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

[OutgoingHermit]

You know the really sad thing? Someone's released a parody of the game on Youtube and Eredin probably has more lines in the parody than he does in the game.There's no context for large parts of it. I mean, let's look at this forum. You have people who romanced Triss complaining about a lack of content, people who romanced Yen complaining about a lack of characterisation, people who played the previous games complaining about a lack of consequences and recognition of their choices, people complaining about the relationships in the game being under developed. What's the one thing no one complains about? Gameplay. They got that part spot on. All the complaints are directed at the writing of the game. This game, far more than The Witcher 2 ever did, is crying out for an Enhanced Edition that fills in a lot of the gaps.

I didn't really think that Yennefer lacked characterization; I'm not sure what that complaint is about. Lack of Triss stuff and Eredin monologues is simply how the game is written, and I don't think it's somehow broken. Ideally, it would have been cool to see more of Dandelion, Zoltan and Triss, since they have been there in all three games and are three of Geralt's closest friends, but I don't think it somehow spoils or flaws the game. There was obviously a conscious decision made to introduce more characters instead of giving more screen time to the returning characters, and while a lot of players are not thrilled with that, it is simply the choice that they made.

I'd agree though, that tossing out every decision the player made in the first two games was pretty crummy, and it's probably my biggest complaint about the game, other than the fact that I finished it and it's over. There are some things about Act 3 that genuinely seem rushed (Reason of State, the Tower end sequence, the Lodge), but strangely enough those don't seem to be the main complaints.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

I want to speak a bit about choice again, about the nature of choice, what it's all about, why it is important and about the differences to consequences.

Games are by nature full of choices. Interaction means having choices. It's up to us to decide to a certain extend what we do next in every game. Many games are mostly or exclusively about mechanic or gameplay choices. Think of a sports game which takes mechanics choice to the extreme. Everything you do in for example a soccer game is making a mechanical choice every minute.

There is another layer of choice in basically every game that has some form of "story" or narrative context. Even extremely linear games have often at least some inherent narrative choices like whether the player walks left or right at a certain crossing. The more complex the narratie experience of a video game gets the more layers of narrative choices are usually added to the formula. Story-driven RPGs and adventures are probably the most complex narrative experiences the medium of video games offers. You can differentiate these different narrative choice elements broadly in three categories: more unimportant, inherent choices (e.g. "Do I turn left or right at the next crossing?"), important choices that might influence the whole narrative experience of the game (e.g. "Do I play as an orc or a human?") and finally moral (or "meaningful") choices that are basically about overcoming internal conflict, on both the level of the player character and the players themselves (e.g. "Do I cut a finger to get some information about my missing son?"). For better visualization I made a quite sketch:

Moral choices are almost exclusive to RPGs and adventures and they are a very special kind of choice because they work pretty much on the emotional level. A true moral choice doesn't come down to which option you have is right but to which alternative the player values more. It's not a question of right or wrong but a question of priorities. True meaningful choices offfer options that are all justifiable and comprehensible and the player is asked to make a choice based on an extensive decision making process that usually involved moral considerations as much as reason and emotions. Morality in that respect isn't based on abstract concepts or rules but on the individual player - what they would do and why is up to them. Such situations work when they create agency. Agency is the feeling that your choice matters, that it has some weight. Agency is what makes you think about your actions in a game. It fills you with doubts and possibly even remorse. These choices are only meaningful though when the decision making process isn't arbitrary, when the player understands the alternatives and when there is some system to weight the options. The player has to believe that they have what they need to make a choice in the way of "an informed guess" at least (without necessarily knowing the exact results of course).

To understand the power and concept choices and the resulting agency we have to seperate them from consequences (most people seem to mix them up although they are two clearly distinctive elements). Choice is about the act of choosing itself. A choice makes your think before you take the action while consequences make you think about it later when you see the action's assumed result. I've made another sketch for visualize the different concepts:

In the sketch everything that is green belongs to the choice while everything that is blue belongs to the consquence. A (moral) choice is a sitution in which you choose between different alternatives (usually in form of dialogues). A good moral choice situation immediately creates agency just by the very design of the choice itself. The first part of the reward of such a situation of the player is the decison making process itself, the reasoning with yourself, trying to find the best way to proceed. The second part of the reward happens as soon as you have chosen. It's your changed emotional state based on the decision you made that might "haunt you" during the following events of the game. That's all about choices. Consequences are a different concept. They work in the different direction, "against the timeline". They only become important once you realized that a certain consequence based on previous actions happened. In such a situation you can reconstruct your reasoning and rebuild the chain of causality that led to this consequence. It's a purely rational thought process and the reward is rational as well: consistency. If the chain of causality appears to be believable and reasonable the story is consistent and you can feel some kind of "backwards" agency, that you had some influence somewhere down the line.

Now back to Witcher 3. Why is that important for the analysis of Witcher 3? Well, it is because there is no real moral choice situation in the whole main plot in the last third of the game. There is not even one situation that was designed to create agency. The whole final act of the game is pretty much linear in the way of moral choices. The decisive situations with Ciri don't qualify as menaingful moral choices. First, they have a definite right answer that follows the same basic principle in each situation. You can put a kind of common currency behind every choice (Ciri's self-assurance) which renders them all as fake choices. And many players are set to disappointment when they find themselves dealing with a problem solving exercise rather than being able to deal with a meaningful moral choice.

