The Witcher The Witcher IV - The Ciri Saga Begins

[rusty_shackleford]

Infinitron when is the default troll avatar coming back, I hate these letter avatars

 

[cvv]

It's going to be a prequel, duh.

The widespread assumption and most likely scenario is you'd play as Ciri. It's an established character, a known entity, it'll sell. Plus she fits in the currentyear zeitgeist where a strong female character is the only permissible fixed protagonist in any major game.

The problem with that is Ciri-Witcher is only one of three possible endings in TW3. Meaning they'd have to make it cannonical, meaning displeasing nerds. More importantly tho you'd play in the same world again which, after 3 big games, could feel played out. Honestly, playing as a stronk wahmen character, worrying about the fates of Redania or Aedirn or the Empire once again would probably bore me to tears.

A much more exciting possibility is going back to the Conjunction of Spheres and the establishment of the Witcher order. That'd allow CDPR a much larger creative freedom, including character creation, origin stories, new stuff to explore, the option to play as a male Witcher and so on.

Meaning we'll almost definitely play as Ciri.

 

[copebot]

The way that CDPR creates these games, a player-defined character adds no value. Even in CP2077, you didn't really create a character. You chose between three character origins, none of which were that impactful. Witcher 2/3 was a lot better for just having a defined character. Witcher 2 showed the limitations of the conceit of the "choice and consequences" CRPG in that you have to create an entirely new game-act to facilitate serious plot branching. Compare that to tabletop in which, while branching imposes some more work load on the DM, it can be straightforwardly improvised or handled on the go. In high budget CRPGs it takes many millions of dollars to create segments of content that many people just won't see because the game isn't enjoyable to replay.

Computers are strong at simulating systems and depicting visuals, but they aren't very good at creating compelling plots on the fly. I'm not sure I'm interested in playing another "game" that's attached to dozens of hours of an animated visual novel. It's weird that this kind of design became so associated with the RPG, which at its foundation offloads a lot of work to procedural generation: encounter tables and systems of rules that make it easier for a human DM to entertain a small group of people. The genre turned into a type of extremely long film with pro forma gameplay elements. People used to make fun of Kojima for creating "games" that were really just movies, but at least those were over pretty quickly, were attached to good games, and didn't take a hundred hours. Kojima animations were at least entertaining, but watching people just dialogue about quests right in front of the main character for 20 hours+ is just not novel or interesting: it's a bad use of the player's time.

If it takes me about 6 hours to read a 300 page book, why is a "game" that consists mostly of mediocre gameplay and glacial plot progression worth the time of reading more than 12 books? Why is it worth 30-50 feature length movies? Or 100 hours playing a game that is fun to play as a game without the pretense of also being a CYOA novel?

 

[ChildInTime]

The widespread assumption and most likely scenario is you'd play as Ciri. It's an established character, a known entity, it'll sell. Plus she fits in the currentyear zeitgeist where a strong female character is the only permissible fixed protagonist in any major game.

The problem with that is Ciri-Witcher is only one of three possible endings in TW3. Meaning they'd have to make it cannonical, meaning displeasing nerds. More importantly tho you'd play in the same world again which, after 3 big games, could feel played out. Honestly, playing as a stronk wahmen character, worrying about the fates of Redania or Aedirn or the Empire once again would probably bore me to tears.

A much more exciting possibility is going back to the Conjunction of Spheres and the establishment of the Witcher order. That'd allow CDPR a much larger creative freedom, including character creation, origin stories, new stuff to explore, the option to play as a male Witcher and so on.

Meaning we'll almost definitely play as Ciri.

A better option would be to make the MC player created - make them a sorcerer/sorceress and you have everything you need for gameplay and story: magic (but not OP like with Ciri and her dimension hopping juice), can use swords like a witcher (though not as good as Geralt), can be male/female (or bodytyped as such, as is the trend in current year), can be it's own story without declaring any of the endings from the previous games canon. Though I guess they'll go for the lowest hanging fruit and use Ciri, yeah.

 

[cvv]

Computers are strong at simulating systems and depicting visuals, but they aren't very good at creating compelling plots on the fly. I'm not sure I'm interested in playing another "game" that's attached to dozens of hours of an animated visual novel. It's weird that this kind of design became so associated with the RPG, which at its foundation offloads a lot of work to procedural generation: encounter tables and systems of rules that make it easier for a human DM to entertain a small group of people. The genre turned into a type of extremely long film with pro forma gameplay elements. People used to make fun of Kojima for creating "games" that were really just movies, but at least those were over pretty quickly, were attached to good games, and didn't take a hundred hours. Kojima animations were at least entertaining, but watching people just dialogue about quests right in front of the main character for 20 hours+ is just not novel or interesting: it's a bad use of the player's time.

