Why was Geralt's time as a Rider of the Hunt an the Hunt kidnapping humans a non-topic in Witcher 3?

+
There is no reason why he should't recover his whole memory

There is also no reason why he should? Sure they could do something like "He recovers his memory right before the Eredin fight for extra drama" but that would be a bit too convenient for Eredin and I'm not sure it would be very realistic.
Maybe that's why decided against it, or maybe they just wanted to leave something mysterious about the Wild Hunt and Geralts past



or maybe they just had to finish the game and couldn't include everything they wanted to, idk?
 

Attachments

  • spongebob_imagination_by_kssael_display_zps742422d7.jpeg
    spongebob_imagination_by_kssael_display_zps742422d7.jpeg
    59.7 KB · Views: 40
Even if it is so, Eredin would clearly exploit it do destroy Geralt and to get Ciri much easier. The antagonism between Geralt and Eredin in TW3 is another missing part of a great plot. It is indeed an explanation but it isn't a good one. There is no reason why he shouldn't recover his whole memory and it's also not understandable why such a dangerous villain as Eredin would not use any tool to inflict harm to Geralt and his friends. His goal is to capture Ciri and he is reckless and would do anything to prevent his home world from destruction. Shedding light on Geralts time as Eredins "greatest champion" (Eredins words in The Witcher 1) would make the whole story deeper and more serious and could only improve the overall plot of the game. The Witcher 1 and The Witcher 2 had so much more intelligent and mature storywriting than The Witcher 3. A mature gamer audiance needs those little psychological battles between characters to deepen their characterization.

Thats exactly my thoughts, almost evry point lead us to believe it was made for a younger audience,who are more focused how a villain should looks like, maybe iam to old for any future games and have missed the changes in Gaming/movie hystorie.

Recently i watched the new Superman movie bear in mind the witcher still rumoring after a week i finished in my brain.

I was shocked how the Witcher compared to the Superman/Writing aspect has similaritys

Superman/geralt LoisLane/yen/triss General Zod/eredin Raora/imlerith namEk/caranthir 3 villains who exactly fighting for a cos to Help bring krypton back. The terraform worldmachine in the game is the conjuction maybe its to far fetched, i dont know but my closure to this ,I believe the CDPR/writers just throw some Book/Comics/movie writings mixing them together and we will have a final product.
 
Well, the core problem that both Superman movies and Witcher 3 share is spectacle creep. It's a HUGE probelm with every new sequel in existing franchises in movies and games. It usually harms the whole story and all the characters that appear in it. It becomes more and more ridiculous over time until the very moment where the last bit of believability and logical consistency finally breaks...

---------- Updated at 06:56 PM ----------

Hmm I don't know if just some flashback cutscenes would be enough, but it could have the potential to work.

Well, I brought it up because such videos would cost that much mony. You don't need coders, scripters, programmers, 3D artists, animators or voice actors for making them. Just a good artist, a narrator and a video expert. Such flashback cutscenes would probably cost the least of all possibilities and I was just suprised (and disappointed) that CDPR didn't even do that much.

Of course, you could invest a whole lot more resources, time and money to improve the situation. Like I said myself, I would suggest three flashback secnes, only one being a set of short cutscenes while the other two would be playable sections, one for Geralt and one for Ciri. That would likely cost much more than making just a cartoon-style video but it would arguably create an even better and more impactful solution for some of the (severe) plot holes and the lacking characterization and background of the Wild Hunt and their interaction/relationship to Geralt.
 
Last edited:
Well, the core problem that both Superman movies and Witcher 3 share is spectacle creep. It's a HUGE probelm with every new sequel in existing franchises. It becomes more and more ridiculous over time until the very moment where the last bit of believability and logical consistency finally breaks.
And that's why Jesus rises from the dead in the Bible. :p
 
Being the last episode of Gerat's saga I'd rather like a original CDPR's story explaining how TW1 begins, facing Eredin, Geralt's life sacrifice for saving Yen. how Geralt convinced Eridin, how Ciri saved Geralt and at least, a deserved face to face ending, Eredin-Geralt. Moral choices about Aen Elle (Avallac'h, Ge'en) and humans, lesser evil's, etc, etc, etc... There was an incredible sources from the original CDPR's creation, a freedom of creativity avoiding romance relevances (fanservice) but about Geralt last 2 years, and how the recovering of his memories (daughter, lovers, Red Rider moments) impact seriously in the Humanity's fate.

