Twitcher 3 is very far from the best written game ever

[makiavelli747]

You can't prove to retarded teens their fav game has shit writing.

 

[Divine Blessing]

at least Witchers r the best story Mel Gibson has ever written...

(but for a man who knows what women think, he is somewhat desperatly trying to be funny... maybe cuz he knows what women think)

 

[roll-a-die]

You can't prove to retarded teens their fav game has shit writing.

You can't prove to retarded edgelord 20 somethings that their opinions are unfounded either.

 

[bminorkey]

It doesn't have amazing writing, but you know what it does have? Consistency. Across a ton of content. In an open world game.

How many games can say the same?

 

[Endemic]

The Nilfgaardian garrison commander in White Orchard, and the two (formerly) opposing soldiers in the shack in Velen come to mind as non-grimdark examples, in addition to what's been said already.

There's been plenty of criticism here about the dumbing down of Radovid's character and the Novigrad branch of the Witch Hunters. However that doesn't extend to the entire game. Even the Crones live up to their bargain with the villagers, and the Baron's quest can have a very uplifting ending if you choose to save the Botchling.

I guess the Witcher setting as a whole is "edgy grimdark" due how to Sapowski wrote it in the first place, so if you can't get over the setting then these details will pass you by.

 

[Lhynn]

I dont think anyone with a brain has implied witcher 3 is the best written game ever. Witcher 3 has some of the best lines ever written tho, and some of the best characterizations ever put in a game.
But youd have to be insane to believe that a game this size could ever have a consistent level of quality through.

 

[Neanderthal]

Witcher 3 is best butthurt generator o AAA ARPGs.

 

[Ivan]

I agree, Witcher 3 is very far and away the best written game ever

 

[Lithium Flower]

Spoilers throughout:

Witcher is not an edgy grimdark setting. It portrays despair and hope without being biased towards either, which is rarely done well and for that alone I can appreciate it. The best example of this is in the bittersweet ending. The war between two shitty states has ended, one of the shitty sides has won. Geralt returns to the village from the prologue that is currently being sacked. A crier announces religiously motivated purgings of herbalists and apothecaries. Soldiers slaughter men and rape women left and right. The fields of white orchard you once passed through are now burning and full of mass graves. Pretty grimdark edgy there, right?

Except on the way there, Geralt passes a trio of peasants trying to get an abandoned cart of supplies out of the ditch. Accepting his offer to assist them, they tell him how they must find ways to make a living even in these hard times, with smiles on their faces. Later, in the woods around White Orchard, Geralt saves a crew of dwarves, a jolly bunch that plan to make a living despite the war. This is a kind of humane realism: despite the great violence and destruction present in the history of mankind, there were always those who persevered, thanks to the tenacity of man. Thanks to this tenacity we are here, now. And one can try to carve out a meaning and a life for themselves even in the harshest conditions. I think that is a very powerful, anti-nihilist message - definitely not edgy grimdark.

This tone is present throughout the game. Ciri and Geralt get drunk or play around in the snow after Vesemir dies. In the Kaer Morhen chapter, one of the more ominous and urgent parts of the game, Geralt repeatedly gets drunk and spends time with his old friends. Heart of Stone, a depressing story all around, may culminate in Olivier being saved from the clutches of the Devil Cthulhu and free to become a new man. In short, this game is as much grimdark as Crime & Punishment is pessimistic literature - sure, both have those things in them as elements of the whole, as opposed to the underlying message, which is anything but that.

I can't speak to the books as I've only read a little, but the impression I got from them is that those are more or less satire of Western fairy tales, but I could be wrong. Definitely not grimdark, though.

Radovid:
I never really agreed with people who said that Radovid was dumbed down compared to the way he was portrayed in the previous games. Radovid isn't mad (or at least he isn't entirely mad), he is a ruthless monarch. Radovid isn't spreading religion because he is a mad fanatic, he is doing so because he is trying to consolidate power. He is facing the same problem as Vladimir the Great once did: his Northerner people are a bunch that hates each other, due to centuries of Redania vs Temeria vs Kaedwen vs Aedirn conflict. Their shared identity as "northerners" is clearly not enough to hold them together, just like the slavic ethnicity of the slavic tribes was not enough to act as glue. These people could only unite under against a greater, even more foreign threat (like Skelligers or Nilfgaardians) or through religion. As the former was eventually going to be dealt with, the latter must be established.