Mostly disagree. Games can tell good stories, just as books can, but most people want "choices & consequences" and you just can't tell a truly great story where the narrator has to constantly shift according to where the listeners move.

RPG plots are bad precisely because players want to make decisions, therefore the story can't be as thought out and controlled as a written novel or a movie. Then again I don't require a great plot from an RPG, a passable one is all I need. If I want a great plot I'd read LotR or Dune or Three Body Problem.

I need games to do what a book can never achieve - make me part of the world. I can read about Vizima and vampires and the Battle of Brenna and that's cool. But in a videogame I can walk the streets of Vizima, fight vampires and take part of famous battles. I can talk to the fucking Emperor.

Honestly if you see something like TW3 as "watching people dialogue about quests" then it's not a game for you and you'd be happier playing purely gameplay-oriented RPGs like Dark Souls or Path of Exile.

 

[copebot]

Mostly disagree. Games can tell good stories, just as books can, but most people want "choices & consequences" and you just can't tell a truly great story where the narrator has to constantly shift according to where the listeners move.

RPG plots are bad precisely because players want to make decisions, therefore the story can't be as thought out and controlled as a written novel or a movie. Then again I don't require a great plot from an RPG, a passable one is all I need. If I want a great plot I'd read LotR or Dune or Three Body Problem.

I need games to do what a book can never achieve - make me part of the world. I can read about Vizima and vampires and the Battle of Brenna and that's cool. But in a videogame I can walk the streets of Vizima, fight vampires and take part of famous battles. I can talk to the fucking Emperor.

Honestly if you see something like TW3 as "watching people dialogue about quests" then it's not a game for you and you'd be happier playing purely gameplay-oriented RPGs like Dark Souls or Path of Exile.

Yeah, games like DS, Nioh, (not POE bleh) etc. are just much better as computer games. I would strongly suggest just reading more books, because games will never be particularly good at telling stories. For me, the illusion that games could be a better kind of a storytelling has been dead for a while. The "make me part of the world" thing is a suspension of disbelief that I can't sustain. The game playing a short animation and audio queue because I picked option 2 instead of 3 doesn't make me "part of the world." Actually, I get to define my character in much more meaningful ways and how it interacts with the game world in a game like Nioh 2 than I can in a "choice and consequence" game that just plays different media clips based on my dialogue choice.

 

[cvv]

YThe "make me part of the world" thing is a suspension of disbelief that I can't sustain. The game playing a short animation and audio queue because I picked option 2 instead of 3 doesn't make me "part of the world."

I've described exactly how games can make you part of the world and it's got nothing to do with picking dialogue options.

 

[Blutwurstritter]

Thief 1/2 tell good stories and have good gameplay. Those qualities are not antagonistic.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

It's weird that this kind of design became so associated with the RPG, which at its foundation offloads a lot of work to procedural generation

It's not weird at all
PnP RPG's have always benefited from elaborate campgains - so it's not surprsing that computer rpg's would try emulate that
Specially when you consider that procedural generation in cRPG's generally can't reach the same quality of hand crafted content

I would strongly suggest just reading more books, because games will never be particularly good at telling stories.

Strongly disagree
Due to their nature games are much more dificult to write stories and can't rely on the same methods of traditional writers, yes
But that doesn't make the medium incapable of good storytelling - a false notion given the plenty evidence to the contrary
Just that stories in videogames have distinct strenghts (and weaknesses)

For example
The main idea of the Witcher books, is that people create their own monsters - not because they're "evil", but because of their character flaws or sometimes the fact they were on a unjust and complex situation
Yet none of the books (or shows) ever manage to execute that theme with the same excellence that the games did - particularly Witcher 1
You see the final boss of Witcher 1 is a madman - a monster if you will
And like I said in the theme of the Witcher is that people create their monsters
So who created the monster that is Jacques de Aldersberg?
Well the answer is you.
Yes, you the player throughout the game make choices that seem inconsequential, but actually mold into existance your greatest enemy
Oh and the game is subtle about this, in fact I wouldn't be surprised surprised that most people who played the game never picked up on this aspect
It's a tidbit of storytelling that really elevates the narrative and does so by making use of the unique nature of games - interactivity and reactivity
And no matter how much better written a book could have done this, the experience would never be as impactful and meaningful as it was in the game - because it would lack what made it great in the first place

The "make me part of the world" thing is a suspension of disbelief that I can't sustain.

Well that sucks for you I guess
But doesn't change the fact that this is a quality a that a game can possess in a way no other medium can
Hell, it's a major reason why Morrowind is such a holy cow in cRPG circles and generally considered a great fantasy setting

 

[Harthwain]

The widespread assumption and most likely scenario is you'd play as Ciri. It's an established character, a known entity, it'll sell. Plus she fits in the currentyear zeitgeist where a strong female character is the only permissible fixed protagonist in any major game.