Some people might argue that these situations are still sufficent to explain the different consequences. And they are right, it's possible to create such a chain of causality (it's a different question whether you like that chain or not...). So the consequences work as intended (even though it's arguable whether it was a clever idea to basically punish a big portion of players so late in the game for not solving a few puzzle exercises on time...). That on the other hand doesn't constitute or explain the existence of good choice situations. Not at all. The only moment in the game where you can feel true agency is in early plot missions (Bloody Baron), side missions (Radovid's assasination) and the very ending of the game when you buy the chain of causality for the ultimate consequences. But there is no agency created by meaningful moral choices in the main plot in the complete final act and I think that's an incredibly sad thing given the power and emotional impact such situations can create. They are basically at the core of story-driven RPGs. It's one of the core promises in RPGs to be able to have meaningful influence on the course of the game and the course of your character in a narrative sense. If you ask me that's pure lost potential in one of he series' assumed core strengths. With Wichter 1 CDPR set a testament of meaningful moral choices in games (it was among the first mainstream games that had choices that didn't follow strictly black vs. white patterns, aka the famous "the lesser evil" mantra). Why sacrificing that in Witcher 3 in huge parts of the game and especially in the "most important" part of the whole triology, at its ending? Why denying the players the chance to feel true agency here every now and then?

I don't know. That's truly one of the biggest puzzles to me. It's so incomprehensible that they sacrificed exactly this element. The one element that made the series so good in the first place and that makes the whole genre of story-driven RPGs so good in the first place...:coffee:

 

[saladin1701]

I didn't really think that Yennefer lacked characterization; I'm not sure what that complaint is about. Lack of Triss stuff and Eredin monologues is simply how the game is written, and I don't think it's somehow broken. Ideally, it would have been cool to see more of Dandelion, Zoltan and Triss, since they have been there in all three games and are three of Geralt's closest friends, but I don't think it somehow spoils or flaws the game. There was obviously a conscious decision made to introduce more characters instead of giving more screen time to the returning characters, and while a lot of players are not thrilled with that, it is simply the choice that they made.

I'd agree though, that tossing out every decision the player made in the first two games was pretty crummy, and it's probably my biggest complaint about the game, other than the fact that I finished it and it's over. There are some things about Act 3 that genuinely seem rushed (Reason of State, the Tower end sequence, the Lodge), but strangely enough those don't seem to be the main complaints.

Yennefer

If you've never read any of the books, you won't really know who Yennefer is. If you've never played one of the previous games, you won't have the first clue who she is. So who she is is first introduced during the dream were she's (rightly within the context of the dream's time frame) Geralt's romantic partner. But what do we learn about her? That she likes Lilac and Gooseberries and likes to wear Black and Silver. We next see her at Vizima were she's introduced to the player as the mother figure for Ciri. But what do we actually learn about her as a 'person'? Precisely nothing. You only begin to get the characterisation of Yennefer once you reach Skellige. The problem with that is that you may have already romanced Triss and because of a poor decision to lock players in to the romance, you cannot change your mind on that playthrough without loading up prior to the events of Now or Never.


Eredin

Eredin is the chief atagonist of the game but again, suffers from the identical problem as Yennefer, i.e. if you have never read the books, you won't know much about him and if you've not played the previous games, you won't know anything about him at all. So if you fit in to the category of not knowing who he is, the game's writing does a very poor job of developing him. Let's look at the character for a moment. He's meant to be Geralt's nemesis. Yet what effect does he ever have on Geralt? None, so lacking any effect, his interactions are not only limited but lack depth due to the lack of any meaningful dialogue.

He's meant to be the leader of a race of peoples who are looking to escape a dying world yet when we actually visit their world it's a vibrant and beautiful ecology so what's his motivation? That the world may end in some undefined time in the future? Geralt doesn't appear to fear him, Eredin doesn't seem able or concerned with pressing Geralt's buttons, he doesn't commit any real atrocities, beyond killing people from villages, which your average Scoia'tael band does so what makes Eredin the single biggest force for evil in the game's setting?

As a result of this combination of a lack of dialogue from, and a story that never scratches beneath his surface to show a nuanced villain, Eredin is reduced to being this shallow character the game tells you is the greatest threat to the world yet never offers up demonstrable proof to back that assertion up.


Triss

Regardless of whether or not you romance her, Triss is an important part of Geralt's life and has been a very important part of the trilogy of games, being the only other character to have a major role in each. If you've not read the books or played the games, you will know nothing about her, save that Geralt had a romantic involvement with her in the past. Yet the way the game portrays it is as if it was a fling, something of no consequence. That's not how it's been portrayed in other games. Whether you want to romance her or not, the option is there to do so yet on what basis do you choose her if you have no prior experience of her? She's portrayed as Saint Triss who wants to save the mages and feels guilty about 'taking advantage' of Geralt. Yet the character is not only more nuanced than that but the writing never explores what exactly that exploitation was. For a new comer, there's no context supplied.

The OP talks about flow and this is something I've discussed in relation to Triss as a character in other threads. The flow of Triss is all wrong. She's introduced at the beginning of the Novigrad area, has three periods of interaction, two of which are optional and then is largely forgotten about again until Act 3 when the player is once more in Novigrad, where upon there's a short cut scene that provides opportunity to decide Geralt's future with Triss, who is then once more forgotten until the ending card comes up. So irrespective of whether you romance her or not, you have this very important character in Gerlat's life, who has hours of gameplay between interactions and ends up being reduced to a background NPC with a single word - "Well".