Said ruthlessness has been present since W1. Are you telling me that staying in a foreign country's capital city incognito and cooperating with a local cult/drug network wasn't ruthless as fuck, and didn't suggest any kind of mental disturbance? Arguably, this was more stupid and ruthless than anything he does in W3. In W2, are we not meant to feel uneasy to see that he has turned the Knights of the Flaming Rose into his own personal army? You know, the main antagonists of the first game?

Djikstra is actually a great foil to Radovid's character. If Radovid is a ruthless conservative theocrat, Djikstra is a ruthless reformer (not one above realpolitik, mind you). Their differences are perfectly explained when Djikstra complaints to Geralt about how Radovid has trampled all over his administration's social and economic reforms in order to consolidate his power over the North and, by extension, Redania.

Where Witcher 3's vanilla game dropped the ball is because the writes seemingly forgot everything about the OotFR. Thankfully their story was wrapped up in Heart of Stone.

Anyway, the Witcher is a frustrating series because every game has been a consistent upgrade in writing and a downgrade in gameplay. The former is good enough to carry it IMO. I still remember minor characters from my playthrough from a year ago.

 

[Quillon]

https://youtu.be/UIuC_grsFb8?t=168

 

[Endemic]

I was referring to Radovid in 2 vs 3. Also his actual dialogue lines are terrible (like when he's playing with the chess set).

 

[Lithium Flower]

I was referring to Radovid in 2 vs 3. Also his actual dialogue lines are terrible (like when he's playing with the chess set).

I don't know, Radovid seemed really weary in 2 to me. A believable state for a mental breakdown, I think. If anything, him in W3 is a lot closer to his outrageous behavior in the first game, whereas in the second he is the most "different."

I totally agree with you on the chess thing, though. It was a really stupid, in-your-face "I'm a psycopath dictator who sees life as a chess game, look how crazy I am" moment.

 

[Quillon]

I totally agree with you on the chess thing, though. It was a really stupid, in-your-face "I'm a psycopath dictator who sees life as a chess game, look how crazy I am" moment.

Well, apparently people didn't like W2 politics(fucking people) so they decided to make da personal story, where in the end we're told its not even our/geralt's story, haha, which lead the politics being how it is, afterthought.

 

[TheChickenKing]

Anyway, the Witcher is a frustrating series because every game has been a consistent upgrade in writing and a downgrade in gameplay.

I'd largely agree with the majority of your statements except for this last assertion. I wouldn't say that W2 or 3 are any sort of revolution regarding ARPG gameplay concepts, but I've never understood any love for the gameplay in W1. Combat revolves around clicking rhythmically for the vast majority of the game, with alchemy and signs barely contributing to the gameplay in a meaningful sense even on Hard. Only a few potions are useful throughout the game, and encounters rarely encourage more than choosing the blatantly obvious sword style and then clicking on your opponent until he/she/it dies. I wouldn't say the sequels are universal improvements. I've bored my IRL friends for hours ranting about W3's leveling and itemization. But even with that in mind, I didn't find them as painfully, mindbogglingly tedious as I did W1's core gameplay loop.

 

[Glaucon]

You also do realize a lot of people genuinely are unlikable, cruel cunts too right, specially in the time period from which Twitcher 3 takes inspiration from.

This is the sort of childish interpretation of history which is implied in "grimdark"--and you're completely missing the point. Yes people are often terrible. Maybe this is more true of the pre-scientific-democratic past.

But why is everyone a bastard in a grimdark medieval-esque setting? Every knight is dishonorable and feigns honor. Every lady is miserable, a cunt, or a miserable cunt. Kings are as a rule tyrannical. Machiavellianism is the norm, as is a sort of rote cynicism that is supposed to seem sophisticated. Characters, particularly powerful ones have absolutely no moral compass. They rarely try to rationalize what they do--and if they do of course we have the quick witted jester/rogue/witcher who sees through all pretensions there to point it out. It's all Catcher in the Rye in chainmail. Only completely juvenile minds can think any of this is profound, or even realistic. And, of course, there are the ever-present downtrodden peasants. In short, everyone and everything is cruel or pathetic or cynical. Do you need to have some sort of nostalgic vision of medieval europe to find all this tiresome and unconvincing?

So my main problem with the witcher's writing--and really it's a problem I have with historical fiction and history based fantasy in general (though not necessarily having to do with grimdarkness)--is the utter inability for writers to really transport themselves out of the mindset of the modern world and consequently to default to some shallow stereotype of whatever era they're writing about. Worst still is the tendency to import modern concerns/values into a setting in which they are irrelevant.

