The Witcher 3 Pre-Expansion Thread

[Carrion]

TW3 has the best-written dialogue in the series, but the actual story is by far the worst one, the themes are not explored as thoroughly as in the first game, and the characters are not as consistently good as in the second game. Velen is the high-point of the game's writing with a great storyline and some of the best-written characters in gaming, but neither Novigrad nor Skellige lives up to it. The main story is good until things actually start happening, after which it just somehow tries to scamble over the finishing line with an unimaginative plotline, very undeveloped main villains and some rather cheap punches to try to make the player more invested into what's happening. It kind of feels like they came up with the ending rather late in the development, weren't quite sure what it was that they were building up to, and the thing just feels rushed and unsatisfying compared to most other things in the game.

 

[DosBuster]

From my understanding, the story in Witcher 3 is in fact a direct lead off from the novel's story. That's the reason the main antagonist wasn't well developed in the game, it had already been done in the novels. It's the cost of ending Geralt's story since the Wild Hunt is still a very large loose thread, I suppose it'll come together better once all the Witcher books are translated.

 

[Paul_cz]

From my understanding, the story in Witcher 3 is in fact a direct lead off from the novel's story. That's the reason the main antagonist wasn't well developed in the game, it had already been done in the novels. It's the cost of ending Geralt's story since the Wild Hunt is still a very large loose thread, I suppose it'll come together better once all the Witcher books are translated.

That is correct. It directly finishes a plotline that was left completely unresolved and abandoned by Sapkowski, and as such I am glad CDP decided to finish it up.
Now yes, Eredin and Wild Hunt could have used more dialogue and exposition in the game, but yeah for me who knew them from the books, I didn't mind their sparseness. I understand the criticisms though.

It was still best written game since Torment and Bloodlines, mind.

 

[Carrion]

From my understanding, the story in Witcher 3 is in fact a direct lead off from the novel's story.

I have no issues with the premise, it's the way things are brought to a conclusion that is the problem, with a rushed pace and a rather lazily build endgame, the only twist being that

Spoiler

there is no twist.

That's the reason the main antagonist wasn't well developed in the game, it had already been done in the novels.

And in TW1, and in TW2, but it doesn't excuse his treatment in any way.

Spoiler

Eredin has about a dozen lines in the game, all of them one-liners. Ciri, Geralt and Yennefer have all dealt with him before, arguably some of the most important of those interactions being set between the books and the games, yet nothing is made of this fact. He's in reaility an elf from another world with very human-like goals, someone who's seen as an invader but who has very understandable reasons for doing what he does, yet he isn't even portrayed as a person. There's no way around the fact that he's a big evil guy in a skeleton suit and with a deep voice, and he stays like that all the way from the tutorial to his death. I'm guessing they wanted to make Eredin seem like a purely evil force of nature (think of Sauron), but it failed precisely because we already know who he is and that a lot of the "Wild Hunt" thing is merely smoke and mirrors. In TW1 The King of the Wild Hunt made only a couple of appearances but had a lot more dialogue and personality than the one in TW3: The Wild Hunt, even though the in-game Geralt knew next to nothing about him at that point.

Yennefer, Keira and Dijkstra were also well-established in the books, yet CDPR did an amazing job with them, portraying them as faithful to the books but also having a clear vision of their own about what they should be like. That only makes it stranger that Eredin is such a non-character considering that he's arguably the most important character of the bunch.

I think the real mistake was making the Wild Hunt the primary antagonists, really. Instead I would've liked to have seen them as a secondary thing, a threat that is always there and needs to be dealt with at some point (because of Geralt more than because of Ciri, simply because of the way they tie into Geralt's past that you spent two games trying to find out more about), with the main quest mostly revolving around the other powerful people that wanted Ciri for different purposes: Emhyr, Radovid, the Lodge, Avallac'h... and of course Geralt and Yennefer. In the books Ciri was The Chosen One on several levels, with everyone wanting a piece of her, yet the game all but ignores the political side and focuses almost entirely on the straightforward battle against the Hunt, more or less turning it into a simple battle of good versus evil and losing the personal nature of Geralt's journey in the process.

As a computer game story it isn't bad, but CDPR's standards should be higher considering how well they managed to conclude the stories in the first two games. The highlights of the story are more in the way that its told, the actions of the characters and the often brilliant interactions between them, rather than the plot which really isn't all that great.

 

[adddeed]

Bunch of storyfags here. Go read some books.

 

[Carrion]

Go read some books.

...and then get back to playing TW3 so that you'll know how the story ends?

 

[Joni Odin von Hassenstein]

Bunch of storyfags here. Go read some books.

Yeah sure.
If you're a mechanics fag just just play Lego.
And if you're an exploration fag go on a fucking hike!

 

[adddeed]

Most games have better mechanics than lego. And i cant really go out and explore a fantasy world full of adventure.

But i can very easily go and find thousands of books with much better writing and story than some polish potato game.

So try again.

 

[Lord Andre]

I don't know if the story is good or not (I only watched a couple of hours of a let's play), to me it seems like a twilight fanfic in disguise, but the rest? gameplay, mechanics, character system, monster design, loot, ui, mob placement etc.It's console popamole. Simple as that.