It's not that this game is broken, on the contrary, it's how it's meant to be, but just because something was 'written that way' does not detract from the fact that the game fails to build up important characters and explain important events. In some places the writing is some of the best I've read, in others it's some of the poorest. It doesn't ruin the game but it does make the game less enjoyable than it might otherwise have been.

It's these poor areas that need attention. Just because the ending is written to show Ciri suddenly going off to fight the White Frost, which until that point in the game, had been portrayed as an Ice Age or Magic used by The Wild Hunt, does not make it any less confusing as to why or how she's doing what she's about to do. Just because something 'is' does not mean that's how something should be. The writing in large parts of this game needs cleaning up with dialogue adding in order to provide much needed characterisation and explanations and context for certain events. Without it, the game will continue to suffer from a disjointed plot.

 

[OutgoingHermit]

From talking to a few people who have not read the books or even played the previous games, the issues of 'not getting to know the characters' weren't bothersome for them. I think they did a pretty good job in the amount of time that was budgeted for most of the key characters that need to be introduced to new players. I think it's also fair to go in with the understanding that someone picking up Part 10 of a 10 part story on that tenth part isn't going to get the same level of depth that someone who has been there since part one is going to get.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

From talking to a few people who have not read the books or even played the previous games, the issues of 'not getting to know the characters' weren't bothersome for them. I think they did a pretty good job in the amount of time that was budgeted for most of the key characters that need to be introduced to new players. I think it's also fair to go in with the understanding that someone picking up Part 10 of a 10 part story on that tenth part isn't going to get the same level of depth that someone who has been there since part one is going to get.

So why did the Wild Hund get so little attention?

But yeah, the budget. Oh, how much I mourn all the wasted time and resources spent on some bushes somewhere in the open world at locations which probaly not even 5% of the players will ever visit...

 

[vivaxardas2015]

In some places the writing is some of the best I've read, in others it's some of the poorest. It's these poor areas that need attention. Just because the ending of Ciri suddenly going off to fight the White Frost which, until that point in the game, had been portrayed as an Ice Age or Magic used by The Wild Hunt, does not make it any less confusing as to why or how she's doing what she's about to do. Just because something 'is' does not mean that's how something should be. The writing in large parts of this game needs attention. It needs cleaning up and dialogue adding in order to provide much needed characterisation and explanations and context for certain events.

Well, that's what happens when the story is written by the committee when some people are clearly more talented than the others. I don't think there is any way around it in video games, with a huge amount of writing involved. TW2 suffered the same problem. I don't really hold my breath about any big changes in EE, but at least to have some additional dialogues would be nice.

 

[saladin1701]

Well, that's what happens when the story is written by the committee when some people are clearly more talented than the others. I don't think there is any way around it in video games, with a huge amount of writing involved. TW2 suffered the same problem. I don't really hold my breath about any big changes in EE, but at least to have some additional dialogues would be nice.

That's the thing, it doesn't need big changes. Let me give you examples.

To build up characterisation of Yennefer, there needs to be additional material at Vizima that sparks some level of interest in this character. All we currently get is she was Geralt's lover, couldn't be arsed finding him and confronting him over his infidelity, as she sees it, and is in the employ of the Nilfgaards which the game tries to portray as dislikeable but utterly fails if you lack the context of the events of The Witcher 2​, all of which leaves you feeling apathetic towards her. Similarly there's no Mother-Daughter relationship material between Yen and Ciri.

Similarly for Eredin you only need a few lines inserting here and there through the game. For example, the Elven ruins you search for Ciri in with Kiera. Before he steps through the portal and Caranthir summons the White Frost, Eredin could pause for a dialogue-based confrontation with Geralt. Written well it would provide key insight in to the mind of the character.

For Triss you have moments of opportunity to explore her past beyond the games, her relationship, be it past or present, with Geralt, her relationship with Ciri, who sees her as an older sister, Yennefer, who is her best friend and the other Witchers with whom she's spent time with over the years, none of which is currently portrayed leading to her, like Eredin, being this shallow character you barely scratch the surface of.

No major re-writing of the plot need happen, only additional material inserted at key points in the game that allow for major characters to be fleshed out and events to be explained.

 

[Pug.]

So why did the Wild Hund get so little attention?

But yeah, the budget. Oh, how much I mourn all the wasted time and resources spent on some bushes somewhere in the open world at locations which probaly not even 5% of the players will ever visit...

I don't know what this "Wild Hund" is that you speak of, but I visited every square inch of the game and enjoyed doing it, so saying that the resources were wasted on crafting the open world is not accurate, at least not in my case. Environments can play just as important a role in storytelling as characters.

Incidentally, for someone who "hates" CDPR with the fire of a thousand suns and has expressed zero interest in either a) continuing the Witcher franchise or b) the upcoming Cyberpunk game, you sure do expend a lot of breath critiquing and evaluating Wild Hunt. Why not just move on? The developers aren't going to abandon their current design philosophies to appease a few grognards.