Just closing the circle.
 
Being the last episode of Gerat's saga I'd rather like a original CDPR's story explaining how TW1 begins, facing Eredin, Geralt's life sacrifice for saving Yen. how Geralt convinced Eridin, how Ciri saved Geralt and at least, a deserved face to face ending, Eredin-Geralt. Moral choices about Aen Elle (Avallac'h, Ge'en) and humans, lesser evil's, etc, etc, etc... There was an incredible sources from the original CDPR's creation, a freedom of creativity avoiding romance relevances (fanservice) but about Geralt last 2 years, and how the recovering of his memories (daughter, lovers, Red Rider moments) impact seriously in the Humanity's fate.

Just closing the circle.

This.

And removing the White Frost bullshit... ;)
 
Hm, I don't think that this makes any sense at all. If you wanted to make Witcher 3 a "standalone" product wouldn't you have to explain the characters and storyline you present there even better? More depth and context for the Wild Hunt would have improved the game for everyone, especially people who are new to this franchise...


There we have the core reason. I can still hear all these voices in my head from before the game was released, the voices that always told me that CDPR was so much better than Bethesda and that CDPR would magically solve all the inherent problems with big open world games. Well, guess what: they are no magicians after all, just human beings. Open world in TW3 has still many of the same flaws as in other games and CDPR's core strength established in previous games suffered from that decision a lot.

Bazinga! :dead:

http://www.technobuffalo.com/2015/0...ld-hunt-interview-with-the-gameplay-designer/

“We didn’t want to go too overboard and alienate people,” Monnier said. “It was really important to make Witcher 3 a standalone game.”
- CD Projekt Red’s Senior Gameplay Designer, Dominic Monnier
 
As we play as Ciri, in the past, it won't hurt to have a sidequest where you play as Geralt in the Wild Hunt.

---------- Updated at 01:28 PM ----------

In fact, I woulld trade all romance focus for a better Act 3.

One could hope that coming expansions would add something to the core game too...
 
The best place this could have been revealed was in Time and Space with Geralt and Avallac'h have a chance to talk .If there was an option for Avallac'h to restore Geralt's memory of the time with the Hunt . It may be to late to explain Imlerith but vengeance was served . That spot talking to Avallac'h could have been the best flash back slide show and was missed . Geralt may not remember his time with the Hunt but something really keeps his moral compass going concerning the Hunt and could have explained why it wasn't just about Ciri ......
 
Somethin personal between Geralt and Eredin

What bothers me also is the fact that there where many indicators that Eredin not only wishes to invade the human world with the Aen Elle, but that Eredin had some personal business with Geralt. If I remember right, Eredin told Geralt in TW1 that he was his greatest champion and he even questions Geralts decisions through the whole game. In TW2 we know that Eredin took Yennefer and Geralt sacrificed himself for her, and traded his soul for hers.

The whole "trading his soul" is also nowhere mentioned in the plot of TW3. Why his soul? How can Eredin even get Geralts "soul"? Why was it important for Eredin to get his soul, and why did Eredin trade Yennefer for Geralt? What did he even want from Geralt PERSONALLY. I feel that many questions are still not answered in TW3 and there are a lot of very interesting questions about Geralts and Eredins relationship. Not only Geralts time with the Hunt stays in the dark but the whole relationship between Geralt and Eredin. There is surely some personal interest for Geralt. Eredin does all this stuff for his homeworld but they developed a personal rivalry that just isn't explained even if it is hinted through the story of The Witcher 2.
 
Last edited:
New year, even after New Game+, still can feel this as a huge question mark.
Doesn't this bother anyone even after multiple playthroughs, for whoever has even played just TW2?
 
New year, even after New Game+, still can feel this as a huge question mark.
Doesn't this bother anyone even after multiple playthroughs, for whoever has even played just TW2?


Well of course it does, it did for us after the first playthrough, so naturally it would after the second, third, fourth, etc ... :p
Mainly because CDPR could deliver on it, but they chose not to, for questionable reasons (not making newcomers too overwhelmed).
 