Now, if people want to larp Geralt fucking princesses and shit 'cause his deadpan Schwarzenegger one-liners are da bomb, go right ahead...but this ain't no RPG. It's just a console style, final fantasy 7 ripoff, action-adventure, cutscene ridden, special snowflake syndrome, good for what it is, skyrim/ass effect hybrid.

 

[cvv]

I don't know if the story is good or not (I only watched a couple of hours of a let's play), to me it seems like a twilight fanfic in disguise, but the rest? gameplay, mechanics, character system, monster design, loot, ui, mob placement etc.It's console popamole. Simple as that.

Dude why you insist making an ass of yourself? First you hate the story and writing but you haven't actually played the game. Or seen more than a few hours of it - on Youtube. Right. I don't even.

Plus NOBODY in this thread, far as I know, is claiming TW3's gameplay is particularly good. Some of us even claim is fucking awful. But it IS the best written game ever. If you can't square these two morself of info in your head then we're done here.

 

[Lord Andre]

I don't know if the story is good or not (I only watched a couple of hours of a let's play), to me it seems like a twilight fanfic in disguise, but the rest? gameplay, mechanics, character system, monster design, loot, ui, mob placement etc.It's console popamole. Simple as that.

Dude why you insist making an ass of yourself? First you hate the story and writing but you haven't actually played the game. Or seen more than a few hours of it - on Youtube. Right. I don't even.

Plus NOBODY in this thread, far as I know, is claiming TW3's gameplay is particularly good. Some of us even claim is fucking awful. But it IS the best written game ever. If you can't square these two morself of info in your head then we're done here.

I'm making an ass of myself because extreme fanboyism triggers me. Maybe the game has a good story if you're into the whole witcher saga thing but it's not everyone's cup of tea. I, for example, consider that Dragonfall was very well written (thinking of recent RPGs) but I would never claim it's the best written game ever. There is no such thing. It's not an exact science, it cannot be determined beyond doubt. So fuck your hyperbole, witcher is at best a well written game. Get over it. And not everyone(e.g. me) is into adolescent-level power fantasy crap.

Since you were going full fanboy retard, someone had to provide a counter opinion, this time it was me. And here it is: "Witcher 3 is a console popamole cutscene rollercoaster with a professionally written story. Tastes may vary on the latter. Stay tuned for CDProjekt Bro's next RPG with even shittier mechanics and no pre-written saga to canibalize the story from... 10/10 GOTY".

 

[Keppo]

TW3 has the best-written dialogue in the series, but the actual story is by far the worst one, the themes are not explored as thoroughly as in the first game, and the characters are not as consistently good as in the second game. Velen is the high-point of the game's writing with a great storyline and some of the best-written characters in gaming, but neither Novigrad nor Skellige lives up to it. The main story is good until things actually start happening, after which it just somehow tries to scamble over the finishing line with an unimaginative plotline, very undeveloped main villains and some rather cheap punches to try to make the player more invested into what's happening. It kind of feels like they came up with the ending rather late in the development, weren't quite sure what it was that they were building up to, and the thing just feels rushed and unsatisfying compared to most other things in the game.

The guy who was responsible for Witcher 2 story design Sebastian Stępien is working exclusively on Cyberpunk 2077 and he didnt done any work on Witcher 3. This is the reason why Witcher 3 main story line is lacking so much. And the funny thing is that they cut one full chapter/location in Witcher 2 "The Valley of the Flowers" and they also cut part of the Act 3 because they ran out of time.

 

[Beowulf]

I'm making an ass of myself because extreme fanboyism triggers me. Maybe the game has a good story if you're into the whole witcher saga thing but it's not everyone's cup of tea. I, for example, consider that Dragonfall was very well written (thinking of recent RPGs) but I would never claim it's the best written game ever. There is no such thing. It's not an exact science, it cannot be determined beyond doubt. So fuck your hyperbole, witcher is at best a well written game. Get over it. And not everyone(e.g. me) is into adolescent-level power fantasy crap.

Since you were going full fanboy retard, someone had to provide a counter opinion, this time it was me. And here it is: "Witcher 3 is a console popamole cutscene rollercoaster with a professionally written story. Tastes may vary on the latter. Stay tuned for CDProjekt Bro's next RPG with even shittier mechanics and no pre-written saga to canibalize the story from... 10/10 GOTY".

writing ≠ story

W3, when it shines, doesn't offend my intelligence, that's a big + in my book.
Other than that you are somewhat right - it's a popamole consloe port action game, but I don't get your crusade.

 

[Carrion]

The guy who was responsible for Witcher 2 story design Sebastian Stępien is working exclusively on Cyberpunk 2077 and he didnt done any work on Witcher 3. This is the reason why Witcher 3 main story line is lacking so much.

Yes, and it's even more clear in the politics of the game, which are pretty much as simple as you can get in that setting. Leaving the politics on the background and instead focusing on a few key characters is fine, but it's a bit disappointing what they did to Radovid, or how they ditched the "no good, no evil" thing of the past and gave such a big role to things like the witch hunters that had zero redeeming qualities and were just there to be hated.

good for what it is

Even a blind hen sometimes finds a grain of corn, even though in this case it's covered in the hen's own vomit. TW3 is what it is, and for the most part it does it pretty damn well. That's really all there is to it. Who fucking cares if it's an RPG or action-adventure, it's not like either of those terms is any indication of a game's quality.