 

[Merism]

Of course it says so. A Witcher is by very definition a mutated human, "made" for monster hunting in one of the witcher schools. Nobody else would call himself like that, only imposters (who rather die sooner than later anyway). So yes, of course Ciri could call herself witcheress. But it's just suicidal to fight against most monsters if you don't have the abilities of a mutated witcher. That point is made pretty clear in the books. Without his super fast reflexes and his improved vision Geralt would already be long dead since he survived many fight just by relying on these mutation traits. I just don't think that it is a decision a grown up Ciri would make, seeing the whole thing through. I don't think it's a decision neither Geralt nor Yen would agree on, like ever. We all know that Ciri is a superb sword fighter. But that's about it. That doesn't quality for hunting down extremely dangerous monsters. Any why should people even pay her? Without cat eyes she's obviously no real witcher. And she's even a woman. I doubt many people would hire her. They already treat actual witchers pretty badly. Not even thinking about how they would treat a female imposter, if she even survives. Anyway, this outcome just doesn't sound likely or believable to me. It's a constructed ending for the sake of having one if you ask me...


I will glady do so once I find the time. Do you have a link to your thread so I don't have to search for it?

Great post Scholdarr, I don't want to snipe at particulars but I'm pretty sure Ciri would fall under the category of "hunter." Remember the bounty hunter in Witcher 1 who tells Geralt "After all, everyone in our profession eventually meets a rock harder than we are" or some such comparison. Geralt asks what profession that is and he responds with "Bounty hunting." That hunter does have the balls to say "we" to a witcher, and I'm willing to wager based on some of the contracts and their wording that it isn't only a witcher the populous is willing to employ.

I find it strange that Geralt persists in saying "I'm a witcher, I solve problems" instead of "I hunt monsters," but his repertoire does seem to expand from lifting curses to finding lost goats. I'm pretty certain Ciri could get by finding lost farm animals or lifting the occasional curse. After all, Vesimir drilled the knowledge into her as a child, to the point she memorized them and could recite them after ditching him when he nodded off mid-lesson

I feel like I'm being nitpicky but to be honest, I'm at work and didn't have time to read your original post, just some of the shorter ones--and this caught my eye. Anywho, great stuff, I like that you are pushing for discussion like this--can't wait to read your opus at the top when I get home

 

[OutgoingHermit]

Just because the ending is written to show Ciri suddenly going off to fight the White Frost which, until that point in the game, had been portrayed as an Ice Age or Magic used by The Wild Hunt, does not make it any less confusing as to why or how she's doing what she's about to do. Just because something 'is' does not mean that's how something should be. The writing in large parts of this game needs cleaning up with dialogue adding in order to provide much needed characterisation and explanations and context for certain events. Without it, the game will continue to suffer from a disjointed plot.

Sure. I definitely agree that the whole bit about Ciri stopping the White Frost seems like a botch job. How does she do it? I have no freaking clue, and I've read the books and played all three games. And I can't even come up with a plausible explanation, really. My guess is that the writers probably couldn't, either.

I think the other points are just a case of wishing that the game had more depth for the various characters and subplots across the board. If you want to open up a can of worms, I've found in my second playthrough that the game supports sequence breaking pretty well with Skellige and Novigrad. You can go to Skellige and do the entire main quest there before even touching Pyres of Novigrad, and the dialog in several scenes is completely different as a result.

I thought that was pretty neat, but it does bring up the question of why a few other quests are completely unresponsive to the potential decision for Geralt to dump Yennefer in the djinni quest. Really, Cerys, you don't need to spend five minutes berating me for being hen-pecked by the woman I just severed from.

IMO most of this stuff comes back to "they just didn't have time for everything."

 

[saladin1701]

Sure. I definitely agree that the whole bit about Ciri stopping the White Frost seems like a botch job. How does she do it? I have no freaking clue, and I've read the books and played all three games. And I can't even come up with a plausible explanation, really. My guess is that the writers probably couldn't, either.

I think the other points are just a case of wishing that the game had more depth for the various characters and subplots across the board. If you want to open up a can of worms, I've found in my second playthrough that the game supports sequence breaking pretty well with Skellige and Novigrad. You can go to Skellige and do the entire main quest there before even touching Pyres of Novigrad, and the dialog in several scenes is completely different as a result.

I thought that was pretty neat, but it does bring up the question of why a few other quests are completely unresponsive to the potential decision for Geralt to dump Yennefer in the djinni quest. Really, Cerys, you don't need to spend five minutes berating me for being hen-pecked by the woman I just severed from.

IMO most of this stuff comes back to "they just didn't have time for everything."

I know you can play the game's 'zones' out of order but for the purpose of the story, I've presented them in chronological order. So has the author of this thread. Leaving the reader/viewer/player wishfully thinking main characters essential to the plot had more characterisation is not how write good literature. As the thread says, the relationships between characters is the central focus of the story. Geralt/Ciri, Yennefer/Ciri, Triss/Ciri, Geralt/Eredin, Ciri/Eredin, Ciri Avallac'h. None of these are satisfactorily explored in a way that develops those relationships or the characters involved in them. Of all of them, only really the Geralt/Ciri Father/Daughter relationship is explored. Yet when Geralt, Yennefer and Ciri all have past history with Eredin, why is that relationship ignored? If when Ciri last saw Geralt he was with Yen and now he's with Triss, why is that relationship not explored? She doesn't even inquire as to what's gone on there. That's not wishful thinking, that's poor writing failing to explore the complex relationships the story presents to the player.

