Witcher 3 has a limited replayability because....

[dixxn]

To each their own, I guess. I bought Skyrim last year on steam sale, and tried playing it for about an hour and quit, removed the game and haven't give it another try since then. For me personally, I could not play a game that grants me total freedom. I need something linear in a game to make me keep on playing it.

It's different with Fallout New Vegas, though. I love that game. I couldn't explain why, but that game just works for me personally.

As for TW3, I don't know how many playthroughs I'll have in the future (right now I'm on my second one, and maybe there'll be a third, just to see Letho), but I don't think I'll ever uninstall this game from my hard drive. I build an almost completely new system just for this game, and I'll be playing this game for a long long time. If not playthroughs, I might just mess around a bit and look at the beautiful sceneries, or just fight some monsters every once in a while.

 

[saladin1701]

It would have completely destroyed Witcher...

Why? It is exactly what we have now, it's just had half hearted implantation because whilst I have this sandbox to play in, there are no toys to play with.

 

[Sneky]

I agree that Witcher 1/2/3 has limited replayability. No character creation, no classes, limited character development, limited skills, Thankfully quests, writing, story telling and Geralt as main character make up for that... But im happy that this series is ended and with Cyberpunk 2077 we should get much better replayability and "role-playing" in general.

 

[floydryan]

Who cares about replayability if the games gives you 200+ hours quality content like no other game before? Sure you can play Skyrim for 200h again and again, but noting in this game matters, there are no choices, no diversity. I think Skyrim is very boring and generic after completing the main Quest lines, which can be done in ~30h.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Why? It is exactly what we have now, it's just had half hearted implantation because whilst I have this sandbox to play in, there are no toys to play with.

What you want is something that doesn't exist and will never exist. It's basically life 2.0 and not a game anymore. It's the opposite of focus and beyond all reasonable scope for a video game. Imo a "believable" open world is already completely out of scope for a video game and that won't ever change. The bigger the open world the less detailed it gets and the less "content/m²" it offers, just naturally. It's always a compromise. The game you want is just a mere dream and pushing for it might be cool in theory but in the end and unfocused apporach only leads to a game that lacks on many levels instead of concentrating on a few chosen strengths and building on them.

So no, TW3 is no "half-hearted" implementation. It's basically the best what you could get with such un unfocused approach. That's the maximum people are able to do with the limitations of the current (and most likely) future video game development circle.

Who cares about replayability if the games gives you 200+ hours quality content like no other game before? Sure you can play Skyrim for 200h again and again, but noting in this game matters, there are no choices, no diversity. I think Skyrim is very boring and generic after completing the main Quest lines, which can be done in ~30h.

200h +? Ahem, I've finished the game in less than 110 hours, did 99% of all quests and contracts and visited all important spots on the map. 100-120 hours is imo a reasonable timeframe for the game. Everything on top of that must include a lot of pointless walking around and pointless grinding imo. But I do agree that this is way more than enough for a video game with limited replayability. And eplayability isn't something I need, especially not in a story-driven game.

 

[FieryPhoenix7]

Apples and oranges. Witcher is not supposed to be like Skyrim.

 

[Scryar]

200h +? Ahem, I've finished the game in less than 110 hours, did 99% of all quests and contracts and visited all important spots on the map. 100-120 hours is imo a reasonable timeframe for the game. Everything on top of that must include a lot of pointless walking around and pointless grinding imo.

You can greatly exceed the time if you just immerse yourself in the world. For example listening to conversations between npcs. Many of them have interesting stories to tell and contribute to the world building. These stories can also change depending on the circumstances/day time
For example i stumbled into a house in Velen during a family's dinner and they spoke about the necessity to eat rats because otherwise they would starve.
There was also another house in White Orchard, completely unrelated to any story quest, with a shrine in it, which looked like the one in the crones basement.(just in small) The world is full of this kind of stuff, If you searcg for it you can easily spend 200+ hours.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

You can greatly exceed the time if you just immerse yourself in the world. For example listening to conversations between npcs. Many of them have interesting stories to tell and contribute to the world building. These stories can also change depending on the circumstances/day time
For example i stumbled into a house in Velen during a family's dinner and they speaked about the necessity to eat rats because otherwise they would starve.
There was also another house in White Orchard, completely unrelated to any story quest, with a shrine in it, which looked exactly like the one in the crones basement. The world is full of this kind of stuff, If you searcg for it you can easily spend 200+ hours.