 

[Eirikur]

Yes, and it's even more clear in the politics of the game, which are pretty much as simple as you can get in that setting. Leaving the politics on the background and instead focusing on a few key characters is fine, but it's a bit disappointing what they did to Radovid, or how they ditched the "no good, no evil" thing of the past and gave such a big role to things like the witch hunters that had zero redeeming qualities and were just there to be hated..

I mostly agree, though there were a few notable exceptions. In example, the witch hunter Graden and his men (who take care of the Bloody Baron's daughter, Tamara) are portrayed as being very honorable. I had thought that Graden would play a larger part (like Siegfried in W2); perhaps there was cut content.

Once you enter Novigrad it seems as though everything in regards to Witch Hunters and the Eternal Fire becomes very black/white.

 

[Carrion]

In example, the witch hunter Graden and his men (who take care of the Bloody Baron's daughter, Tamara) are portrayed as being very honorable. I had thought that Graden would play a larger part (like Siegfried in W2); perhaps there was cut content.

Spoiler

Yes, I thought he was a potentially good character, but in the end they didn't really give him enough screen time to have a real effect either way, especially since you probably see him before even reaching Novigrad. The game has a couple of other characters that are underused, like Tamara (encountering her somewhere in Novigrad might've been interesting and helped to make the Eternal Fire there seem a bit more than a bunch of sadist fanatics) and Morvran Voorhis, who seemed like he could play a bigger role later on, like Shilard in TW2, but ended up only making a couple of random appearances.

 

[abnaxus]

What happens with Skyrigge if Birna's son becomes King?

 

[Neanderthal]

He institutes a hereditary monarchy more like the continental ones, squashing any dissent from the jarls.

 

[Eirikur]

What happens with Skyrigge if Birna's son becomes King?

Svanrige becomes King if you decline to help Crach an Craite, and oddly enough he turns out to be the superior ruler (by most standards).

People are highly sceptical of him at first, as he appears to be a puppet to his mother (who wants an alliance with Nilfgaards), but then he surprises...



Based on his epilogue he rules more wisely than Hjalmer would (managing to unite the clans), and the Skelligers don't become toothless agrarians like they would under Cerys (who also failed to unite the clans).

 

[Deleted member 7219]

What happens with Skyrigge if Birna's son becomes King?

Svanrige becomes King if you decline to help Crach an Craite, and oddly enough he turns out to be the superior ruler (by most standards).

People are highly sceptical of him at first, as he appears to be a puppet to his mother (who wants an alliance with Nilfgaards), but then he surprises...



Based on his epilogue he rules more wisely than Hjalmer would (managing to unite the clans), and the Skelligers don't become toothless agrarians like they would under Cerys (who also failed to unite the clans).

Good stuff, I'll go that way next time instead of picking the woman. Helping to form a hereditary monarchy is my idea of a good time.

 

[Carrion]

Has anyone not done Triss' quest?

Spoiler

Will it prevent the persecution of nonhumans in Novigrad or lead to other consequences? I know it at least allows you to gain Zoltan's help in the prison break quest.

Another example is of course

Spoiler

the Radovid assassination quest, where the only choice to properly kick Nilfgaard's ass is to not do it. No chance to somehow warn Radovid about it, for example.

It's like the two "paths" you can take in the game are the completionist path and the not-giving-a-shit-about-anything-that-isn't-mandatory path. Skipping content just isn't a very appealing option or even an actual choice for the player in a game that is all about quests, and I wish some of those choices were incorporated into the quests themselves, like if you could get Svanrige on the throne by doing the Skellige quests in a certain way instead of having to skip them completely.

 

[Malpercio]

Man, the isle of mist segment sucked.

Now it's time for the suicide missions.

 

[TheHeroOfTime]

Man, the isle of mist segment sucked.

 

[Paul_cz]

Trying out Dragon Age Inquisition for the first time today drove home even harder just how far ahead of its competition CDP is when it comes to crafting worthwhile content.
Christ what a shitty game. If the fuckers at least put it on Steam and I had it there so I could get a refund. But nope, I have it on fucking Origin where refund period expired months ago.

 

[TheHeroOfTime]

Why the main narrative in the last third of the game is a bad hot mess

Spoiler

First, let's start with the basis for my assessment: I've played the game for about 120 hours and I did all the main quests, all the side quests and all the contracts. I explored almost every bit of the world, fought against every monster in the game, met all the more or less important characters. I've experienced two of the main endings as well, by changing some of my decisions in the game. So I'd say that I pretty much know of what I'm speaking which doesn't mean that I see my points as ultimate facts that cannot be denied but that my points are based on actual comprehensive first hand experience and the corresponding thought process.

Second, good things first: for most of the time, the game is pretty much awesome, almost perfect if you ask me. I've never seen a game world that seemed that alive and good looking and just believable in its own world rules and limitations. There are so much dynamic elements in this game, so much attention to detail, so many awesome, little moments in which you think "that's it". Other (partially) comparable games like Skyrim or Dragon Age Inquisition are one or two levels behind the immersion and believability this world offers. The narrative is naturally quite important for that feeling of immersion and believabilty, besides the more technical stuff like graphics, sound and animation. And for the biggest part, the writers did an awesome, even outstanding job. Especially many side quests and some of the monster contracts feel well written, well executed and mechanically diverse (in the limits of the genre) and satisfying, a combination which is quite rare in gaming. Based on world building, overall narrative approach (most of the time), atmosphere, technical aspects and basic gameplay alone, the game would surely deserve the highest ratings, I'd say even a 10/10 (especially when we look at the ratings other RPGs got in the past...)