 

[MisterKolega]

I know you can play the game's 'zones' out of order but for the purpose of the story, I've presented them in chronological order. So has the author of this thread. Leaving the reader/viewer/player wishfully thinking main characters essential to the plot had more characterisation is not how write good literature. As the thread says, the relationships between characters is the central focus of the story. Geralt/Ciri, Yennefer/Ciri, Triss/Ciri, Geralt/Eredin, Ciri/Eredin, Ciri Avallac'h. None of these are satisfactorily explored in a way that develops those relationships or the characters involved in them. Of all of them, only really the Geralt/Ciri Father/Daughter relationship is explored. Yet when Geralt, Yennefer and Ciri all have past history with Eredin, why is that relationship ignored? If when Ciri last saw Geralt he was with Yen and now he's with Triss, why is that relationship not explored? She doesn't even inquire as to what's gone on there. That's not wishful thinking, that's poor writing failing to explore the complex relationships the story presents to the player.

You're right. The core relationship of the game is the father daughter relationship between Geralt and Ciri, while all the other relationships aren't that much developed. The protagonists are portraited well but there is nearly no intelligent relationship characterization between the protagists and the antagonists. There is just plain good and plain evil. All the gray zone in the morality specter is nearly lost if you compare the dynamics of the relationships in TW3 and TW 1+ TW2.

The Wild Hunt was hurtingful neglected in their represantation. The problem is the characters of the Hunt had so much potential that just slipped away. Too much of the game is focused on the witcher contracts and side quests that the main plot got badly neglected.
The Witcher universe is supposed to be something like Dostojewski in the medieval age only with fantasy right? TW1 and TW2 are something like a small indipendent movie shown in Berlin, Cannes or Venice where TW3 is a huge hollywood blockbuster with the typical mainstream narrative and plain good/evil motives. Art was the main aspect of the first two witcher games, but commercialization and mainstream is the main motive behind TW3. It is nothing bad but CDPR gained another audiance from TW1+2 and now they presented their audiance in TW3 nothing but the typical high budget blockbuster from Hollywood.

Best example is a look in the forums. The thread with the most replies is the Triss content thread. Enough said about who is TW3 main audiance.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

I don't know what this "Wild Hund" is that you speak of, but I visited every square inch of the game and enjoyed doing it, so saying that the resources were wasted on crafting the open world is not accurate, at least not in my case. Environments can play just as important a role in storytelling as characters.

You missed the point. From the view of a developer assets that only very few people will ever see are kind of wasted. Of course they aren't wasted for those 5 or 10% of the players who enjoyed them (like you). As a developer you should ask yourself whether you spend your time, money and talent on stuff that maybe all of your players will enjoy, or at least a huge portion of them, or whether you spread "thin" and make a lot of stuff most of your customers will never see. Everything in video game development is a trade off.

And there are indeed huge parts of the world of Witcher 3 that play no role whatsoever for the narrative. They are just windows dressing.

Spoiler

Incidentally, for someone who "hates" CDPR with the fire of a thousand suns and has expressed zero interest in either a) continuing the Witcher franchise or b) the upcoming Cyberpunk game, you sure do expend a lot of breath critiquing and evaluating Wild Hunt.

I have zero interest in Cyberpunk? Wow, that's new to me...

And I have a lot of interest in the Witcher franchise. It's one of my personal favorite franchises. So please forgive me, that I still care, even if it's only theoretical or academical. As always, if you don't like what I do you're free to just ignore my posts.

Why not just move on? The developers aren't going to abandon their current design philosophies to appease a few grognards.

Why do you care what I do? I really enjoy reading critique and other opinions but it's sad that some of them always come down to ad hominem attacks sooner or later...

 

[saladin1701]

You're right. The core relationship of the game is the father daughter relationship between Geralt and Ciri, while all the other relationships aren't that much developed. The protagonists are portraited well but there is nearly no intelligent relationship characterization between the protagists and the antagonists. There is just plain good and plain evil. All the gray zone in the morality specter is nearly lost if you compare the dynamics of the relationships in TW3 and TW 1+ TW2.

Exactly, their lack of development is completely out of character with the franchise. Where everything is portrayed in shades, these relationships are portayed in black and white. But the weird thing is that some of the supporting characters are more developed than the main ones. For example, let's look at what we know about Dijkstra.

- Former Redanian Intelligence officer.
- Formerly right hand man to the previous King of twenty five years service.
- Had a past confrontation with Geralt resulting in an injury that needs treatment several times a day.
- Believes that good governance is achieved through industry, commerce and progressive science.
- Has a morale compass but...
- Is utterly ruthless
- Believes the only way to stop the Northern expansion of Nilfgaard is through the creation of a Northern Empire.
- He's intelligent, manipulative and devious, a schemer, not a fighter.
- Has respect for Geralt leading to a peculiar (and often comical) relationship between them.

All this we gleam from The Witcher 3 by playing through his personal stories. It's far more than we ever learn about Triss or Eredin or Avallac'h. The interactions of their relationship are explored far more than the relationships of Geralt and Triss, or Triss and Ciri, or Yen and Ciri, or Geralt, Yen, Ciri and Eredin. How is that good writing to build up support characters more than the main cast? To use the analogy of Star Wars as the original post does, it's akin to Chewbacker, Lando and Tarkin being built up more than Luke, Han or Vader. It's utterly inexplicable in its failure to explore these characters and character relationships.