[...]

A much more exciting possibility is going back to the Conjunction of Spheres and the establishment of the Witcher order. That'd allow CDPR a much larger creative freedom, including character creation, origin stories, new stuff to explore, the option to play as a male Witcher and so on.

Meaning we'll almost definitely play as Ciri.

I am not so sure this means Ciri.

She is supposed to be crazy strong, which doesn't really befit the power growth curve (although the same could be said for Geralt past TW1, so here is that) and the medallion indicates a new school, perhaps a witcher trainee from said school. Also, I don't think Ciri is liked just because she is a well-established character. It may seem like she would fit, because she is "a strong female character", but exactly the same can be said about any "strong female character". If anything my impression is most people find her boring.

So I think it's not that unlikely for CDPR to go CP77 again, in terms of character creation, and give people a choice between male and female witcher. The real strong point of the game could be the focus on monster hunting. And I mean the actual monster hunting, not the weak shit we had 'till now.

The way that CDPR creates these games, a player-defined character adds no value. Even in CP2077, you didn't really create a character. You chose between three character origins, none of which were that impactful. Witcher 2/3 was a lot better for just having a defined character. Witcher 2 showed the limitations of the conceit of the "choice and consequences" CRPG in that you have to create an entirely new game-act to facilitate serious plot branching. Compare that to tabletop in which, while branching imposes some more work load on the DM, it can be straightforwardly improvised or handled on the go. In high budget CRPGs it takes many millions of dollars to create segments of content that many people just won't see because the game isn't enjoyable to replay.

True. However, the main difference in a player-defined character would be in character's class. While the story may be roughly the same, as long as your class changes the gameplay (even if not the story), then it ought to be enough for people to be fine with it. Think Dark Messiah of Might & Magic - same character, but with different playstyles.

Computers are strong at simulating systems and depicting visuals, but they aren't very good at creating compelling plots on the fly. I'm not sure I'm interested in playing another "game" that's attached to dozens of hours of an animated visual novel. It's weird that this kind of design became so associated with the RPG, which at its foundation offloads a lot of work to procedural generation: encounter tables and systems of rules that make it easier for a human DM to entertain a small group of people. The genre turned into a type of extremely long film with pro forma gameplay elements. People used to make fun of Kojima for creating "games" that were really just movies, but at least those were over pretty quickly, were attached to good games, and didn't take a hundred hours. Kojima animations were at least entertaining, but watching people just dialogue about quests right in front of the main character for 20 hours+ is just not novel or interesting: it's a bad use of the player's time.

Is it though? While you're correct in saying that there is a lot of movie-ism in games (including Kojima games), I disagree that there is not value in it, nor that there is no game there to be had just because you have a lot of plot in a movie-like format. While I do agree that having a good game[play] is a must - like, it's the most basic requirement - I do recognize the value of a good story that pushes the player forward.

I mean, if we're taking a reductionist approach then WarCraft II was a string of unrelated missions done in the in-game mission editor, but the narrator did a really good job of tying them up together and giving them a bigger meaning.

 

[Riddler]

I'm not so sure we'll get to choose to be female. It adds a shit-ton of work for not much gain and when you have a fairly strong excuse to not include it (lore and game precedence) i think there is a good chance they are going to take it.

They do well with mostly predefined characters and just having a few different origins for the new Witcher seems more than enough and foe the woke people this means they can finally play a black or middle Eastern Witcher if they want.

If they are going to let us play a female witcher I would much prefer we only got to play female and they structured the game around that. A female Witcher would be a fairly big deal in universe and shouldn't be treated as a minor detail. The cat school getting their hands on an Ofir or Zerrakanian child doesn't really change anything.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

True. However, the main difference in a player-defined character would be in character's class. While the story may be roughly the same, as long as your class changes the gameplay (even if not the story), then it ought to be enough for people to be fine with it. Think Dark Messiah of Might & Magic - same character, but with different playstyles.

Rather than adopt a class-based system, which CDPR has never before utilized, characters could begin with identical abilities but become customized by the player via skill progression in distinct sword-fighting (or other physical) abilities, magical spell-casting abilities, and alchemical abilities. The Witcher prototype based on Geralt would be primarily fighting-based, with moderate magical and alchemical skills, but CDPR could invent some in-game justification for a character to focus primarily on spell-casting, more akin to the sorceresses and sorcerers of previous games, or to focus on alchemical abilities, which should be probably be revamped from the simple potion-guzzling of previous games.

 

[cvv]

True. However, the main difference in a player-defined character would be in character's class. While the story may be roughly the same, as long as your class changes the gameplay (even if not the story), then it ought to be enough for people to be fine with it. Think Dark Messiah of Might & Magic - same character, but with different playstyles.