There is a big BUT though: there is one specific element of the game that doesn't hold up to the rest of the game's mechanics and elements, namely the main narrative, especially in the later parts of the game and at the very end. While the game's main narrative is quite enjoyable, fascinating, entertaining and last but not least logical and well designed and staged it turns into a bad hot mess in the last third of the game. I will explain in the following parts why I think so and which elements contribute to that assessment. I will start with the pacing, story structure and overall storyteling approach. Then I will evaluate the choice&consequence mechanics and how they influence the ending of the game and the epilogues. And finally I will put some light on the writing and design of main characters of the game and their contribution and their depiction in the later parts of the game in particular.

Edit: I've extended the analysis with a fifth chapter about Ciri and her abilities and whether she qualifies to be the saviour of the world and the defeater of the White Frost or not. Since this post would have become longer than the allowed maximum of words for a single forum post here (beat that, guys! ) I had to put it in another post that can be found here.

Edit 2: I've again extended the analysis with another chapter on choice and player agency. It can be found here.


1.) Pacing, story structure and overall storytelling

There is a certain, "optimal" pattern for how to pace a good and gripping story in writing theory. Star Wars Episode IV is for example a quite common and rather famous example for an almost perfect story pacing. It looks like that:

As we can see there is a clear pattern of ups and downs in the engagement curve over time that generally gets higher and higher until the final climax, with a single higher eruption at the beginning in order to draw people into the world and story and fascinating them enough to stay on board, so to say. This basic pattern of story pacing builds on some simple principles, with having a clear "goal" being of the most important ones. In SW Episode IV it's the goal of the rebels to destroy the death star and it's Luke's personal goal to master the use of the force. Both elements come together in the final scene of the movie, right before the epilogue, in which Luke fires a missile into the air vent of the death star just by using the force and relying on his powers. This climax is prepared throughout the whole movie. Every other major action in the storyline is performed in order to reach this final goal (or goals).

Now let's have a look at the (main) story pacing in Witcher 3:

As we can see there is a pretty big deviation from the "optimal" story pacing pattern. First a clarification: There are actually a whole lot more ups and downs in the game, depending on how much side stuff you do at which time, so it's more about the bigger picture and the main story bits that are important here. The actual height of the singular points is also very much debatable, so that's just my assession and attempt to show a simplified engagement curve. So let's concentrate on some "big" points of the main story and pretty much neglect the bits in between where you roam the open world and do side activities (I do think that you could quite fairly say that some side quests should be even above some of the big main quests in the curve but that's not the point here. That assessment is not about side quests or monster contracts so I think that this isn't a big issue here.)

I've labelled some of the big story points, namely Geralt finding Ciri in the house on the isle, the battle of Kaer Morhen against the Wild Hunt, the witch sabbath with the fight against Imlerith and the Crones, the final battle against the Wild Hunt and the last moments of the game where Ciri goes through the portal. Now what's the problem? Well, there are smaller and bigger problems.

Let's start with the smaller problems, the inconsistent pacing structure with main moments in the game that are more engaging, emotional and gripping than the final battle. I'd say (you might disagree though) that the moments in which Geralt finds Ciri for the first time in the game and thinks that she was dead and the battle of Kaer Morhen with all the main characters and the death of Vesemir at the end are much more impactful than the final battle. And not only that: they are also much more gripping and impactful than the main story stuff between. The best example for that is the witch sabbath with the boss fight against Imlerith and the Crones. This quest even feels like a foreign body in the game. It's pretty much the only quest in the whole game (besides the end battle, obviously) that is clearly designed as a classical boss fight. In the whole rest of the game, story always trumps simple gameplay patterns, but not here. The whole quest feels like the decision that there should be a boss fight somewhere without a proper linkage to the main storyline and story pacing. And it doesn't help here that the execution of that quest (together with the boring and tame witch sabbath) is rather poor as well, compared to the rest of the game. CDPR even perverted the actual motivation for doing that quest in the first place. It was Ciri who was full of feeling of grief and vengeance after Vesemir's death, not Geralt. But she agrees to play tic-tac-toe with Geralt about whom should kill Imlerith. Compared to the rest of the game, that's totally out of character behaviour for Ciri and it also takes away much of the possible emotional impact.

So the overall pacing structure isn't that optimal overall in the last third of the game (basically after the battle of Kaer Morhen). This is sad but not the worst element of the the whole issue with pacing. The worst element is clearly the obvious deus ex machina moment right at the end of the game after the final boss battle. This moment doesn't only finally destory the pacing, it even openly violates basic story structure principles like having a clear and transparent goal that explains why people do all the things they do. Of course is fighting against the white frost the overlying background "problem" of the whole world and saga, which includes all the games and novels. But in all these works the fight against the white frost was always a far away, more philosophical issue (even in Witcher 1, but that ending had its fair share of problems anyway). Neither in the books nor in the games Geralt - the main character of all these works - never did anything against that issue. It wasn't the problem and goal at hand. Same is true for Witcher 3. For dozens of hours, much until the very end, the obvious goal of the game (or work of fiction) was to protect Ciri and to overcome the Wild Hunt that wants to capture Ciri and invade the witcher world. That was Witcher 3's "killing the death star by using the force" goal that had its climax in the final battle against Eredin and the Hunt. But then CDPR had the weird idea to basically trump every single goal in all the books and all the games so far in the last five minutes of the game by sending Ciri through the portal between the worlds in order to fight against the white frost - without any real introduction or explanation to how it came or why it came which constitutes an almost classical deus ex machina moment.

