat or other things.
You can play a session in Vampire (pen&paper) without a single combat.

---------- Updated at 02:05 PM ----------

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...

Well...I disagree on this. An Action/RPG is not an RPG combat oriented with less dialogues. It is just a normal, a standard RPG. The "Action" only means that you have the complete control of your character.

 

[Linkenski]

I think putting Roche and Ves and Letho within the main plot in some ways was already stretching it in terms of believability and suspend-disbelief, but adding in Iorveth, Saskia and all those too. It would become too obvious how fanservice-y it was, unless they had been smart about it and continued the roche's path and iorveth's path so it worked with Witcher 3's main quest too.

I agree on Action/RPG. It simply means it's an RPG where the gameplay is action-oriented and not turn-based or about calculating numbers and stuff. If the amount of dialogue had an influence then Mass Effect 1 or Mass Effect 2 were not action/rpgs either.

 

[Vargeras]

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.

absolutely agree to this.
When you defeat Eredin he says, that Avallac'h tricked them all, and when you get to him it turns out he wants Ciri to stop the white frost, - which is exactly what Eredin wants from her anyway? huh? He is depicted as a deceiving person, since Elven Sages always have their own agenda and never act out of pure altruism, but in the end he is just doing that, by helping Ciri? there are just too many open questions with this character.
I also hated it, that during the dialog at the end, no dialog choice really matters even the timed choice have all the same outcome. Just Ciris response differs slightly.

 

[inanimate_object]

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.

I understand what you are saying. Yet I do not believe any game should be able to get away with substandard storytelling merely by suggesting that the medium itself is less conducive to narratives. Unique mediums of storytelling may differ in how the execute great storytelling. However the standard of excellence in narratives is applied to all forms of storytelling, universally and unequivocally. Video games certainly are very very different storytelling mediums than traditional film or literature, but it doesn't prohibit excellent storytelling even if the execution may be very different.

I do not believe anyone criticizing the game has ever written a narrative for a video game. I myself have no confidence that I could make the story better without compromising the game but nevertheless I see countless faults and missteps from the narrative. And hiding behind one's medium has never worked in the past. Take the advent of film. It is a drastically different storytelling medium than literature. It can't convey the inner thoughts of the lead characters, or use the prose and general structure of the writing to convey what they feel. But instead of resigning to the fact that literature would always be a more personal story than film, pioneers of the industry developed different ways of executing equally as good stories in unique ways. Films had to be more literal, as they could not slow the pace to for an inner monologue of contemplation. Some used the cinematography and lense changes to reflect the disenfranchisement and detachment of the lead characters and film generally includes far, far more characters than literature in order to have a great many foils so the lead character can bounce off them.

This is all to say that I agree with you, for a pace as slow as the Witcher 3, the last thing it needs is more dialogues, more cutscenes, more conversations. The problem is absentee character development and while the execution may have to differ from regular suggestions towards film, it is a glaring problem nonetheless.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Well...I disagree on this. An Action/RPG is not an RPG combat oriented with less dialogues. It is just a normal, a standard RPG. The "Action" only means that you have the complete control of your character.

In my books an action-RPG is an RPG with real-time action combat which means "skill based" combat instead of tactical combat.

But I agree that an action-RPG is still an RPG with only a different combat and movement mechanic. The core RPG mechanics should be all the same, like you said. And quite obviously in a "story-driven action RPG" like TW3 the narrative and the non-combat narrative systems should have quite the importance and impact.

 

[csf60]

That graphs... Are you really basing statements on subjectively drawn graphs? Who says star wars is the gold standard for pacing either? You're free to dislike the story from a personal view, but don't try to make it sound like it's objectively wrong.

 

[moonknightgog]

In my books an action-RPG is an RPG with real-time action combat which means "skill based" combat instead of tactical combat.

Yes, with complete control I meant the "real time" control ( not only in combat, but regarding movements and the exploration of the world map)

---------- Updated at 02:47 PM ----------

You're free to dislike the story from a personal view, but don't try to make it sound like it's objectively wrong.

When there is a deus ex machina moment, if something happen without a proper explanation, if there are underdeveloped characters without a proper screentime and with very disappointing screenplay (hello, eredin) it's for sure objective.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

That graphs... Are you really basing statements on subjectively drawn graphs? Who says star wars is the gold standard for pacing either?

A lot of people who do critics of media content.

You're free to dislike the story from a personal view, but don't try to make it sound like it's objectively wrong.

