The Witcher 3: What Geralt Wants

[Ninety-Three]

Hm... It seems like you are just set against it from the start, at least I don't understand what would make you just dismiss it like that. It has one of the most deep and interesting characters you can find in a game of this type (I think, because I don't play too many games this long any more).

 

I wasn't set against it, and I don't understand what would make you say that. I had enjoyed other games in the genre and the only expectation I had was "This will be a fun videogаme". I played it and simply didn't enjoy it.

 

As for why I'd dismiss it: Nothing happened and no characters were established. I'm being glib, but only slightly.

 

Seven hours of game went as follows: Ciri is Geralt's daughter figure. Geralt durdles around in Whitefall killing random monsters until the person he's looking for shows up and finds him. They go to the King who tells him to find Ciri. He starts looking for Ciri, and his investigation is spent building big chains of dependencies: "A told me to do B for him which requires me to talk to unrelated C who told me to do unrelated D for him which requires me to talk to unrelated E who told me to do unrelated F...".

 

Almost nothing has happened, and the only characters that have been established (in the sense that I know anything about their personalities) are the Pellar who is insane, and the Nilfgaardian captain who is friendly until pushed. The only worldbuilding details that've been established are "There was a war that the Nilfgaardians won", and "Ciri is pursued by the Wild Hunt, who are ghost pirates." Compare that to the amount of worldbuilding and narrative that had been done by the seven-hour mark in Mass Effect, and you'll see why I said nothing happened.

 

The only times I felt like I had agency* were when the game offered me the choice of whether to reject or demand a reward, and whether or not to start a brawl with peasants. Both of those choices were undermined when the game later served up the exact same scenarios and cutscene-Geralt automatically took the opposite of the path I wanted.

 

*Technically I was also offered the choice between giving medicine to local resistance fighters, or turning the resistance in to the invading Russians, but the latter was an act of such pointless, puppy-kicking evil that it didn't even register as a choice to me.

[Cbirdsong]

He starts looking for Ciri, and his investigation is spent building big chains of dependencies: "A told me to do B for him which requires me to talk to unrelated C who told me to do unrelated D for him which requires me to talk to unrelated E who told me to do unrelated F...".

 

This happens to an even more absurd degree in the next section of the game. After the pellar's silly goat quest everything immediately begins winding back toward the baron, and things get interesting.

[Badfinger]

Agree with what Badfinger says.

 

I think the combat's fine, if not the deepest thing in the world...certainly not button mashy unless you're way overleveled. More importantly, if you don't like the writing and the worldbuilding, then the game just isn't for you. What I, and I think many other people love, is that game world is so well realized and populated with interesting, unique people that I want to learn about and interact with.

 

The roleplaying aspect of this game isn't so much deciding what type of person Geralt is, he's an existing character, not a fallout style blank slate...it's more about things like deciding what information to give people or picking when to be aggressive or back off and then dealing with the consequences of those choices.

 

All day I've been thinking about how important that aspect of The Witcher is to me. I am not Geralt. Geralt and this world exist outside of Witcher 3, and outside of 1 & 2 as well. It's kind of like being Batman, and kind of like being Nick Valentine. He knows emperors and kings and regents and sorceresses, but he also goes through towns and offers to kill monsters and heal people for money because that's his profession. He gets summoned by the Emperor because of who he is and what he does, and not because he's The Chosen One that The King Needs. In other words, you play as Geralt because he's interesting to be rather than because his anonymity allows for interesting things to happen. You view the world through Geralt's actions, but Ciri is the main character. You learn things that Geralt doesn't know about himself. He thinks he's an emotionless pillar of True Neutralness and (shh) he's totally not.

 

And the world sucks. It's a shitty place to be in and the consequences ripple out into the world. Sometimes your actions cause people to die. Sometimes your actions have no consequence and people die because there wasn't anything you could have done anyway, idiot. People hate Geralt. It's not because they're aligned against the faction you chose, it's because people are prejudiced against mutants. Then you act in their best interests anyway (or you don't!), because that's who Geralt is.

[Ninety-Three]

In other words, you play as Geralt because he's interesting to be rather than because his anonymity allows for interesting things to happen.