Let's step back from Witcher 3 for a minute and compare that to Star Ward Episode IV again. If we really think about it, the very ending of Witcher 3 is pretty much like Episodes V and VI condensed in two minutes without further explanation. Luke doesn't only manage to control the force in a crucial situation for the first time and destroy the death star, he also kills the dark emperor and ends the Sith reign and "saves the whole world" just in a single moment, very much like an afterthought. I mean the problem with such a deus ex machina moment is pretty clear. Star Wars needs two full episodes (although much of it could be cut if we only look at the main directive) to build up proper tension and context for an even bigger goal than destroying the death star. Destroying the death star was a clearly defined goal that seemed at least somehow reachable in Episode IV - even when the chances looked bad - in the context of the whole narrative of the episode. Killing the emperor and ending the Sith reign is a completely different and arguably even more challenging goal that nees additional preparation and context building. That's why the classical Star Wars was a triology and not a single movie.

Now back to Witcher 3. It's pretty weird how much Star Wars and Witcher have in common here. The similarities between Ciri and Luke are striking when we look at their development and character design in Episode IV and Witcher 3. Both have immense powers that make them special in their worlds but both cannot fully control their powers until the very end. And in both world there is actually a bigger thread than just the goal at hand: in Star Wars it's the reign of the dark side of the force and the Sith, in Witcher 3 it's the assumed apocalypse of the white frost. But while Star Wars builds up tension and pacing in clear and thought out patterns with "rising" goals in three movies, Witcher 3 wants to achieve the same in only one work but with the weird idea that the first goal should be explained in depth and tried to be achieved in 100 hours while the big end goal is never actually pursued, but achieved in the last 2 minutes of the game (without having any direct control of the outcome but that's a topic for the following passage). Compared to that every achievement in the game before looks indeed like kindergarden. The one person who seemed to be weak only one moment before just saves the world in the next without explaining how the suddenly had the power to do so and how she did it in detail. That's not only a weird deus ex machina moment, it's a pretty unbelievable and baldy written one as well (which of course is based on the lacking structure of pacing here).


2.) Choice and consequence and the ending

You cannot really write about the end of Witcher 3 and the narrative structure (and outcomes) in the past bits of the game without talking about choice and consequence. First, let's define them. Having a choice means that you as the player reflect about what you're about to do when you do it. It's about thinking what might happen if you choose option A or B and about thinking what feels right or wrong, good or bad, fitting or unfitting for the character you want to roleplay. Consequence on the other hand is the realization of the impact of something you did previously. One good example for that is Chrono Trigger in which stuff that seemed like small and unimportant bits turned out to be remembered and important in the end. So if you chose to steal something from somebody at a certain time in the game you will get to see the consequences later in the game. For a "good" consequence mechanic there need to be certain prerequirements: first, a clear chain of causality that makes consequences and the corresponding previous actions or decisions comprehensible, second, a display of what the change you initiated means to the world and third, the realization that players should never feel too repelled for some decisions they made before by making uncomprehensible or arbitrary links between events or certain situations (which goes hand in hand with the clear chain of causality).

So how does Witcher 3 perform here? Well, even though choice and consequence are different mechanics they often work together, especially in role playing games. When we look at the very end of Witcher 3 and the scene in which Ciri goes through the portal between the worlds we can constitute that there is no real choice there left. It's pretty much a consequence-only scene. That's actually quite the opposite of the ending in Mass Effect 3, in which the final scene is almost completely choice-only (both are based on a deus ex machina ending though). The question now is: does the prerequirements for good consequences work here? Is there a clear and comprehensible chain of causality? And beyond that, is the respective consequence itself comprehensible compared to the rest of the work? Let's start with the first question and the chain of causality: the outcome of the ending and the respective following epilogue is pretty much dependent on a few specific decisive moments in the game, specific dialogue choice situations in particular. That poses another question about good choice situations that must be answered first: does the player have a fair chance of evaluating the possible consequences of his actions while being in the specific choice situation?

To answer that we must look at the specific choice situations here. To limit the amount of text (more could be evaluated later), let's stick for now to the five choice situations that determine whether Ciri comes back from the white frost (the assumed "good/neutral" ending) or whether Ciri doesn't come back (the assumed "bad" ending). The ending is therefore based on

1) How you react after Vesemir is dead and Ciri is uncertain about herself and her abilities.
2) How you react when Ciri wants to go to the witch sabbath to kill Imlerith.
3) How you react when Ciri is called to the lodge of sorceresses.
4) How you react when Ciri wants to destroy Avallac'h's lab.
5) How you react when Ciri wants to visit Skjalls grave.

