Incline Witcher game series is one of the hallmarks of gaming

[DalekFlay]

You can't bash the Witcher games on story and writing. Especially 2 and 3. They are far above average in those areas. Even quest design itself is pretty good, it's just very hampered in 3 because of "go to marker" design, IMO.

 

[Lacrymas]

You kind of can, though.

 

[Necroscope]

You can't bash the Witcher games on story and writing. Especially 2 and 3. They are far above average in those areas.

The story is above average, but it annoys me how much it caters to the typical man child who thinks that the relationship between Geralt and Ciri is deep or whatever. Ciri is just a high heels wearing roastie who slays monsters, designed to be sexually attractive to fedoras, not some deep, Shakespearean character.

 

[Cat Dude]

Geralt is the opposite of the Nameless Hero, he's made to be as much of a badass as possible on every occasion and that makes him thoroughly uninteresting resulting in his journey not being something to cherish or take away from. I also hate his English voice.

Geralt is medieval Solid Snake. Everything he did has to look bad ass and cool.

 

[Cat Dude]

OP reminds me of someone who tried to convince everyone in the forum that Mass Effect 2 was a great rpg game.

 

[Lacrymas]

You can't bash the Witcher games on story and writing. Especially 2 and 3. They are far above average in those areas.

The story is above average, but it annoys me how much it caters to the typical man child who thinks that the relationship between Geralt and Ciri is deep or whatever. Ciri is just a high heels wearing roastie who slays monsters, designed to be sexually attractive to fedoras, not some deep, Shakespearean character.

Above average in the video gaming sphere, sure, but that's not saying much. Like you said, these still aren't Shakespearean characters who have internal, human struggles to overcome (or be doomed by) and to leave us a little better prepared for our own. They are indeed designed to appeal to the average person who plays this game (yes, a straight dude who isn't all that into games or literature) in the most basic and primal way possible. I'd say they have quite Mary Sue-ish characteristics. Why is Geralt a chick magnet who has conga lines of attractive women pining for his cock? I'd kinda feel insulted, if I cared enough, that the devs presume me to be so easily manipulated. The setting is kinda bland and a parody of medieval culture, Ciri is almost a non-character whose job is to be a Deus Ex Machina and a McGuffin at the same time, Geralt is a "badass" whose only characteristic is being portrayed as one and nothing else, the narrative doesn't really go anywhere and relies too much on emotional engagement (tm) and harem-style romance simulation.

What the Witcher is a hallmark of is sales numbers and we are going to be plagued by its design sensibilities for years to come. I fully expect BG3 to follow its formula.

 

[Carrion]

You can't bash the Witcher games on story and writing. Especially 2 and 3.

I think you definitely can, even though writing obviously is one of the best things about those games. TW2 has the best story in the series, but the storytelling is far from ideal and often gets in the way of gameplay. There are gigantic infodumps, important details that can only be found in the journal, cutscenes that take control away from you just to allow the plot to progress in a specific way, and so on. The whole narrative is a bit of a mess at times, and the game could do a better job at delivering exposition. TW3 is much better in this regard, but the main story kind of sucks, with nine tenths of the game consisting on what is essentially the first act of the story, and the rest feeling rushed and half-developed with cardboard cutout villains and a lackluster conclusion. The game also fucks up some of the world-building from the previous game, especially the political stuff. TW3 does feature some of the best dialogue seen in games, and there are many good stories in there, but the main story isn't one of them.

That's true, Geralt needs to lose from time to time and the loss should be reflected in the story, not necessarily be "game over". Maybe there is an important side quest with a time limit where the fate of a villager is at stake (such as the bailiff's daughter or something) but Geralt is kind of unprepared for it. If you win, the villagers help you later on but if you fail Geralt returns exhausted and the villagers start spitting on Geralt and beat him up. Failure should be part of the experience.

That's like witcher contract 101, something that's been there since the first chapter of TW1. Geralt makes wrong choices all the time, and people regularly get pissed and/or end up dying because of his actions. It's also something he reflects on all the time.

Above average in the video gaming sphere, sure, but that's not saying much. Like you said, these still aren't Shakespearean characters who have internal, human struggles to overcome (or be doomed by) and to leave us a little better prepared for our own. They are indeed designed to appeal to the average person who plays this game (yes, a straight dude who isn't all that into games or literature) in the most basic and primal way possible. I'd say they have quite Mary Sue-ish characteristics. Why is Geralt a chick magnet who has conga lines of attractive women pining for his cock? I'd kinda feel insulted, if I cared enough, that the devs presume me to be so easily manipulated. The setting is kinda bland and a parody of medieval culture, Ciri is almost a non-character whose job is to be a Deus Ex Machina and a McGuffin at the same time, Geralt is a "badass" whose only characteristic is being portrayed as one and nothing else, the narrative doesn't really go anywhere and relies too much on emotional engagement (tm) and harem-style romance simulation.

