[Spoilers] The dissapointing Witcher III.

[Razosh]

I decided to make a new topic for this, the main reason is the other one wasn't built to discuss spoilers but rather expectations of the game and as I want to speak really heavy spoilers people should know what to expect. If the story got spoiled remember it was in the title so you've got only yourself to blame.

So as you might have figured out from the title I find the Witcher III to be more than just a little disappointing. The reason for that is one of the main selling points of the trilogy is how much difference your choices make and quite frankly I find that to be rubbish. If we look at all the characters whom you can choose to kill of.

(Queen) Saskia: Neither Saskia nor Upper Aeidern are even mentioned. On a map we can see that this land has been conquered by Nilfgaard but no mentions of Saskia is made.

Síle de Tanserville: Síle dies in her cell 30 seconds after you meet her highly disappointing and her life has next to no impact on the third game.

King Henselt: If you spare Henselt you later find out that he was killed and his lands were conquered by Radovid so if you let him live or if you kill him has no impact on the story either.

Aryan La Valette: If you spare Aryan you will not have the chance to rescue his mother Mary Louisa La Valette. If she's still rotting in the dungeons however she manages to escape on her own once again removing the value from your choice.

Letho: I've played this game 5 times and I never spared Letho as I found him too boring, whereas he is a puppet Síle is a puppeteer hence I spared her and not him.

Iorveth: You get to decide whether to side with Iorveth or Roach and this is the most important decision in the second game as it decides how the rest of the game plays out yet Iorveth is not seen or heard from once.

In conclusion, my opinion is that the game does not deliver what it has promised and I bought this game expecting to see that choices mattered as was promised yet it was not delivered. What do you think of the Witcher III, are you as disappointed as I am?

 

[Mechmap]

Contrary to the rest of them, Letho, sparing Letho does actually give you an extra quest and oppertunity to see things through with him. I agree that its dissapointing that the rest of the characters are hardly mentioned, I especially wanted to see what happened to Saskia and Iorveth but im guessing they are fighting nilfgaard in a guerilla way like all the scoiatael does.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Well was this not obvious? I mean in a game which claim to fame is seeing blood splatter everywhere as you kill a gryphon you were expecting a story? People do not want stories anymore, if they did they would play JRPGs. Instead all they want is to be able to completely disregard wildlife and kill everything in the most inhumane ways, both animal and person alike. Think GTA, or TES, both allowed you to completely disregard any form of life without any consequences.

This is why I skip most WRPGs.

 

[Deleted member 212788]

I beg to differ.

Firstly, while the games do focus on gameplay and bloodshed more so than other titles, I'd like to remind that the games are meant to be realistic in depicting the time frame and I would agree that the representation is fairly accurate. During the XII century this form of behavior was not all that uncommon, quite the contrary, it was the standard. Minorities were oppressed, pyres burned in every town and witch hunts were essentially the same but instead of pursuing mages and alchemists, they went after anyone who dared defy what the church was preaching. As for a story, I found the one in the Witcher games to be very satisfying and interesting and while I do admit that the final battle with the Wild Hunt could have been better executed, I really enjoyed the ending and the world states that are possible depending on your actions.

Secondly, as for the repercussions of your actions in other games and the ones in the 3rd one itself, I personally found mine to actually bear fruit. Although I had to simulate a Witcher 2 save, I do know the story of the second game. To begin with, Letho, who I didn't kill, appeared and joined me to fight the Wild Hunt changing some aspects of the way the battle went. Moreover, Keira, who I persuaded to join us, saved one of the other witchers there during the battle which I would suppose changes the outcome of the battle. Also, because I didn't spare Aryan, I had to go through a different side quest to be able to obtain what I was searching for at the time. As for Saskia and Iorveth, CD projekt RED has said that some "sorely missed characters" would be making an appearance in the expansions which are yet to be released. Personally, I am more of a fan of Roche so I didn't mind not having the squirrels there but I did miss Saskia.

All in all, while I do admit that the choices made during the 2nd game should matter more, there is only so much that can be done before you end up developing several games based on 1 choice from a previous game. It all has to make sense and come together regardless of your choice. The thing I actually enjoy more is that the choices made during the 3rd game change how the story ends. You have 3 main endings and a decent amount of possible world states when the game ends. I am personally satisfied with the product and will probably be replaying more slowly to see all the side quests I skipped.

 

[Razosh]

Well was this not obvious?

From a company that promised that choices would make a difference i their games. No I'm just going to assume nothing that is said actually said...

I mean in a game which claim to fame is seeing blood splatter everywhere

And here I thought it was boobs.

as you kill a gryphon you were expecting a story?

Yes because expecting the leaders of nations and the most iconic characters of past games to appear is far fetched... Expecting to see the Queen of a group of freedom fighters and non-humans or at the very least hear one word uttered about her during a time of occupation and genocide seems as far fetched as expecting Thrall to appear in a Blizzard game.

People do not want stories anymore, if they did they would play JRPGs.

Right... because Bioware, Blizzard (maybe you've heard of them), Bethesda are all increadibly Japanese... the Witcher games also have a huge f-ing deal of story though I found this one to be disappointing.

Instead all they want is to be able to completely disregard wildlife and kill everything in the most inhumane ways, both animal and person alike.

So because something is violent the story is all of the sudden irrelevant? You don't think that the violence is to display human history. But I totally agree with you A Song of Fire and Ice is completely without story. What a crappy set of books it was just blank pages you could draw on... (Sarcasm.)