The base line for all these choice situations is that Ciri will come back if you "push her self-assurance and support her decisions and desires" in all these situations. That sounds pretty comprehensible. But it's actually not that simple. Rather than making the ending dependent on moral decisions, it's dependent on psychological decisions, on how Geralt behaves as a father. The problem here is two- or even three-folded. First, there is a difference between the psychological assessment of the player and the one CDPR envisioned for the ingame characters. Second, the decisions follow rather general psychological rules without acknowledging and respecting the context of the respective situation. And third, a conflict between assumed character and desired outcome.

Let's take for example the situation in which Ciri asks Geralt whether she is allowed to destroy Avallac'h's lab after she found out that the Aen Elle (at least the lady) actually hate her. Well, what's the problem here? First, it doesn't sound very much like Geralt to allow such a thing in general, especially if you're a witcher or want to be a witcher. There is no point in destroying the lab. And even if you think as a father it sounds pretty weird to actually join Ciri in destroying the lab. "Live out your aggressive feelings in the very instant you feel them?" Doesn't sound like an adivce many father would give their children for a good reason. Another point is that Geralt and Ciri aren't alone, but accompanied by Yennefer, a character from whom is known that she lays pretty big focus on how a sorceress (and Ciri) should behave (a point that is in general constantly underdeveloped in the game by the way).

Or take the situation in which Geralt is asked whether he wants to accompany Ciri to the lodge of sorceresses. Again, CDPR assumes that letting her go alone empowers here self-assurance. But is it that clear? I think that's highly debatable again, because it's again a psychological decision about complex human feelings and behaviours. The problem here is that there is a predefined outcome for a debatable question that could be interpreted in many way, by both the player and the ingame characters. It's easily as thinkable that Ciri is happy that Geralts want to accompany her and support her. In no way it MUST mean that Geralt wants to supress or control her. In a good and uncomplicated father-daughter relationship there is actually no big difference in such a situation. If Ciri wanted to go alone she should say so and only if Geralt insisted to come with her she feels controlled by him. But even then it's understandable if you take the whole backstory and chain of events (from both books and games) into account.

Another example is the situation in which Ciri is uncertain about her abilities and her place in the world. In CDPR's mind Geralt acts against her self-assurance and against her free will if he tells her to relax and that she doesn't have to be perfect - and if he invites her to drink with him. Now what's the problem here. The problem is context. Quite shortly before this situation there is a rather extensive situation in which Geralt drinks extensively with the other Witchers. It's obviously a "Witcher ritual" to drink that way when they come together in Kaer Morhen. That ritual isn't depicted as a bad thing, quite the opposite. It's depicted as a part of the behaviour of the Witchers in the wolf school. So back to the choice situation. What should the player think in this situation? From a modern "conservative" perspective you might think that giving a young lady something to drink doesn't seem to be the best idea. Ok, point taken. But is that the only way of possible thinking here. It's not. If you think in the context of the world and the situation offering Ciri a drink in this situation seems like a natural choice since apparentely this is a common ritual of the witchers to deal with problems. To drink together and have fun, forgetting the problems of the world. Ciri wants to be a witcher of the wolf school, both book readers and game players should know that she actually at least partially sees herself as a witcheress. So why not offering her a drink? Why not "taking out fuel of the situation", advising her to relax and calm down. Again, in this situation the choice situation and the outcome isn't clearly alined in way that makes sense for everybody in the given context of the situation.

Ok, what does all of that mean for the ending and the "big consequence"? I talked about the chain of causality. Obviously there is a problem with this chain of causlity if the outcomes of the events that consitute the chain feel arbitrary and even guided by some predefined and qutie rigid psychological thinking pattern of a game creator. Let's have a look at that Chrono Trigger example I brought up earlier. Stealing something from a poor person is a moral decision, a moral choice. It's quite easily to say that it's not a "good" action. So if you get brought to justice later or even if people just despise you later on that seems like a natural and comprehensible consequence (if for example you were seen while you stole). Clear chain of causality and comprehensible outcome. The problem with the ending in Witcher 3 is that the question which ending and epilogues you get depends on rather "small" decisions in the world that don't feel really meaningful once you have to decide on them and whos outcome doesn't seem all that transparent and comprehensible. Even worse, some of the much "bigger" decisions - at least some that feel bigger - in the game have no consequence at all. The only difference if you decide to kill a king for example is a different 15 seconds video in the epilogue. Neither is it of any importance if you love Yen or Triss for example. I guess one of the problems here is that CDPR wanted to avoid clear right or wrong moral decisions. But they took it too far. The situations that decide about the outcome are so subtle and difficult to assess that not only the outcome of the choice situation itself but also the big consequence feels arbitrary. And in the end that has a huge impact on the satisfaction of the player who wants that his actions have clear and transparent consequences or at least consequences that seem comprehensible in the respective context. That's imo not the case for everyone and everything here for the reasons I mentioned above in the respecitve examples. And that very likely leads to many players feeling repelled at the end of the game, getting an ending and epilogue that feels unjustified and incomprehensible.


3.) The epilogues

Now, let's talk a bit about the epilogues which are quite important to the narrative since they are the last experience people have in the game. What's their quality? What's their goal? Are they satisfying?