Or I could stop wasting my time...

If I want to listen to people talking I watch a movie or listen to an audiobook.

 

[Scryar]

Or I could stop wasting my time...

If I want to listen to people talking I watch a movie or listen to an audiobook.

To each his own I guess.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

It's kind of sad how many resources they wasted for this kind of ambient dialogues while all of it could have been invested into the main story. Just think about all the voice acting...

 

[ColinJ89]

In Witcher 3 you start:
You are put on a rather small map which has limited number quests beside the main story. It's not possible to leave this map without completing the main quest. If you don't finish the main quest (and its connecting secondary quests), you are stuck on this map forever and no progress can be done.

If you're talking about White Orchard, the main quest there can be completed in literally 30 minutes or fewer, provided you skip dialogue. And if you're just trying to get to Velen, why wouldn't you? This is virtually no different than the 30 or so minutes it takes most non-speedrunners to generate a character and get through Helgen in Skyrim.

If you're talking about being confined to Velen/Novigrad, that's absolutely not true. You can get to Skellige as soon as you have 1,000 gold, which isn't hard. The only area closed off to you is Kaer Morhen, and since the base and Enhanced Wolf School diagrams are in Kaer Morhen, they're thinking about changing that. Which, let's be honest, they probably should. Confirmed that it doesn't break anything, you can travel there before Ugly Baby with console commands with no impact.

 

[Paprikamann]

It's kind of sad how many resources they wasted for this kind of ambient dialogues while all of it could have been invested into the main story. Just think about all the voice acting...

Such dialogues are needed to make the world feel alive. They wanted to create a believable and good open world and they did it very well.

I don't think they main story (act 3) did bad because of lack of resources. It was time (and/or design decision to focus on the open world). CDPR was quite economical in terms of finances etc. It wasn't lack of money that harmed the story.

 

[Scryar]

Such dialogues are needed to make the world feel alive. They wanted to create a believable and good open world and they did it very well.

I don't think they main story (act 3) did bad because of lack of resources. It was time (and/or design decision to focus on the open world). CDPR was quite economical in terms of finances etc. It wasn't lack of money that harmed the story.

i agree with that.
The pan lady in White Orchard has more dialogue than all Wild Hunt members combined. Ressources, priorities or money issues cant be the reason for that. It was a design choice. Don't ask me what they tried to achieve with it. I have no idea. Whatever it was, it didn't work for me and from my impression it didn't work for others as well.

 

[Paprikamann]

i agree with that.
The pan lady in White Orchard has more dialogue than all Wild Hunt members combined. Ressources, priorities or money issues cant be the reason for that. It was a design choice. Don't ask me what they tried to achieve with it. I have no idea. Whatever it was, it didn't work for me and from my impression it didn't work for others as well.

Apparently, the main story was not "high priority". What they tried to achieve with it? A good, believable and big open world. That worked fine. Open world games always have problems with their main story. I don't think CDPR really intended to neglect the main story. Maybe they just didn't see there were so many problems or they did, but ran out of time to fix it. A mix of both reasons seems plausible. I guess you have a different look at the story if you are it's author.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Such dialogues are needed to make the world feel alive. They wanted to create a believable and good open world and they did it very well.

I know that. Just another reason why open world sucks balls. Wasted resources everywhere.

They even pushed back their game several months. So lacking time for the story? Yeah, sure, whatever...

Anyway, back to topic.

 

[LadyStoneheart]

I didn't mind the ambient dialogues in passing but listening to them just highlighted how repetitive they are, that they don't reflect changes in the bigger game, and that too many of the NPCs looked the same.

Three main things that ended replayability for me - I didn't like playing as Ciri, the romance angle got on my nerves, and if I played again I'd either make the same choices or have to deliberately choose things I didn't want to do, which feels a bit weird.

I would happily sacrifice the romance and seeing Ciri (until Geralt does) if it meant more about The Wild Hunt, which felt totally wasted to me. I would have loved to know what happened when Geralt was a Red Rider, to even play as Geralt in that situation. I just wanted to experience them more, as the game's Big Bad.