Do you mean the pacing or the story? These graphs are of course no ultimate truth (and I actually even say that in my initial post, especially for the one for TW3...) but they are just about the pacing structure, and not about whether I personally like or dislike the story. And yes, I think many people would agree that maintaining tension until the end is some kind of standard feature of prose and entertainment media (unlike classic drama for example).

But I'd love to hear your arguments why you think the pacing is good and why you think my assessment is wrong. Just criticizing mine without delivering own arguments looks a bit cheap and lazy...

 

[inanimate_object]

Okay something else should be said here. Going into in depth criticism does NOT suggest that those criticizing can create a better game, nor is it a demand that CDPR fixes the game. It is simply a remark on the final product's quality. As far as I'm concerned, CDPR has complete control of their intellectual property. The idea of an Enhanced Edition is a bit weird, and CDPR should not change one single thing about the game simply because fans are unhappy. Fans do not own or control the property and CDPR should by all means stick to their creative vision no matter what, even if the vision is admittedly flawed.

 

[csf60]

I think many people would agree that maintaining tension until the end is some kind of standard feature of prose and entertainment media (unlike classic drama for example).
But I'd love to hear your arguments why you think the pacing is good and why you think my assessment is wrong.

It's not about being right or wrong. The story is what it is, you like it or not. More people agreeing on something doesn't make it more right.
Literature is not science, it's art. You don't go tell a painter or musician their art is wrong because other artist before them set a standard they should follow. The people that made this story did it the way they wanted it to be. Maybe you would enjoy it more if you didn't try to rationalize everything.

 

[inanimate_object]

It's not about being right or wrong. The story is what it is, you like it or not. More people agreeing on something doesn't make it more right.
Literature is not science, it's art. You don't go tell a painter or musician their art is wrong because other artist before them set a standard they should follow. The people that made this story did it the way they wanted it to be. Maybe you would enjoy it more if you didn't try to rationalize everything.

There are structures of storytelling that have been proven over the centuries to be optimal for quality storytelling of the highest quality. It is not resolute that every narrative should follow this pattern, but the pattern has proven successful time and time again.

Similarly with music, there are certain tempos that work, certain rhythm structures that truly shine. And while music is not beholden to follow a sonata or tempo rubato form, these are certain objective markers by which we can evaluate subjective art.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

It's not about being right or wrong. The story is what it is, you like it or not. More people agreeing on something doesn't make it more right.
Literature is not science, it's art.

I never talked in categories of right and wrong. I never said that this assessment is hard science. But that doesn't mean that there can't be good arguments for things. That's actually the very basic foundation of all the humans sciences and liberal arts...

And we don't talk about literature here but video games for once. And again, please seperate "story" and "pacing". You can't criticize me for my arguments about pacing by saying that I don't like the story. One can determine the other, but it's not the same. I have actually many reasons why I think parts of the narrative are lacking or could be done better, with the pacing just one of them. You find my reasons in the initial post and you are free to reply to them in a fruitful manner.

You don't go tell a painter or musician their art is wrong because other artist before them set a standard they should follow. The people that made this story did it the way they wanted it to be. Maybe you would enjoy it more if you didn't try to rationalize everything.

Subjectivity doesn't mean arbitrariness. There is always space to criticize a work of art. And if you don't think so why are you even here? Why are you even interested in reading what other people think about the narrative if it's completely subjective or even arbitrary anyway, with no basis for any form of discussion or criticism?


And on a final note I like to point out that I made pretty clear that this is indeed just MY assessment and everyone is free to agree with me or to disagree with me. I've clearly stated that in the initial post:

I will explain in the following parts why I think so and which elements contribute to that assessment.

There is of course more the topic (there always is) but I think the stuff I've written almost bursts the limit for a forum post or thread. I know it's a huge wall of text and I know that some or many might disagree with a whole lot of stuff I pointed out here. That's not a problem since I like good discussions.

So what's the point in claiming that I want to sell my assessment as a "hard fact"?

---------- Updated at 05:43 PM ----------

Okay something else should be said here. Going into in depth criticism does NOT suggest that those criticizing can create a better game, nor is it a demand that CDPR fixes the game. It is simply a remark on the final product's quality. As far as I'm concerned, CDPR has complete control of their intellectual property. The idea of an Enhanced Edition is a bit weird, and CDPR should not change one single thing about the game simply because fans are unhappy. Fans do not own or control the property and CDPR should by all means stick to their creative vision no matter what, even if the vision is admittedly flawed.