Well, that's of course a debatable question again, but I think it's safe to say that the epilogues don't serve the "This story is about Geralt's personal quest" goal all that well. Well, let's have a lood at the different epilogues. There are three different possible epilogues or endings. An assumend good one, a neutral one and a bad one.

Let's start with the bad one. In the bad one Ciri never comes back from the white frost and Geralt travels back to the swamps in order to kill the last crone and to get Ciri's witcher medaillion back (actually Vesemir's one). In the last take Geralt gets the medaillion but seems suicidal (because of grief?) and the house gets swamped with monsters. So what's the problem with this gameplay epilogue. Well, first it never explains what happens to Yennefer or Triss although - if Geralt is in a relationship with them - they are quite important to both Ciri and Geralt. Second, Geralt feels completely out of character in this ending. Why is that so? Well, the issue is that Ciri sacrificed herself in that ending but it was her free will. Nobody killed her. Nobody forced her to do what she wanted to do. So why the suicidal grief? Maybe Yen is so mad at him that he didn't prevent that that she left him as well. Problem is: we don't know because the game doesn't tell us. So in the end, this epilogue really feels like a punishment for "bad" choices down the road instead of a logical and neither good or bad outcome of the events. But there is also a really good or positive element in this epilogue. It's the only epilogue in which Ciri doesn't come back. It's the only epilogue in which the deus ex machina moment isn't all that bad in itself because it's not used as final climatical achievement but as a way to let the end open - very much in the tradition of Sapkowski if you think at the end of the books.

So what about the bad and neutral ones? Well, their basic problem is that Ciri comes back from the white frost which - like described above - destroys the whole story pacing and structure with a weird deus ex machina moment. And then, neither the "Ciri becomes a true witcheress" nor the "Ciri becomes emperess" outcomes seem really believable and "in character" after all. Ciri can't be a real witcher because she is no mutant. She has no super fast reflexes, no improved sight and she cannot drink potions. Of course, in the gameplay sections she just auto-heals herself and uses her never-explained "fast forward" skill all the time (more on that in the next chapter). But from a narrative point of view that doesn't make much sense. And Ciri as the empress of Nilgaard? Well, I don't know, it just doesn't sound like the Ciri from neither the books nor the game. But it's maybe - all in all - the most believable outcome of all - excluding the deus ex machina moment.

What all epilogues miss is a satisfying description of what happens to the ones Geralt has an emotional connection to. No word on Dandelion. No word on Triss or Yen if you love the other one. No word on the lodge of sorceresses. Most of the videos in the epilogues are about political outcomes (even thought the game should be about Geralt's personal quests) and even those are lacking. Take for example the events on Skellige Islands. Right before the end there is both an upcoming civil war and a Nilfgaardian invasion established in the narrative. No matter which epilogue you get, no word on these events in the epilogue videos which seems weird. Why establishing a civil war right before the end if you just ignore it in the epilogue?


4.) Character writing and design

There are certain problems with character writing of main characters that extend the problems with the overall storytelling and the story pacing towards the end of the game. Most of it is bearable but it just stand for a huge amount of lost potential in terms of storytelling.

The most obvious one is Eredin, the king of the White Hunt which is clearly the biggest villain in the game. In theory, there are two types of possible arch-type villains, the narrative villain and hte force-of-nature villain. While they have different traits and motives, they share one definite element: both can't just be "evil" for the sake of being the evil force in the game. The force-of-nature villain usually represents a certain form of challenge to the hero, like the embodiment of chaos. By defeating and dealing with the villain the hero tests himself and his believings. The narrative hero is even more complex. It's a fleshed out person that has believable human motivations and feelings and a complex set of values and convictions. The problem here is: Eredin is neither one or the other. Throughout the whole game he stays blank, like the big evil in the background that is just needed to have any kind of goal. The same is true for the rest of the Wild Hunt. Imlerith is actually the very same narrative and gameplay element as Eredin, just with another skin. Eredin just feels lacking, especially compared to other characters of the game. Just take the Bloody Baron and compare his complex and believable character design and writing to Eredin's one. It's like two completely different levels from to different games. Even Eredin's second man in state, Ge'els has more characters and complexity, only because a single quest is dedicated to him and two minutes of cutscenes are granted to give him at least some space for character exploration.

Then there is Ciri, the second main character. Well, it's probably the hardest character to write and design in the whole game and I do feel with CDPR. Ciri isn't written or designed all that bad but she has some obvious flaws imo. First, her specific experiences don't seem to have a rather big influence on her (speaking of the books here of course). Especially everything sexual is rarely a topic although it's actually a quite important theme for Ciri since "everyone wants to abuse here sexually". It's probably not only a problem with character design her, but with the very tame game design in respect to sexual topics in general. Rape, sexual abuse and psychological abuse and stuff like that is not a topic in the game although it is a natural element of the books and quite important in the case of Ciri. Like a typical blockbuster game it has no problems with open violence but it doesn't feature sexual violence or other forms of human suffering (By the way, people always die at once without suffering. You never hears somebody crying in pain if you cut of an arm or a leg. That's actually pretty disappointing from an immersion and believability point of view. Why open visual violence but no acustic suffering?). So Ciri seems to be a bit tame in that regard while she mostly feels like a teenager although she should already a young adult. Her behaviour seems imho more fitting to a 15 or 16 year old girl (like she was in the books) than to a young woman who has gone through hell on earth already. Another huge problem is the lacking explanation of her skills. What's that "fast forward" skill? She has basically no other skills than opening portals to other worlds in the books. She cannot cast magic anymore. So why isn't that explained? I get that it's a nice gameplay feature. But it's just weird to have no single line of explanation for that, especially for people who know Ciri from the books. After all, her abilities and all things magic are a complex matter in the books while they are mostly a prop in the games. That might have been well suited as long as the story was just about Geralt but with Ciri entering the stage things changed and magical stuff should be put on a whole other level in narrative terms.