 

[DepressedPerson]

I think that the complete Wild Hunt plot was missed potential. The first time i saw Eredin and his crew i was really amazed. They looked great from the game design point of view. They could awake a dose of awe but just at the first sight. Some time later as the story unfolds, you get the weid feeling that neither Geralt nor Ciri or any of the sorceresses would have any problems defeating any of the three Wild Hunt bosses in a 1 on 1 fight.

Eredin even pales in comparison to Imlerith who definitely had some savagery that could drive the fear in your bones. I dont want to even mention that we didnt see Caranthir under his mask, that was just an epic fail. First of all there was barely any Wild Hunt content even the game is called so. Second, no Wild hunt boss has the depth or intelligence a Letho or Alderberg had in their stories. The whole Wild Hunt thing feels just so false and shallow in comparison to the previous games, its quite embarassing even. Eredin has only 12 sentences, Imlerith 3 and Caranthir doesnt even say a lousy word. Thats just not good storytelling.

If i'd like to be cynical enough, i would even say that Eredin couldn't even beat Letho in a fair fight, even if the latter would fight with his bare fists and Eredin would be dual wielding his scary swords. Sorry but no mature and decent gamer can take the Wild Hunt villains seriously.

I certainly didn't get the feeling that Geralt and Ciri or any of the sorceresses would easily defeat any of the Wild Hunt bosses. Indeed in the beginning sequences, Eredin is portrayed as a very fierce and powerful enemy, particularly when Geralt has flashbacks showing Eredin standing on that ship.

When it comes to Eredin vs. Imlerith, I do agree that Imlerith is portrayed to be stronger than Eredin, both in the actual story and in terms of boss difficulty (it should be the other way around in both respects). Imlerith has a sort of savagery and fearlessness that is unmatched, and he was very hard to defeat even on normal difficulty. Eredin, by comparison, was significantly easier, although admittedly when I was versing Eredin I had more food to use in combat to heal myself. This is an issue that CDPR could probably fix in a future expansion. Having said that, they did a fantastic job on the sound effects. When you actually hit one of the WIld Hunt bosses, you can "feel" how hard their armour is and how "heavy" the bosses are. Bravo to CDPR on the sound. Little things like this make all the difference.

I don't think the "whole Wild Hunt thing" is "false and shallow" as you suggest. The game, taken as a whole, is perfect in my eyes, and showcases all the hallmarks of an excellent RPS game, and more. Sure, Eredin only has 12 sentences and Imlerith only 3, but the number of sentences they used shouldn't be used to assess the depth and quality of the storyline. Would I like to see much more talking on their part? Sure, couldn't hurt. But the fact that they don't talk a lot isn't bad either, and in some ways it's actually better than playing a game where the villain bores you to death with hours of dialogue. The Wild Hunt is all action no talk. That's what makes them fearsome, and that's what makes every scene with the Wild Hunt bosses more special and valuable. CDPR has been very smart in designing this game: they don't throw the whole storyline and dialogue at you, but rather they feed you bits and pieces that entice you and immerse you into the game.

Overall, you've raised some valid points which I agree with, but I honestly think it's a stretch to say that the game is "false and shallow". Character development is superb. I've never played a game where I've cared so much about the characters before, to the point where I've gone to the effort of making a forum account and talking to others about it.

 

[MisterKolega]

Exactly, their lack of development is completely out of character with the franchise. Where everything is portrayed in shades, these relationships are portayed in black and white. But the weird thing is that some of the supporting characters are more developed than the main ones. For example, let's look at what we know about Dijkstra.

- Former Redanian Intelligence officer.
- Formerly right hand man to the previous King of twenty five years service.
- Had a past confrontation with Geralt resulting in an injury that needs treatment several times a day.
- Believes that good governance is achieved through industry, commerce and progressive science.
- Has a morale compass but...
- Is utterly ruthless
- Believes the only way to stop the Northern expansion of Nilfgaard is through the creation of a Northern Empire.
- He's intelligent, manipulative and devious, a schemer, not a fighter.
- Has respect for Geralt leading to a peculiar (and often comical) relationship between them.

All this we gleam from The Witcher 3 by playing through his personal stories. It's far more than we ever learn about Triss or Eredin or Avallac'h. The interactions of their relationship are explored far more than the relationships of Geralt and Triss, or Triss and Ciri, or Yen and Ciri, or Geralt, Yen, Ciri and Eredin. How is that good writing to build up support characters more than the main cast? To use the analogy of Star Wars as the original post does, it's akin to Chewbacker, Lando and Tarkin being built up more than Luke, Han or Vader. It's utterly inexplicable in its failure to explore these characters and character relationships.

I agree. Dijkstra and the Red Baron are the proof that they were capable of making great written characters. Why they didn't make the same effort with the Wild Hunt stays a mistery to me. Star Wars has one of the most iconic villains in the history of cinematography in Darth Vader. It's the villain that made Star Wars great. Look at the Dark Knight movies of Nolan. Heath Ledger as the Joker was a much stonger character than the main protagonist Batman. Letho and Aldersberg were great villains. Letho is the synonym of a morally gray and undefinitioned character who had so complex motives that even if you wanted to capture and slay him through the whole game, there's a chance if you here him out in the end, you sympathize with him and let him go. That was the shining point of The Witcher 2. That was storywriting excellence.