Here's an example from the first few hours of the witcher 3 (I couldnt finish the game): A prince kills himself after his father discovers he's been having a romance with a male peasant (a hunter from the village or something). I suppose I wasn't entirely correct. There is such a thing as love--or generally positive human relations--in the witcher, but only between the outcasts of society. I couldn't care less about fags, but the sentimentality of it all in contrast to the general cynicism of the game was truly unbearable. Also, shit combat.

 

[Endemic]

I don't know, Radovid seemed really weary in 2 to me. A believable state for a mental breakdown, I think. If anything, him in W3 is a lot closer to his outrageous behavior in the first game, whereas in the second he is the most "different."

Putting out Philippa's eyes is one thing - she did screw with him as a regent (possibly killing his father), lead a conspiracy to assassinate Demavend, then tried to create a Lodge puppet state in Aedirn. Going after everyone even slightly smelling of magic or alchemy is a huge leap from that.

I'm aware of the massacre at Loc Muinne, it's not entirely one-sided as fights break out between all of the factions camped there after Sile sets the dragon on the meeting. It's also heavily mitigated if Triss testifies against the Lodge.

 

[Mustawd]

I don't work with favorites, so "best written game ever" is a vapid statement.

Saying "I don't do favorites" is such a cop out. Obviously, we're asking for examples of good writing in vidya. Not ur personal top 10 or whatever.

I dislike the IE games due to RTwP, but I can say that they are the best produced DnD games ever made, and that's why they're so beloved. Saying "I don't do favorites" smacks of "I don't know what I'm talking about".

 

[Lacrymas]

Saying "I don't do favorites" is such a cop out. Obviously, we're asking for examples of good writing in vidya. Not ur personal top 10 or whatever.

I dislike the IE games due to RTwP, but I can say that they are the best produced DnD games ever made, and that's why they're so beloved. Saying "I don't do favorites" smacks of "I don't know what I'm talking about".

No, it doesn't. Having favorites is when you don't know what you are talking about. Every good piece in any medium is different and worthy of being consumed and understood, singling out any of them is pointless. Not liking something good is your problem, not the game/book/movie/music's.

 

[Lurker King]

Lacrymas, don’t waste your breath engaging with every retarded person on this forum. People here praise this awful game because they are polac, popamoles or both. So either you are debating with a nationalist or with a gullible individual with misguided criteria. Good luck with that.

 

[Mustawd]

I've never played Witcher 3, but I am interested in true thoughts and analysis on game writing and what makes it good or bad. It's just annoying to see Lacrymas always talking shit about game writing and never providing anything worth discussing.

 

[Lurker King]

What's your best written vidya?

The standards for good writing in cRPGs include Fallout, Fallout 2, Fallout: New Vegas, Arcanum, Planescape: Torment, Prelude to Darkness, King of the Dragon Pass, Darklands, Never Winter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer and Age of Decadence. Age of Decadence is on a league of its own.

 

[Ludo Lense]

I've never played Witcher 3, but I am interested in true thoughts and analysis on game writing and what makes it good or bad. It's just annoying to see Lacrymas always talking shit about game writing and never providing anything worth discussing.

People talk like people and that is pretty rave given Bioware Cringe is the standard but If you look at the narrative flow divorced of characterization you see it is a pretty badly written plot.

However, my personal biggest issue with the writing is the lack of thematic depth. It feels like a random of string of varying quality short stories.

Hots fixes this, B&W messes it up again.

That's the short of it.

 

[Lacrymas]

I've never played Witcher 3, but I am interested in true thoughts and analysis on game writing and what makes it good or bad. It's just annoying to see Lacrymas always talking shit about game writing and never providing anything worth discussing.

I have always provided discussion material (and it always devolves into meaningless jabber and "retadred" "ratings"), I haven't been active here because this isn't my thread, my post got hijacked to make it. I can't provide many solid examples because I couldn't finish TW3, it was utterly trite and boring from every perspective. I can go on about Geralt being a pussy and a Mary Sue; Ciri being a Mary Sue, deus ex machina and a McGuffin at the same time (triple treat); the setting being utter vapid nonsense (and cliche to boot) and written by someone who doesn't understand medieval culture; the narrative not going anywhere and relying on cheap appeal to emotions to engage; all the other criticisms by others in this thread etc. ad infinitum, but what would that accomplish? More fanboys stroking their cocks on their own preferences and lack of reference material (just like GoT fanboys, that's why I gave it as an example), one of the reasons I said I didn't want to engage in this conversation and not wanting to explain anything.