Absolutely true. It would be very wrong to change something just because someone demands it so. That's not the purpose of good feedback anyway. The purpose of good feedback is to present a perspective on things that might have not existed so far. It might bring a new perspective and arguments on the table. If a creator ever changes a work or art it should always and exclusively only happen if they are really convinced that it could be done better in a way they see it fit themselves. Feedback is just a mere tool to support that internal thought process and not something that is demanded from the outside like a task list. A good content creator takes good feedback and "tests" it against his own believings and own opinion. That might lead to a some minor or bigger change of the creator's former believings or not. Feedback a valuable tool in something like video game development that is itself a highly iterated process in which stuff is tested against various opinions and hypothesis all the time anyway, if it's used properly and not just as mere "fan service".

 

[AVMC]

Why is it that people take critique of things they like, especially video games, so personally?

If anyone has claimed in this thread that these things would definitively be a better game for everyone, I missed it... and they'd be wrong. But you can quantify whether things are explained fully. You can quantify the amount of exposition on certain areas of the story and compare them. And so on, and so forth, etc....

Critique of art/media if fundamentally subjective based on a lot that is quantifiable. That's why we're not talking pure metrics here, we're discussing WHY we feel things and HOW it could be better in [and here's the big caveat that everyone should take for granted...] our opinions.

Also, using a graph to show how other things used plot and pacing is NOT the same as saying X game is bad because it didn't have Y pacing. I know it's a lot to read, but we'd all be welcome for more comment that is thought out counterpoint.

 

[BiggusD1]

good read

 

[moonknightgog]

My major critics are about:

Eredin, Imlerith, Caranthir.
The narrative of the game only pretends that they are a big treath, but this treath isn't showed anywhere. And the screenplay for Eredin only get the situation worse.
Expecially when he kills Crach. "Any last words?" - "You had you're chance".
Or when he knows that Avallac'h had trickered both him and Geralt, but he still wants to fight a pointless battle...just for the sake of having a boss fight at the end.
I was like this:

In the previous two games, this ending boss fight was...skippable. Both Eredin and Letho, you could choose to not fight them.

and I still don' understand what was the role of the lodge, and why Lambert and Eskel weren't there to avenge Vesemir and protect Ciri.

The White Frost is...pointless.
It's a climatic change whit basically zero background in the entire game, and in the previous one except for TW1, and it become an immediat threat...right at the end. Out of nowhere.

Ciri
The lack of background about his future son, and the fact that all wanted...well, basically to abuse her sexually....is missing. I don't know if writers were afraid to put this background in TW3 because the stupid Anita Sarkeesian an the idiotic Femminist Frequency, but with the right sensibility, this issue would have added a lot of depth to Ciri as a character.

The lack of internal choices.
I still don't understand the point of Brothers in Arm. Basically, bringing your allies to Kaer Morhen or not...have no consequences.

The lack of internal memories about TW1-2.
I don't understand, I really don't understand, why reset the choices of the previous games and forget about them would allow the company to get more sales. It would be the exactly opposite. With the proper explanation, you still can add importance to the previous choices, modifying quests and a little part of the plot (expecially if you put an "import save" or a "simulate save) into the console version - seriously, what was the point in that?) and actually, if the choices matter, it would bring more interest in the previous two games for who never played the series. But now, why who is new to The Witcher, would want to buy the previous games if they are basically not existent anymore?
This is the most disappointing issue to me. And the fact that the missing characters would be in the expansions is more disappointing, because they would be just stupid fan service stuff, without any depth on the main plot.

 

[dzbrown]

Why is it that people take critique of things they like, especially video games, so personally?

If anyone has claimed in this thread that these things would definitively be a better game for everyone, I missed it... and they'd be wrong. But you can quantify whether things are explained fully. You can quantify the amount of exposition on certain areas of the story and compare them. And so on, and so forth, etc....

A thousand times this. In almost all of the threads that I have read (and contributed to), I was left with the impression that the criticism for the story of this game stems from passion and enthusiasm for not only this game but the trilogy itself. Honest criticism is a good thing, and the keyword here is 'honest'. Hating the game because you can't play it in 4096x2160 or hating the game because you feel that CDPR "downgraded" the graphics or hating the game because you wanted more sex scenes is a lot different than being invested in the overall story and its characters, seeing weaknesses in how they are portrayed and observing an almost complete lack of continuity from the previous games.