I don't think CDPR deliberately gimped the writing or plot to appeal to new comers. They would have nothing to gain by this, especially since the industry's story telling is getting better over time, not worse. People have higher expectations on this front. To me it's simply a case of bad writing and possibly disorganized production, so what they ended up cutting out hurt the main story the most. The main quest really does meander in a bizarre way as well. It might have been better to spend less time finding Ciri and more time explaining what happened in Geralt's past regarding the Hunt, as well as developing the Hunt's motivation.
 
I don't think CDPR deliberately gimped the writing or plot to appeal to new comers. They would have nothing to gain by this, especially since the industry's story telling is getting better over time, not worse. People have higher expectations on this front. To me it's simply a case of bad writing and possibly disorganized production, so what they ended up cutting out hurt the main story the most. The main quest really does meander in a bizarre way as well. It might have been better to spend less time finding Ciri and more time explaining what happened in Geralt's past regarding the Hunt, as well as developing the Hunt's motivation.

I think the problem pertains to the fact that the writers tried to make the narrative in the third game all about Ciri, which would have been fine if she was the main character for W3 as well as the other two games. lol The writers show their intention clearly at the very end of the third game when Ciri says to Geralt, 'what would a witcher know about saving the world? This is my story'. If you consider the series as a whole, it's like the final chapter is confused, here you are playing for hours and hours as Geralt of Rivia (and in the first two games Ciri is barely a ghost of a figure) yet the third game is trying to say 'but this whole thing is about Ciri'. So I'm saying that the narrative does not quite match the main character you play as. It's like they needed a Witcher 2.5 to clear up the questions of the first two games, and to help the series transition more smoothly into the Ciri narrative.
 
What bothers me also is the fact that there where many indicators that Eredin not only wishes to invade the human world with the Aen Elle, but that Eredin had some personal business with Geralt. If I remember right, Eredin told Geralt in TW1 that he was his greatest champion and he even questions Geralts decisions through the whole game. In TW2 we know that Eredin took Yennefer and Geralt sacrificed himself for her, and traded his soul for hers.

The whole "trading his soul" is also nowhere mentioned in the plot of TW3. Why his soul? How can Eredin even get Geralts "soul"? Why was it important for Eredin to get his soul, and why did Eredin trade Yennefer for Geralt? What did he even want from Geralt PERSONALLY. I feel that many questions are still not answered in TW3 and there are a lot of very interesting questions about Geralts and Eredins relationship. Not only Geralts time with the Hunt stays in the dark but the whole relationship between Geralt and Eredin. There is surely some personal interest for Geralt. Eredin does all this stuff for his homeworld but they developed a personal rivalry that just isn't explained even if it is hinted through the story of The Witcher 2.

The answer is simple: too complicated. If you mention the time that Geralt spent as a rider, you must explain what happened at the end of the books, explain where Ciri went with Geralt and Yennefer and, also, what happened after that: the attack of the Wild Hund, the kidnape of Yennefer, Geralt pursuing the Wild Hunt, the fight alongside with the witchers of the Viper School, the exchange. All these was explained in TW2 which was a real RPG: well written story, deep and made it for adults.

This game was designed for teenagers so, in order to attract new players, every complex sidestory had to be cut to make it more simple. In fact, every point which made interesting the story of TW2 was cut: the scoia'tel, the politics (the good one) and, of course, the point you just mentioned. Which is the official excuse? TW3 it's a more personal story, it's about Ciri. You can believe it or not
 
Last edited:
and why did Eredin trade Yennefer for Geralt?

Because Ciri didn't caught into the trap, so Eredin wanted to try with Geralt.

---------- Updated at 08:50 PM ----------

I think the problem pertains to the fact that the writers tried to make the narrative in the third game all about Ciri, which would have been fine if she was the main character for W3 as well as the other two games. lol The writers show their intention clearly at the very end of the third game when Ciri says to Geralt, 'what would a witcher know about saving the world? This is my story'. If you consider the series as a whole, it's like the final chapter is confused, here you are playing for hours and hours as Geralt of Rivia (and in the first two games Ciri is barely a ghost of a figure) yet the third game is trying to say 'but this whole thing is about Ciri'. So I'm saying that the narrative does not quite match the main character you play as. It's like they needed a Witcher 2.5 to clear up the questions of the first two games, and to help the series transition more smoothly into the Ciri narrative.

The fact that you play as a character doesn't mean you are the protagonist of the story.
 
Top Bottom