 

I disagree with this wholeheartedly. I played the game for seven hours and I could not tell you a single thing about Geralt's personality. Is he violent? Well the game let me work to avoid a bar brawl with peasants, then a cutscene railroaded me into escalating a different confrontation into a bar brawl. Is he greedy? Again, the game let me tell someone I needed no reward, then railroaded me into demanding a reward for doing something. Other than inconsistent characterizations regarding his level of violence and greed, I don't recall anything about his personality. I guess there's "dry sense of humour".

[Erkki]

He starts looking for Ciri, and his investigation is spent building big chains of dependencies: "A told me to do B for him which requires me to talk to unrelated C who told me to do unrelated D for him which requires me to talk to unrelated E who told me to do unrelated F...".

This is just how the game works, most of the time you're investigating something or the other and following clues.

I get what you are saying about nothing happening. There can be pretty long stretches when it's like this, but it's a 150 hour game.

[Badfinger]

I disagree with this wholeheartedly. I played the game for seven hours and I could not tell you a single thing about Geralt's personality. Is he violent? Well the game let me work to avoid a bar brawl with peasants, then a cutscene railroaded me into escalating a different confrontation into a bar brawl. Is he greedy? Again, the game let me tell someone I needed no reward, then railroaded me into demanding a reward for doing something. Other than inconsistent characterizations regarding his level of violence and greed, I don't recall anything about his personality. I guess there's "dry sense of humour".

What'd you do when you found out what riled up the gryphon? How'd you handle the pellar? Did you let the woman in the infirmary die in her sleep or did you try to save her at the cost of excruciating agony? How'd you handle the Dwarf's burnt forge? Those are all choices Geralt makes that define who he is. I don't understand the "nothing happens" comments people are making. Shit happens constantly in this game. They take quests and turn them on their heads. They play with expectations of outcomes. They use basic mechanics for interesting things.

 

From the point you're describing, so much stuff has already happened. You're either being willfully obtuse about it for the sake of argument or you're genuinely not seeing it. Either way, I'm sorry!

[Trip Hazard]

I was quite pleased when I found out that that woman had died. No, I'm not as callous as that sounds, but I thought it was neat how even though I had forgotten all about that quest, the game hadn't. That woman was still dying, still waiting for me to collect a cure for her, and I just never got around to it. So, she died.

[Professor Video Games]

Don't feel too bad...if you give her the witcher meds

you find out later she's basically braindead because of it. Oops!

 

Ninety-Three, I'm not sure what you mean by railroaded. Do you mean that despite your actions or choices, certain things still happen? Because that happens a lot in this game. Geralt isn't always in control of how things go down and doing what seems like the right or good action doesn't always have the intended consequences which I thinks makes things a lot more interesting, personally.

 

You're still very early on. You've basically just finished the tutorial zone (seven hours I know, but the game is very big). I'd say explore Velen some more and go a little deeper into the Bloody Baron questline and see if it clicks at all with you. If not, just chalk it up to the game's storytelling style not working for you and move on to something else.

[twmac]

Ninety-Three, it just sounds like the game is not going to click with you (although the Bloody Baron quest line is fascinating) so I would stop playing now before you plow even more hours into a game you don't like.

 

I think people have listed most of the reasons I enjoyed the game, the way the world feels alive and unpleasant was nailed through. Geraly is utterly a product of his environment where he doesn't trust a single person and has become so withdrawn due to the shitty way in which everyone treats him. He seems leaden but really it almost feels like PTSD.

 

The side missions thoroughly entertained me because of their writing, it is like getting insight into the world but it not being an info dump like Mass Effect, or a book in Skyrim.

 

Also, peppered throughout are some wry bit of humour that made me smile (sorry to link to Xbox.com):

 

https://account.xbox.com/en-gb/gameclip/915b4c61-0ff1-4977-8fbc-7f80d172998d?gamerTag=Twmacb&scid=de360100-3ae5-4fd5-a7da-9d3d6b481c3d

[Ninety-Three]

What'd you do when you found out what riled up the gryphon?

 

There was a choice? I didn't even notice that there was a choice to be made there, I just kept going and killed it, because as far as I could tell I still needed to kill it to get the information I was after.