 

[Lurker King]

I think this discussion about good writing in cRPGs is misguided, because in order to have good writing we need more than good lines, we need a theme and a story perfectly integrated with gameplay. cRPGs aren't books, they are games that were meant to be played. FOs, PS:T and AoD are good examples of this. TWs, on the other hand, are triple-A games with popamole gameplay. You could just as well be playing Oblivion, because it would feel the same: huge worlds filled with nothing, hack and slash horrible combat, developers pandering to the player’s ego, etc. The game could have Shakespeare in it and wouldn’t still be relevant to this discussion, because the writing would be dissociated from the gameplay.

 

[Lithium Flower]

I wouldn't say that W2 or 3 are any sort of revolution regarding ARPG gameplay concepts, but I've never understood any love for the gameplay in W1.

I don't love W1s gameplay, rather I found it more tolerable than the combat in later games. I went somewhat in depth as to why I think so in the Witcher 1 thread here and here. I do fully acknowledge it can be more tedious than the action combat of later games, but it is not as broken IMO.

Also, you are forgetting that alchemy, perhaps the most interesting component of Witcher's gameplay, has been utterly gutted in every sequel.

You also do realize a lot of people genuinely are unlikable, cruel cunts too right, specially in the time period from which Twitcher 3 takes inspiration from.

This is the sort of childish interpretation of history which is implied in "grimdark"--and you're completely missing the point. Yes people are often terrible. Maybe this is more true of the pre-scientific-democratic past.

But why is everyone a bastard in a grimdark medieval-esque setting? Every knight is dishonorable and feigns honor. Every lady is miserable, a cunt, or a miserable cunt. Kings are as a rule tyrannical. Machiavellianism is the norm, as is a sort of rote cynicism that is supposed to seem sophisticated. Characters, particularly powerful ones have absolutely no moral compass. They rarely try to rationalize what they do--and if they do of course we have the quick witted jester/rogue/witcher who sees through all pretensions there to point it out.

There are plenty of characters that subvert every archetype you have outlined.

Siegfried is a perfectly honorable knight who is chivalric and faithful to his religion to a fault. Vernon Roche is motivated by his patriotism and a love for his country. The aforementioned garrison commander in White Orchard has no intention of pushing the conquered population too hard and shows great flexibility. There is even Toussaint, where knights still hold (with varying success) on to the Chivalric virtues, and Skellige, where folk are backwards but live according to their customs.

The antagonists, particularly the ones with power, absolutely try to rationalize what they are trying to do. The order grandmaster from W1 attempts to save humanity from a future destruction. The lodge of sorceresses in W2 want to create their own state, as they believe themselves to be more intelligent actors (they are not wrong) than non-magic and suffer persecution nearly everywhere. Radovid and Djikstra use ruthless means in order to unite the previously warring northern states, whereas the Nilfgaardians want to export their values to the northern savage with fire and sword.

Peasants are portrayed as downtrodden and oppressed (they weren't?), yes, but also as uneducated, stupid, hateful hordes. We've got three games where peasants have spat at, ridiculed, and even killed Geralt and his friends.

Here's an example from the first few hours of the witcher 3 (I couldnt finish the game): A prince kills himself after his father discovers he's been having a romance with a male peasant (a hunter from the village or something). I suppose I wasn't entirely correct. There is such a thing as love--or generally positive human relations--in the witcher, but only between the outcasts of society. I couldn't care less about fags, but the sentimentality of it all in contrast to the general cynicism of the game was truly unbearable.

You are ignoring the many instances of humanistic hope the series has become famous for, like the ones I outlined in the above post. Constant camaraderie between people of all walks of live, as exemplified by Geralt's hanse, ordinary people just trying to survive, the countless love stories big and small.

Putting out Philippa's eyes is one thing - she did screw with him as a regent (possibly killing his father), lead a conspiracy to assassinate Demavend, then tried to create a Lodge puppet state in Aedirn. Going after everyone even slightly smelling of magic or alchemy is a huge leap from that.

Purges are a convenient political tool. Assign a hated group as scapegoats, and not only do you draw the populace's ire away from you and towards them but you can also add a few political enemies to the list.