 

[Scryar]

Apparently, the main story was not "high priority". What they tried to achieve with it? A good, believable and big open world. That worked fine. Open world games always have problems with their main story. I don't think CDPR really intended to neglect the main story. Maybe they just didn't see there were so many problems or they did, but ran out of time to fix it. A mix of both reasons seems plausible. I guess you have a different look at the story if you are it's author.

Fleshing out the open world doesn't mean they had to neglect the main story.
Quite the opposite. They could have enhanced the main story with the open world. Cave of Dreams for instance. It was only a sidequest, but the main villain appeared in it. It showed that Geralt's biggest fear is that Eredin catches Ciri. If they refuse to give the Wild Hunt a decent amount of characterization during the 40+ hours! of mainstory they could have implemented it into the open world in the form of sidequests for the people who want a more in depth look on the Hunt. They didn't do that, that's why I believe the lack of characterization of the Wild Hunt was a design choice. They wanted to make them mysterious and dangerous. That unkown power everybody is supposed to be afraid of.

 

[Mushashi7]

There is a story to be told

1. CDPR is tied to Geralt as the hero with a story to be told.
2. They made a compromise between Skyrim and the story to be told. You have a fairly open world to explore.


After visiting Vizima you can do what you like. Persue the main quest, a part of it or all the other quests. The only map you can't access before later on is Kaer Morhen. So,the first and last map is more or less closed for you.

But if you compare with Dragon Age Inquisition you must admit you have a great del more freedom? DAI is strictly story based, although they tried to make it look free with adding fetch quests. I haven't played a game in this genre with so many restrictions as DAI.

Skyrim is unique. I agree with you. Skyrim is also my preferred game in the sense of having freedom

I just think it's hard to create a completely non-linear game as long as you have a story to tell. Not impossible, but hard. And in some way there has to be a line you must follow if you want the story. If CDPR wanted to copy the non-linear world as we experience in Skyrim they would have done it. I think they made a pretty decent job in the compromise between story and freedom.

You can always argue about people pursuing the main quest. At least out of curiosity anyway.

Personally I didn't have a problem being tied to White Orchard. Not having access to Kaer Morhen was a bit of a disappoinment, I agree. Especially because you can't collect the armor sets you like before this point.

My guess is that you like complete freedom because you like to explore and level up your character before you go for the main plot? Am I right?

I love Skyrim too. It's a fantastic thing to feel you're trown into a world with absolute freedom to do what ever you like. Exploring and letting things evolve in a natural way is nice. I'm eager to see what the next sequel will offer us.

As for Witcher 3 there would be other ways to draw attention towards the main story. It's not hard. It's a matter of decission.

After leaving White Orchard you can choose to persue the main story or just wander about as you like. I did this. I love exploring. But that is not what Witcher 3 is meant for. It's a story. And the priority in a good story is that it is told well. There's no point in degrading a story by giving people the option to ignore it?

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Apparently, the main story was not "high priority".

I disagree. It was a top priority, but they, unfortunately, had a set deadline (05/19/2015) they couldn't move any further without alienating a lot of people, and they had a nasty asset leak. If you check leaked files, you'll see how much they changed or even removed from their original story. All of the changes concern mid-game/ending, with the very end, anything about the White Frost, simply absent completely, while even in a final version we got the beginning, up to Geralt finding Ciri, is developed rather well. TW3 would have clearly benefited from another 6 months delay.

 

[Guest 3847602]

I disagree. It was a top priority, but they, unfortunately, had a set deadline (05/19/2015) they couldn't move any further without alienating a lot of people, and they had a nasty asset leak. If you check leaked files, you'll see how much they changed or even removed from their original story. All of the changes concern mid-game/ending, with the very end, anything about the White Frost, simply absent completely, while even in a final version we got the beginning, up to Geralt finding Ciri, is developed rather well. TW3 would have clearly benefited by another 6 months delay.

Agreed. For me up until the Isle of Mists story was pretty nicely developed and paced. After that and especially after Imlerith fight the storytelling just took the nose dive. Entire 3rd act with Sunstone deus ex machina and Ciri fighting the White Frost with sword on her back is evidence of rushed writing. It's clear that after 2 delays CDPR simply had to meet May 19th deadline at all cost, and a lot of things had to be cut off. Shame, but thats reality of AAA game development.