 

The dwarf forge quest made me think "Hm, this guy's trying to bribe me. I could be an asshole and take the money, or I could turn him in, get paid better for doing that, and not pointlessly let an arsonist go free". I looked it up after the fact, and as I predicted, he tries to bribe you with the same amount of gold you'd get for turning him in, and turning him in nets more XP, plus a shop discount. I guess it was technically a choice, but it wasn't at all interesting because what the game mechanics wanted lined up perfectly with what obvious morality wanted.

 

I had the exact same problem with the quest to recover medicine: the option to turn the resistance in to the invading Russians seemed pointlessly evil, and I could tell it wouldn't offer me a better reward than letting him go free (I checked, it doesn't). Again, with the woman in the infirmary: I could walk away and let her die, or I could do a quest, get a reward, and maybe have her not die: That's not a moral conundrum, and it's not a mechanical conundrum.

 

I handled the pellar by quitting in disgust at the stupid padded-out questline. I was not having fun, and the game telling me to wander the woods and ring a bell until I found the right hotspot to trigger a goat sounded like the opposite of fun.

 

Ninety-Three, I'm not sure what you mean by railroaded. Do you mean that despite your actions or choices, certain things still happen?

 

By railroaded, I mean the game seized control of Geralt in a cutscene and made him do a significant thing that I didn't want him to do, and that he didn't need to do. In previous similar situations the game had given me control over that sort of decision, which made the cutscene decision more aggravating.

[sclpls]

I started playing this game again after having stepped away from it for a few months. This is a common thing for me with RPGs because I don't have the attention span to only play one game for 80 hours or whatever. Anyway, what typically happens is a realize I don't remember anything about the plot or how all the different systems work, and I give up in frustration. This time however I was pleasantly surprised to discover that it only took me a few minutes to get back up to speed. I think the game is just as complex as the Witcher 2, but the interface has enough improvements that it was easier for me to get back into things unlike the Witcher 2.

 

Anyway, I still love this game. I like that the conversations often involve people talking around an issue rather than expressing their feelings directly. That feels like a true to life quality that is often missing in game writing. I like the unpredictability of some of the "minor quest" storylines that expand into much crazier things. The game basically has one theme to it, which is that you go around different villages slaying monsters, but the real monster is man. But personally I can't get enough of it, works like a charm for me.

[Badfinger]

Ninety-Three you probably don't want to keep playing, because you just answered every question in exactly the same way - with what mechanical advantage it gave you. If all you're trying to do is game the rewards system to get an extra point in sword swinging, this is not that game.

 

OR, this might unlock your brain from being lockstep with More = Better Than -

 

As far as I can tell, when you finish the quest line that gives you a point of no return (which is NOT the end of the game), the game levels you up to pretty much level 30. If it's not specifically that, it's a LOT of experience. If you play the game in the role of Geralt it will reward you for being that person. The economy, as discussed in the last week, is also scaled properly so you don't just break it by looting every cave. There are only a few times where a specific amount of money matters.

 

It might also make you stop forever.

[Ninety-Three]

Ninety-Three you probably don't want to keep playing, because you just answered every question in exactly the same way - with what mechanical advantage it gave you. If all you're trying to do is game the rewards system to get an extra point in sword swinging, this is not that game.

 

My point wasn't about mechanical advantage, it was that the decisions had very obvious moral answers. That's an interesting dilemma to present when you have to weigh morality against your better interests "I could let this criminal go because I want the money more than I want justice", but with the way the game delivered mechanical rewards, it set morality in step with your better interests. "I could let this criminal go and get some money, or I could turn him in and get some money, justice, and a shop discount. Why was I considering letting him go again?". There is no reason, narrative or mechanical, for you to let the criminal go, unless you're playing the Chaotic Evil puppy-kicking sort of character.

[J.C.]

FWIW, a lot of these things come back later and differ based on your choices.

[Jutranjo]

My point wasn't about mechanical advantage, it was that the decisions had very obvious moral answers. That's an interesting dilemma to present when you have to weigh morality against your better interests "I could let this criminal go because I want the money more than I want justice", but with the way the game delivered mechanical rewards, it set morality in step with your better interests. "I could let this criminal go and get some money, or I could turn him in and get some money, justice, and a shop discount. Why was I considering letting him go again?". There is no reason, narrative or mechanical, for you to let the criminal go, unless you're playing the Chaotic Evil puppy-kicking sort of character.

 

The fact that you're literally helping to hang someone isn't at least somewhat problematic?