Rather than adopt a class-based system, which CDPR has never before utilized, characters could begin with identical abilities but become customized by the player via skill progression in distinct sword-fighting (or other physical) abilities, magical spell-casting abilities, and alchemical abilities. The Witcher prototype based on Geralt would be primarily fighting-based, with moderate magical and alchemical skills, but CDPR could invent some in-game justification for a character to focus primarily on spell-casting, more akin to the sorceresses and sorcerers of previous games, or to focus on alchemical abilities, which should be probably be revamped from the simple potion-guzzling of previous games.

I've always liked the basic idea Dragon Age 1 came up with - the first few hours of the game are totally different based on the class you picked and then the different storylines converge into one. And apparently CDPR likes it too, seeing what they've done in CP77.

I'd love to see that done in Witcher 4 but on steroids, with shitloads of C&C, not the superficial, cosmetic garbage in CP77. You could choose:

1. The Witcher class - you start as a young boy, going through the trials, all the way to the age of 18, then you chase your first monster to Novigrad.
2. The Sorceress class - same thing, only you go through the brutal training in a sorceress academy, you fall in love, you elope to Novigrad with your lover where fucks you, cuts you, steals your money and runs.
3. Vampire - kewl no? You get woken up by the Unseen Elder and sent on a mission to do...something, I don't fucking know, I'm not a game writer ffs. Anyway, you end up...yes, in Novigrad.
4. Elf - you're young elf, you participate in your first raid against the humas coz we were kangz and sheeet and blam, you get captured and dragged to Novigrad.
5. Dwarf - You drink, fuck bearded whores, then your father sends you to sell some drugs in the Novigrad market.

And from Novigrad on the story is the same. But you frequently run into the other characters you haven't picked. Or something. I'm tired.

 

[CrunchyHemorrhoids]

You're going to play as a male witcher of the school of the cat with a pre-defined name & background and a customizable appearance. Playing as a cat school witcher instead of Geralt opens up the possibility of darker/evil moral choices and contracts on human beings. There will be handcrafted monster contracts same as before but also procedurally generated ones so that the player doesn't easily run out of witcher's work.

 

[jackofshadows]

I trust in CDPR storytellers so I don't care much about the premise, where it'll take place etc but to whom I don't trust are their game designers. I need to see the gameplay selling point first and foremost. A new approach to the signs would be nice at least and of course a brand new one on swordplay, too.

But it should be much more than just that. A proper roleplay system which actually matters outside of combat, sane gear/loot system and so on.

 

[Mikeal]

Hehe nope

 

[The Wall]

MEGA LOL
Only thing I expect from nu-CDPR is failure

 

[Infinitron]

 

[Chippy]

They should do what hasn't been done yet, but which these games and other have hinted at - make the hero the villian. I don't mean the actual villian, I mean the games/books have always said the people/government fear Witchers and Sorcerors. So why not do what's been hinted at and touched upon all this time, and have Geralt and the sorceresses hunted through a witch hunt?.

Do something about making Geralt immortal. Regis makes him a vampire if he's mortally wounded. Or some alchemical process. Because if I was Geralt, I'd want to have Triss or Yennefer in bed every night, and that's no good if he gets old. They wanted to retire and fuck every night, but they were too powerful for the political figures to let them live.

They could probably create a new character for a new generation. But that would be like replacing Bruce Wayne at this point.

 

[vortex]

They could probably create a new character for a new generation. But that would be like replacing Bruce Wayne at this point.

Judging what they did with CP, next Witcher game will have witcher/witcheress character creation and male/female voiceover so most likely brand new story.
But they have multiple games in the works so maybe one of them will be Geralt's final game.

 

[NecroLord]

"Telling emotional stories&creating worlds".
This is some Todd Howard level shit.
At least Todd is more slick.

 

[cvv]

"emotional stories".

Currentyear code for "characters are yelling and crying a lot".

 

[Fedora Master]

POLISH BIOWARE

 

[Mauman]

You're going to play as a male witcher of the school of the cat with a pre-defined name & background and a customizable appearance. Playing as a cat school witcher instead of Geralt opens up the possibility of darker/evil moral choices and contracts on human beings. There will be handcrafted monster contracts same as before but also procedurally generated ones so that the player doesn't easily run out of witcher's work.

Watch as CDPR uses the non-canon, not that great, and not that well known witcher role-playing system that allowed female cat witchers as an excuse to put female witchers in.

 

[Harthwain]

They could probably create a new character for a new generation. But that would be like replacing Bruce Wayne at this point.

There actually was a cartoon in which Robin is instructed by old Bruce Wayne how to be a Batman.