---------- Updated at 12:40 PM ----------

I certainly didn't get the feeling that Geralt and Ciri or any of the sorceresses would easily defeat any of the Wild Hunt bosses. Indeed in the beginning sequences, Eredin is portrayed as a very fierce and powerful enemy, particularly when Geralt has flashbacks showing Eredin standing on that ship.

When it comes to Eredin vs. Imlerith, I do agree that Imlerith is portrayed to be stronger than Eredin, both in the actual story and in terms of boss difficulty (it should be the other way around in both respects). Imlerith has a sort of savagery and fearlessness that is unmatched, and he was very hard to defeat even on normal difficulty. Eredin, by comparison, was significantly easier, although admittedly when I was versing Eredin I had more food to use in combat to heal myself. This is an issue that CDPR could probably fix in a future expansion. Having said that, they did a fantastic job on the sound effects. When you actually hit one of the WIld Hunt bosses, you can "feel" how hard their armour is and how "heavy" the bosses are. Bravo to CDPR on the sound. Little things like this make all the difference.

I don't think the "whole Wild Hunt thing" is "false and shallow" as you suggest. The game, taken as a whole, is perfect in my eyes, and showcases all the hallmarks of an excellent RPS game, and more. Sure, Eredin only has 12 sentences and Imlerith only 3, but the number of sentences they used shouldn't be used to assess the depth and quality of the storyline. Would I like to see much more talking on their part? Sure, couldn't hurt. But the fact that they don't talk a lot isn't bad either, and in some ways it's actually better than playing a game where the villain bores you to death with hours of dialogue. The Wild Hunt is all action no talk. That's what makes them fearsome, and that's what makes every scene with the Wild Hunt bosses more special and valuable. CDPR has been very smart in designing this game: they don't throw the whole storyline and dialogue at you, but rather they feed you bits and pieces that entice you and immerse you into the game.

Overall, you've raised some valid points which I agree with, but I honestly think it's a stretch to say that the game is "false and shallow". Character development is superb. I've never played a game where I've cared so much about the characters before, to the point where I've gone to the effort of making a forum account and talking to others about it.

I didn't express myself precisely. I didn't mean that "false and shallow" that way. Of course CDPR and Sapkowsky with his universe did a great job with the characters and I also made an account only for the purpose of sharing my thoughts on the game. TW3 is an outstanding game and it is my absolute favorite in comparison to all other RPG-s out there.

Maybe i explained things quite harsh and not that much sofisticated because im not a native english speaker, but my point is, that if you compare the characterization of Letho and Alderberg with the Wild Hunt bosses, it's just not the same. Sure someone who played The Witcher more than me and other posters in particular expressed all the critics better than me but what i wanted to say is that many players, myself included, feel that there is a drop in qualitiy regarding the plot in act 3. TW3 is a huge game and is rich witch lore, but i think they didn't emphasize the last part of the game with the same care as the first and second act. Sure, the battle for Kaer Morhen is unmatched regarind the pacing and climatic, but the narrative goes downslope after the climax at Kaer Morhen and looses a lot of detail and narrative consistance (Yen is more important even if you dump her for Triss, nothing about Caranthir, Ge'els was missed potential, no background about the PERSON Eredin, and so on...). These are just some examples, i hope more experienced posters will explain the issues with the plot narrative better than me.

Maybe the open world gameplaye made so many of us loose grip with the story pacing. Nonetheless i think many will agree that Letho and Aldersberg were much stronger in both character and presentation than the Wild Hunt villains.

 

[kojac1984]

I do not know if it has been said here, but I will speak, what else made me sad was the content:


In the witcher 2 it pretty much ends with Triss to go behind the Yennefer on Witcher 3, takes place six months and you just found the Yennefer and he says nothing or tries to want to know what happened to her, for the player to have some knowledge of the character. Then he leaves to Novingrad and already reattaches with Triss, without even having the chance to know the player Yennefer, that is the end of the Witcher 2 was totally without purpose.

It was better to have continued with Triss and forget about time Yennefer.

 

[wazaa]

This is what I felt as well. Those two examples of destroying the lab and going to see the Lodge of Sorceresses with Ciri are the big ones that cause issues. I actually ended up choosing "poorly" because I didn't realize the intent or meaning of what was about to happen. But even if we had a better idea what the choice entailed when we were reading the dialogue options and we could accept how they would influence Ciri, I don't believe they make sense on their own in deciding Ciri's ultimate fate.

Really?

If you read a novel, you watch a movie, yo play a game, all the elements shown of the character are shown to let us make an idea of how the character feels, the way the character acts, and how it evolves.

If you want to compare the way you select things I think that the best one you can choose is Star Wa... no! Catheriine.
On that game, you have choices all the game regarding how you act, when you act, what you choose, showing you a bar that moves you don't know with standard with, until it is explained in the end. From your choices an end is choosen, and this end comes from the decisions you taken, the clearly objective ones, plus the ones that determine how is your character, you can say the subjective ones.

In this game happens the same, the end comes from the objective decisions, that affect your surrondings plus Ciri personality, giving and ending that follow the mood of the relationship you had with her.

What do you want? To get completly depresed about the death of your friends, drinking with her to forget them and sudenly to have a happy ending? It has no structural sense, if you play to be pessimistic it is what you get, cause it is a game and your decissions affect the end.