[prawks]

To those that didn't enjoy the combat, what difficulty setting were you playing on? I felt that once I turned the difficulty up the decisions around which signs and potions to use at what point and in different situations mattered much more and gave it some decent depth. It certainly can get difficult as fuck at points.

[Trip Hazard]

I'm playing it on Blood and Broken Bones, and the first few levels were pretty tough. I had to pick my battles, make use of explosive barrels and scenery to split groups up, and it was great. But now I'm about level 14 and it all seems to have become a lot easier, only large groups of foes give me any trouble at all, and I seldom use potions/oils (tho I will sometimes just to speed things up)

[Ninety-Three]

To those that didn't enjoy the combat, what difficulty setting were you playing on? I felt that once I turned the difficulty up the decisions around which signs and potions to use at what point and in different situations mattered much more and gave it some decent depth. It certainly can get difficult as fuck at points.

 

Max difficulty here. I think I used one potion throughout my entire playthrough, and that was an out-of-combat healing potion. The first area, I found the combat bland and a little difficult (it had that button-masher feel where taking some damage is basically inevitable, unless you use the cheesiest "one attack then retreat" strategy). By the time I got to the second area I still had starting gear, the only skills I had were "+10 healing out of combat" and "Spend adrenaline to cast", I had figured out how aggressive I had room to be, and I was finding it easy.

 

Even when I was beginning, solo fights were trivial, the only threat was getting surrounded, and a "fighting retreat" strategy worked pretty well to prevent that.

[Griddlelol]

My problem with the combat stems mostly from that it's either mind numbingly easy, or you get one shot, but the way to avoid that is the most boring tactic in the world (shield, attack, retreat ad nauseam).

 

This was mixing between highest and second highest difficulty. For the DLC I just put it on easy because I realised that the combat is the least interesting part of the game, so why even bother engaging with it? It's just such a shame that they make you fight so damn much, when the whole system is boring and completely lacks depth.

[brkl]

My brother bought this for me for Christmas. I'm feeling pretty dumb, but for the first time in years I'm having huge trouble controlling a pretty standard 3rd person 3D game. I've tried to play it a couple of times today and it actually makes me feel angry because I can't navigate the world with any grace. Did anyone else have these issues? Maybe my brain is deteriorating or something, because I played a chunk of Witcher 2 without too many problems. So far I've mostly tried it with a gamepad, I'll try the keyboard controls.

[Trip Hazard]

I had some trouble with the horse at first. Basically, if you're galloping down a road, don't interfere with the stick at all. If you come to an intersection, push slightly in the direction you want to go.

Also, there's an option to simplify movement, which I just now remembered about. Give that a go.

[miffy495]

I also got this for Christmas. Have put in 18 hours so far (just finished up the main story stuff in Velen). I'm playing entirely with an Xbone pad and find it mostly ok. The camera was REALLY sensitive at first, but after turning the right stick stuff down to minimum it controls like a normal game. I find that the game and I disagree about when I should be able to hit A to use something quite often though. Interface needs work. Really liking the game itself though.

[Griddlelol]

Roach hates bridges. Motherfucker will stop at EVERY goddamn bridge. Drives me nuts.

[brkl]

I guess I got used to it.

[Upthrust]

Maybe my favorite gaming-adjacent experience this year has been reading internet posts about a particular aspect of the romance subplots in this game. Specifically:

 

The number of people running into the "threesome" scene. If you have Geralt tell Yennefer and Triss that he loves them both, they will trick Geralt into a threesome where they tie him to a bed and leave him overnight. You completely miss out on part of Geralt's epilogue, because his two major romantic interests in the Witcher fiction both reject him. They don't do this until a dozen or so hours after you would have made the relevant decisions. I especially like that the relevant decision point isn't having sex with either of them (having sex with anything willing seems to be Geralt's SOP), but specifically having Geralt express his love to two different women who clearly resent that Geralt once had a relationship with the other.

 

I'm a little torn over the fact that the earlier Witcher games are probably partly responsible for teaching gamers that exploring a romance plot is consequence free (at least, that's the impression I got from all 6 hours of the first Witcher game I played) and you can go ahead and flirt with everyone on the Normandy without a single citation from Citadel HR. but it was nice to see a video game wiling to call the player out on some pretty questionable behavior.