 

[OctavianRomulus]

Carrion

I mean Geralt should fail in a non-scripted way. Fail to rescue the farmer's daughter? You'll hear about that two chapters later. TW1 did this quite well but not TW3. I think Act 1 is one of the best questlines in the series because of that. It relies on the player's own investigative abilities instead of some convoluted and painfully slow "witcher senses"

 

[Lacrymas]

Geralt makes wrong choices all the time, and people regularly get pissed and/or end up dying because of his actions. It's also something he reflects on all the time.

But he and his portrayal don't change. These false choices he makes don't really affect him personally in any kind of meaningful way. Is Geralt a different character since his very first appearance in Twitcher 1 all the way to the end of 3? I wouldn't say so. Maybe he's a different flavor of badass in each game depending on who is writing him, but other than that, it's all piss in the wind. And as a whole, what is the Witcher series trying to "say"? What conclusion can we take away from it? Have a convenient daughter figure to save you from your problems?

I don't think Twitcher has a tight enough narrative and characters to even begin answering such a question, though.

 

[OctavianRomulus]

Geralt makes wrong choices all the time, and people regularly get pissed and/or end up dying because of his actions. It's also something he reflects on all the time.

But he and his portrayal don't change. These false choices he makes don't really affect him personally in any kind of meaningful way. Is Geralt a different character since his very first appearance in Twitcher 1 all the way to the end of 3? I wouldn't say so. Maybe he's a different flavor of badass in each game depending on who is writing him, but other than that, it's all piss in the wind. And as a whole, what is the Witcher series trying to "say"? What conclusion can we take away from it? Have a convenient daughter figure to save you from your problems?

I don't think Twitcher has a tight enough narrative and characters to even begin answering such a question, though.

And what's more, every Witcher game basically ignores your decisions in the previous game, almost acting like it never existed. Major characters are more or less forgotten. I don't think Henselt is mentioned more than once in TW3, even if you chose him over Saskia, who is also all but forgotten. AFAIK, both of their deaths are mentioned in codex entries, which is NOT a dignified way to end a character.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

So i am just curious on what makes you think the witcher is special, or is it because the first witcher was released in the midst of the decline era? i mean yea..... i guess back then i am sure it seemed like a huge achievement but that's a low bar to clear.

It's the total experience of the series. Starting from W1, completely bereft of your memories (which fits most players at that point being in the dark about Witcher lore), diving into into the world's politics and tracking down Salamandra, the Alvin plot-line, meeting your friends (Triss, Dandelion, Zoltan) and other Witchers from the Wolf school, then in W2, meeting most of those people again, and diving deeper into the politics and lore, and then in W3, meeting them all again, and completing the epic storylines, while experiencing real emotional pangs from the now familiar places and people. For example, when you go back to Kaer Morhen in W3, it's one of the great emotional sections of any RPG ever, and especially so if you played W1 before. Meeting up with Zoltan and Dandelion in W3 in that inn in Novigrad, having them crack jokes at each other and you, if you started with W3, that's just some good, funny writing, but if you had played W1 and W2 before, it feels like meeting up your RL friends again.

Whatever you want to say about Witcher gameplay (much of it justified), there has never been another RPG series that did stuff like this with this level of quality, and for that, this series ought to be played by anyone who plays RPGs, even edgelords like Lilura amnd mondblut.

 

[Valky]

This is practically the same as Fluent and Skyrim.

 

[Lacrymas]

Twitcher isn't an RPG though.

 

[DalekFlay]

Above average in the video gaming sphere, sure, but that's not saying much.

It's very rare I would compare video game writing to quality film/television writing. I recently mocked the idea of Red Dead Redemption 2 comparing at all to something like Unforgiven or Deadwood, which slap it around like a cheap whore. I guess the Witcher equivalent would be Game of Thrones, and does that have better writing in general? Of course it does. However we do have to remember they're very different mediums with very different goals and presentations. Witcher 3 has to tell a story, but it also has to be a video game first and foremost. On that basis and scale, I'd put its writing pretty high up for the medium.

 

[Lacrymas]

Game of Thrones, as in the TV show? Yeah, I'd compare Twitcher to it, but that also isn't a paragon of writing exactly.

 

[DalekFlay]

Games of Thrones, as in the TV show? Yeah, I'd compare Twitcher to it, but that also isn't a paragon of writing exactly.

If you say so.

 

[Alphard]

Above average in the video gaming sphere, sure, but that's not saying much.