So I'm surprised that some people did not get that these things were gonna affect the end. It was cristal clear to me.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

I do not know if it has been said here, but I will speak, what else made me sad was the content:


In the witcher 2 it pretty much ends with Triss to go behind the Yennefer on Witcher 3, takes place six months and you just found the Yennefer and he says nothing or tries to want to know what happened to her, for the player to have some knowledge of the character. Then he leaves to Novingrad and already reattaches with Triss, without even having the chance to know the player Yennefer, that is the end of the Witcher 2 was totally without purpose.

It was better to have continued with Triss and forget about time Yennefer.

We have better threads to discuss that (either here or here or here).

This thread is only about the last third/act of TW3.

 

[saladin1701]

I agree. Dijkstra and the Red Baron are the proof that they were capable of making great written characters. Why they didn't make the same effort with the Wild Hunt stays a mistery to me. Star Wars has one of the most iconic villains in the history of cinematography in Darth Vader. It's the villain that made Star Wars great. Look at the Dark Knight movies of Nolan. Heath Ledger as the Joker was a much stonger character than the main protagonist Batman. Letho and Aldersberg were great villains. Letho is the synonym of a morally gray and undefinitioned character who had so complex motives that even if you wanted to capture and slay him through the whole game, there's a chance if you here him out in the end, you sympathize with him and let him go. That was the shining point of The Witcher 2. That was storywriting excellence.

---------- Updated at 12:40 PM ----------



I didn't express myself precisely. I didn't mean that "false and shallow" that way. Of course CDPR and Sapkowsky with his universe did a great job with the characters and I also made an account only for the purpose of sharing my thoughts on the game. TW3 is an outstanding game and it is my absolute favorite in comparison to all other RPG-s out there.

Maybe i explained things quite harsh and not that much sofisticated because im not a native english speaker, but my point is, that if you compare the characterization of Letho and Alderberg with the Wild Hunt bosses, it's just not the same. Sure someone who played The Witcher more than me and other posters in particular expressed all the critics better than me but what i wanted to say is that many players, myself included, feel that there is a drop in qualitiy regarding the plot in act 3. TW3 is a huge game and is rich witch lore, but i think they didn't emphasize the last part of the game with the same care as the first and second act. Sure, the battle for Kaer Morhen is unmatched regarind the pacing and climatic, but the narrative goes downslope after the climax at Kaer Morhen and looses a lot of detail and narrative consistance (Yen is more important even if you dumb her for Triss, nothing about Caranthir, Ge'els was missed potential, no background about the PERSON Eredin, and so on...). These are just some examples, i hope more experienced posters will explain the issues with the plot narrative better than me.

Maybe the open world gameplaye made so many of us loose grip with the story pacing. Nonetheless i think many will agree that Letho and Aldersberg were much stronger in botch character and presentation than the Wild Hunt villains.

Actually, Kaer Morhen whilst getting the pace right, is the beginning of were things go wrong. If you romance Triss, she says she'll meet you at Kaer Morhen but is not there when you arrive. By not putting her where she's meant to be, the game looses out on relationship exploration across several characters. It fails to develop the romance between her and Geralt further, it fails to explore the relationship between her and Yennefer, after all, Triss slept with her best friend's partner, the very least you'd expect is an exchange of words. When Ciri arrives, it fails to explore the relationship of Yen, as Ciri's mother, of Triss, as Ciri's sister, of Vesemir, as Ciri's favourite Uncle. When Vesemir dies, it fails to successfully deal with the relationship both Geralt and Triss had with him, choosing only to focus on Ciri's relationship with him.

Act 2 was the point in the game were there was sufficient down time to explore these relationships. It was a time were Yen and Geralt could have discussed their time with the Wild Hunt, were we could have learned about Geralt riding with them. We could have seen just how complex a love life Geralt has with Triss and Yen having a confrontation, it could have explored Ciri's relationship with the two women by (for example) having her play peace maker. Once you get to Act 3, you then build up the relationships between Geralt and Avallac'h, and Ciri and Avallac'h. You explore the Aen Elle in greater detail, delve in to Eredin's motivations for his actions, all of which builds up the characters to an explosive confrontation at the end of the game.

Again, to come back to Star Wars, look at the confrontation of Luke and Vader in cloud city (or whatever it's called) and you have that explosive bombshell - "No, Luke, I am your father" - that suddenly added more poignancy to their final confrontation. Where was that moment in this game? Were the relationship between Geralt and Eredin suddenly had its ante upped? All we had was a shallow antagonist who was incredibly easy to defeat at the end. You can't even call it an anti-climax because it was never built up in the first place.

If Act 2 was where it began to go wrong, Act 3 was where the wheels well and truly fell off because it utterly failed to build any tension for the main plot whilst strangely being very successful in doing that for Radovid's assassination which successfully develops the relationships between Philippa and Dijkstra, Philippa and Radovid, and Dijkstra, Roche and Thaler whilst completely ignoring the relationships central to the plot. So instead the main plot meanders through the act, with you going through the trouble to rescue two sorceresses, one of whom dies in the cell anyway, the other who only has a few lines in one scene. You have Triss casually going along with the rebuilding of a Lodge she helped tear down for no other reason other than contrivance to determine whether Ciri lives or dies at the end of the game rather than developing the interpersonal relationships between the key characters of the story.

So to once more clarify, I enjoyed the game play, I just felt let down by the story.