Leaving aside the criticism of character development for a moment (which I think is already explained here in great depth), the game still has a real problem with continuity. It is marketed as a trilogy and yet doesn't feel like one. Geralt regains his memories in Witcher 2 and we are never told what those memories are. This is especially problematic given this was a major plot device in the first two games. In addition, almost none of the decisions we made in the previous games has a place here and this, in itself, is a pretty glaring issue (and this is ignoring all of the other many criticisms outlined above).

I think some of the apologists for the story are viewing it as a self-contained installment in a way, and in a certain sense, they aren't completely wrong. There is logical cohesion here even if it does feel rushed and cheated. Yes, this is Geralt's story, only it isn't. It is as much Ciri's story as it is Geralt's story, as she tells us in one of the scenes of the game. In addition, Geralt (and Ciri to an extent) don't exist in a vacuum, they are surrounded by a very large cast of characters all of whom have their own desires and motivations. Except, most of the characters in this story (outside of Ciri and Geralt, even the sorceresses are included in this) are relegated to plot pushing pawns or small obstacles to be overcome in the search for Ciri (in the first half of the game) or for some contrived plot device (in the second half), e.g. rounding up people for the battle of Kaer Morhen, none of which has any effect on the outcome or rounding up the sorceresses to 'put up barriers'.

You can draw what conclusions you may from this, "Well, they weren't really that important to the main plot anyway" or "What could they really do given the circumstances?" All of which are viewing the game through its own self-contained lens and completely detract from any idea of this being a trilogy or a story of Geralt himself (from Witcher 1 onwards), because you should notice that they do matter. They might not matter in a duel with Eredin, but they matter to Geralt and his life and by marginalizing all of them into plot pushing obstacles, you are, in effect, marginalizing Geralt's story as a whole.

Either way, it brings me back to my first point. The criticism for this game comes from passion for the game and the desire to make it better. This is a result of investing in the story, identifying with the characters, and, for lack of a better word, actually caring about its outcome.

 

[TudorAdrian]

A thousand times this. In almost all of the threads that I have read (and contributed to), I was left with the impression that the criticism for the story of this game stems from passion and enthusiasm for not only this game but the trilogy itself. Honest criticism is a good thing, and the keyword here is 'honest'. Hating the game because you can't play it in 4096x2160 or hating the game because you feel that CDPR "downgraded" the graphics or hating the game because you wanted more sex scenes is a lot different than being invested in the overall story and its characters, seeing weaknesses in how they are portrayed and observing an almost complete lack of continuity from the previous games.

Leaving aside the criticism of character development for a moment (which I think is already explained here in great depth), the game still has a real problem with continuity. It is marketed as a trilogy and yet doesn't feel like one. Geralt regains his memories in Witcher 2 and we are never told what those memories are. This is especially problematic given this was a major plot device in the first two games. In addition, almost none of the decisions we made in the previous games has a place here and this, in itself, is a pretty glaring issue (and this is ignoring all of the other many criticisms outlined above).

I think some of the apologists for the story are viewing it as a self-contained installment in a way, and in a certain sense, they aren't completely wrong. There is logical cohesion here even if it does feel rushed and cheated. Yes, this is Geralt's story, only it isn't. It is as much Ciri's story as it is Geralt's story, as she tells us in one of the scenes of the game. In addition, Geralt (and Ciri to an extent) don't exist in a vacuum, they are surrounded by a very large cast of characters all of whom have their own desires and motivations. Except, most of the characters in this story (outside of Ciri and Geralt, even the sorceresses are included in this) are relegated to plot pushing pawns or small obstacles to be overcome in the search for Ciri (in the first half of the game) or for some contrived plot device (in the second half), e.g. rounding up people for the battle of Kaer Morhen, none of which has any affect on the outcome or rounding up the sorceresses to 'put up barriers'.

You can draw what conclusions you may from this, "Well, they weren't really that important to the main plot anyway" or "What could they really do given the circumstances?" All of which are viewing the game through its own self-contained lens and completely detract from any idea of this being a trilogy or a story of Geralt himself (from Witcher 1 onwards), because you should notice that they do matter. They might not matter in a duel with Eredin, but they matter to Geralt and his life and by marginalizing all of them into plot pushing obstacles, you are, in effect, marginalizing Geralt's story as a whole.

Either way, it brings me back to my first point. The criticism for this game comes from passion for the game and the desire to make it better. This is a result of investing in the story, identifying with the characters, and, for lack of a better word, actually caring about its outcome.

Spot on bro! ...and still no official statement from CDPR on any of these topics I see people unequivocally pointing out...even outside of the CDPR forums .. http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/702760-the-witcher-3-wild-hunt/71881022