 

[Dr Super Good]

Firstly, while the games do focus on gameplay and bloodshed more so than other titles, I'd like to remind that the games are meant to be realistic in depicting the time frame and I would agree that the representation is fairly accurate. During the XII century this form of behavior was not all that uncommon, quite the contrary, it was the standard. Minorities were oppressed, pyres burned in every town and witch hunts were essentially the same but instead of pursuing mages and alchemists, they went after anyone who dared defy what the church was preaching. As for a story, I found the one in the Witcher games to be very satisfying and interesting and while I do admit that the final battle with the Wild Hunt could have been better executed, I really enjoyed the ending and the world states that are possible depending on your actions.

In a fantasy game one can chuck historic accuracy out the window. No one has ever been attacked by a Gryphon yet and even in the future will probably not.

From a company that promised that choices would make a difference i their games. No I'm just going to assume nothing that is said actually said...

EA used to make good games once. They still promise their games are good but that does not make them. Welcome to games tailored for the average and not for people who actually care about story complexity.

And here I thought it was boobs.

Most people have got bored of boobs by now. I mean every game has them now, be it Pokémon or StarCraft. A cigarette or cigar on the other hand, that is more rare at the moment.

Yes because expecting the leaders of nations and the most iconic characters of past games to appear is far fetched... Expecting to see the Queen of a group of freedom fighters and non-humans or at the very least hear one word uttered about her during a time of occupation and genocide seems as far fetched as expecting Thrall to appear in a Blizzard game.

She is old news, like Arthras the Lich King. No one expects to see him again seeing how he is meant to be utterly destroyed. Even if she was alive, most people probably have not played any prequel so do not care.

Right... because Bioware, Blizzard (maybe you've heard of them), Bethesda are all increadibly Japanese... the Witcher games also have a huge f-ing deal of story though I found this one to be disappointing.

I see you have no idea of good RPG stories. The fact you mentioned Blizzard proves this. Blizzard makes great RTS stories but their RPG ones are kind of rubbish. Look at how terrible WoW was, writing out everyone's favourite characters left, right and centre. Even Diablo is now a mess now, I mean you honestly expect me to believe that my Barbarian with >+60% movement speed and few second teleport home was too slow to stop Adria killing Leah? She was literally 10 seconds away at all times. No one plays them for story, but game play which is what they are good at and I do not deny that.

So because something is violent the story is all of the sudden irrelevant? You don't think that the violence is to display human history. But I totally agree with you A Song of Fire and Ice is completely without story. What a crappy set of books it was just blank pages you could draw on... (Sarcasm.)

No idea what Fire and Ice is but it certainly sounds bad. The problem is these stories are designed around violence since most people only care about it. The same story could be told with much less violence. I would not be surprised if the Witcher III story was written around the game engine to emphasize graphics and violence rather than around a proper story. That would explain all the points you are complaining about since in such a case they really would not care.

You must also remember that most of the money for the game was spent on the graphics and not the actual gameplay or the story. This is a repeat of Starwars Episode 1-3 (not original 1-3, the new 1-3) all over again but for the game industry.

This is why I respect many (not all) JRPGs for their story telling. Games like Xenoblades do have violent stories but the amount of blood you see is kept to a minimum, only for dramatic effect in various scenes and most combat features the opponent simply disappearing when defeated. Final Fantasy is a similar example where they have fantastically complex stories with death but mostly what the player sees is the defeated opponents simply disappearing with no blood. The key feature of such games is they focus on story and gameplay experience rather than graphics and selling to teenagers (who should technically be under-aged anyway but no one cares).

 

[Razosh]

If you don't think that anyone cares about the Witchers story how do you explain this?

Stuff

This video has 630 000+ views.

This one has 600 000+ views.

This one from 2 weeks ago already has 60 000+ views.

And these were only a few in the bunch. And please stop writing of your opinions as facts.

 

[saphiree]

I really enjoyed this game, although I have to agree to some of Razosh points about your choices in previous games not mattering enough. The story of the game is still very good though, and it is one of the best games I've played in a long time.

As for what DSG writes, it doesn't seem like you know a lot about the witcher universe, and I take it, you haven't played the game(s)?

In a fantasy game one can chuck historic accuracy out the window. No one has ever been attacked by a Gryphon yet and even in the future will probably not.

Totally agree on this one, although the game accurately depicts the books when it comes to voilence and sex. Which is really what matters.

No idea what Fire and Ice is

It's the books Game of Thrones is based on

I would not be surprised if the Witcher III story was written around the game engine to emphasize graphics and violence rather than around a proper story.

I've taken this quote from the red engine wiki to disprove this (hopefully):

REDengine improves significantly upon prior RPG game engines. REDengine allows video game developers to create a complex, nonlinear story line that previous game engines could not create except by constraining the game world. Prior to the creation of REDengine, RPG developers relied upon game engines which force trade-offs during development. With older game engines, developers could have created, on one hand, a vast open world at the expense of telling a simplified linear story or, on the other hand, a complex nonlinear story at the expense of creating a limited virtual world.

The first witcher game was based on the bioware engine (I think that is its name), which strongly emphasised role playing elements.

You must also remember that most of the money for the game was spent on the graphics and not the actual gameplay or the story.

Can you prove this?
Also, it makes sense if you think about it. You can only use so much money on the writing of the story, as you cannot have more than a certain amount of writers before it complicates things too much. So you simply reach a point where it would hurt the story of the game if you spent more money on hiring in writers.
As for them using the rest of the budget on graphics I don't really mind. It is a very pretty game, and the guys at CD Projekt RED are pc enthusiast, who like pushing current gen hardware to the limits. I really don't see how this is a bad thing.

It also looks like you really have something against violence and blood in games. It's your opinion, so I'm not going to argue against it, but I like the realism in it, and the violence makes it easier to relate to the universe and to some of the victims of said violence.