It's very rare I would compare video game writing to quality film/television writing. I recently mocked the idea of Red Dead Redemption 2 comparing at all to something like Unforgiven or Deadwood, which slap it around like a cheap whore. I guess the Witcher equivalent would be Game of Thrones, and does that have better writing in general? Of course it does. However we do have to remember they're very different mediums with very different goals and presentations. Witcher 3 has to tell a story, but it also has to be a video game first and foremost. On that basis and scale, I'd put its writing pretty high up for the medium.

A game hasn't to tell a story, it has to make you live one. That's the purpose of gaming and what all cutscenes full games like witcher fail to accomplish

 

[DalekFlay]

A game hasn't to tell a story, it has to make you live one. That's the purpose of gaming and what all cutscenes full games like witcher fail to accomplish

I agree with that as a preference, and my favorite RPGs are ones like Fallout where they present a world and your blank slate character reacts to it. I think that's how RPGs work best, by far. However "cinematic action games" exist and can be enjoyable, there's room in the world for a lot of different experiences.

 

[JDR13]

A game hasn't to tell a story, it has to make you live one. That's the purpose of gaming and what all cutscenes full games like witcher fail to accomplish

Except that The Witcher isn't full of cutscenes. There aren't actually many cutscenes unless you're counting the cinematic camera style during dialogues as cutscenes.

 

[Lacrymas]

There isn't anything particularly wrong with having a fixed protagonist in a fixed story, but that makes it even more imperative to have compelling characters. None of the main characters in video game Twitcher verse is compelling, however, they're either hot women pining for Geralt or Geralt himself, who is one-dimensional. If we didn't play as him or any kind of famous person in this setting, trying to make a name for ourselves while maneuvering around the politics and the scary monsters, it would've been way more fitting and engaging. (also TB party-based)

 

[mondblut]

It's the total experience of the series. Starting from W1, completely bereft of your memories (which fits most players at that point being in the dark about Witcher lore), diving into into the world's politics and tracking down Salamandra, the Alvin plot-line, meeting your friends (Triss, Dandelion, Zoltan) and other Witchers from the Wolf school, then in W2, meeting most of those people again, and diving deeper into the politics and lore, and then in W3, meeting them all again, and completing the epic storylines, while experiencing real emotional pangs from the now familiar places and people. For example, when you go back to Kaer Morhen in W3, it's one of the great emotional sections of any RPG ever, and especially so if you played W1 before. Meeting up with Zoltan and Dandelion in W3 in that inn in Novigrad, having them crack jokes at each other and you, if you started with W3, that's just some good, funny writing, but if you had played W1 and W2 before, it feels like meeting up your RL friends again.

Whatever you want to say about Witcher gameplay (much of it justified), there has never been another RPG series that did stuff like this with this level of quality, and for that, this series ought to be played by anyone who plays RPGs, even edgelords like Lilura amnd mondblut.

Do not mention my name in vain, dorky.

If encountering old NPCs makes your vagina tingle, be a man and play Ultima.

 

[Serus]

A game hasn't to tell a story, it has to make you live one. That's the purpose of gaming and what all cutscenes full games like witcher fail to accomplish

The purpose of gaming is to play a game and overcome challenges offered by its gameplay. The role isn't neither to tell a story nor make live one. It's at best a very secondary role and at worse no role at all. There are games or whole genres with no story at all. What you both say is the role of games is in fact the role of books and movies.

 

[Alphard]

A game hasn't to tell a story, it has to make you live one. That's the purpose of gaming and what all cutscenes full games like witcher fail to accomplish

The purpose of gaming is to play a game and overcome challenges offered by its gameplay. The role isn't neither to tell a story nor make live one. It's at best a very secondary role and at worse no role at all. There are games or whole genres with no story at all. What you both say is the role of games is in fact the role of books and movies.

Yes ofc i agree with you on primary role of vg.
I was talking about narrative component.
If you want to tell a story, make the player immersed in it THROUGH GAMEPLAY. there is noting that break immersion as cutscenes

 

[Necroscope]

There's no such thing as the purpose of gaming. In order for a game to be called a game it must offer a non-specified level of interactivity. Some may say that a game needs to have rules, which seems only logical, but there we have games like "Layers of Fear", which has no rules and focuses on environmental storytelling and creating certain atmosphere. One can argue that it shouldn't be called a game or that it's an exception, but then there are porn games that also have little (if any) rules to them and their main purpose is to sexually excite.

I'd say that the enjoyment of playing by a good set of rules is as valid purpose for a game's existence as the enjoyment of unfolding its story in the same way. It's just that there are not many games with a really good story and not many games that focuses on storytelling.

 

[Hobo Elf]

Meh.