Another shortcoming in terms of character writing and design is the three-point relationship between Geralt, Ciri and Yennefer. Especially the relationship between Ciri and Yennfer is extremely underdeveloped. And in one of the only scene in which it is shown Yennefer behave's completely out of character. I think the choice situations in the relationship between Ciri and Geralt which determine the ending also don't add to a well written relationship between them as you could imagine after reading the books. After the really well done scene in the house when Geralt finds here and thinks that she was dead their relationship stays rather cold. I guess a problem here is that games in general have a very hard time to deal with already existing relationships. Every major relationship in the game (Yen-Geralt, Triss-Geralt, Ciri-Geralt, Yen-Triss, Triss-Ciri, Yen-Ciri,...) feels like it had to be build up anew intead of just continueing it. It's most obvious in the Triss-Geralt relationship, but it's basically the same for each one. The problem is that it feels out of place for the parent - child relationships between Geralt and Ciri and Yen and Ciri. This relationship shouldn't be needed to be build anew. But since CDPR uses the relationship between Ciri and Geralt to exactly do that it's hard to avoid.

Another problem with Yen and Triss in particular is that their character and motivation feel underdeveloped and that they don't feel in character with the books. Yen's strongest motive should be that she wants to be mother at all costs. That's what drives her. That's why she had so much conflict with Geralt. That explains her special relationship as step-mother to Ciri. That explains her "new" relationship to Geralt. None of that is fleshed out in the game which seems to be a huge lost chance to me, especially since female-centered themes are rarely explored in big games. Yen is always only important in connection to Geralt but not really as somebody on her own. And Triss' biggest problems are her guilt feelings for being in the lodge and her hidden desire for Geralt. It's a bit better handled in that case but stil underdeveloped. While I agree that the respective romance quests and scenes are rather nice and imo belong to the best quests in the game, I think especially in the ending they stay blank and underdeveloped. Why the hell do we take Philippa with us for the search of the sunstone? Why not Triss or Yen, depending on whom we love? That could have been a perfect location and time to finally explore their relationsship before the end. Instead we have to travel with Philippa, a character that has some importance of course, but a character who isn't nearly as important as Triss or Yen. And why is there no bigger conflict between Triss or Yen if you decide for Yen, for example?

Besides from the obvious sorceresses, the other sorceresses feel underdeveloped as well, with the one exception of Keira Metz. But both Margarita and Fringilla feel rushed and pointless. They are both introduced rightly before the end and they don't have much purpose besides being used as staffage. It doesn't help her of course that the sorceresses and the lodge aren't even mentioned in the epilogue...

5.) Ciri as the defeater of the White Frost?
I've added this section because I think that the inconsistencies and issues of the deus ex machina moment aren't described thoroughly enough yet, especially if we take a closer look at Ciri, who she is and what she is capable of. As written above in the very end of the game Avallac'h and Ciri open a portal between the worlds and Ciri goes through it in order to "fight the white frost".

But wait a minute? Who is Ciri exactly and what exactly empowers her to do such a thing? Well, let's start first with how Ciri and her powers are described in the book. We know that she is a descendent of Lara Dorren aep Shiadhal, an Elven Sage, an Aen Saevherne like Avallac'h, who was the bearer of the Hen Ichaer, the Elder Blood, a genetic mutation of old Elven blood, prosecuted by the Aen Elle during hundreds of years in order to re-establish powers they've long lost - the powers to open a gate between different worlds, the Ard Gaeth. Like Lara Ciri bears the Elder Blood. So is she actually able to open Ard Gaeth? Well, in the books that is actually never even a question. She only has one purpose to the ones who want to control the gate: to give birth to a child. Ciri is actually senn by nobody as the saviour of the world. Only her child is, or even her later descendents are at the earliest. Every "expert" on the topic is agreeing on that very point:

The Aen Elle and Avallac'h:
"We want to have your child, swallow, daughter of Lara Dorren."
Andrzej Sapkowski, The Lady of the Lake
The lodge of the sorceresses:
"Cirilla, Pavetta of Cintra's daughter, Calanthe the Lion's granddaughter. The Elder Blood, the ice flame of the North, the destroyer and renewer, whose advent has been predicted already hundred of years ago. Ciri of Cintra, the queen of the North. And her blood, of which the queen of the world will be born."
Andrzej Sapkowski, Baptism of Fire

Emhyr var Emreis:
"Cirilla [...] will be happy like most of the queens I've spoken of. That will happen over time. Her love that I won't demand from her, will be passed onto her son whom I will beget with her. The crown prince and upcoming emperor. The emperor who will beget a son. The son who will be the ruler of the world and who will save the world from annihilation. That's what the prophecies tell us, the prophecies whose content only I know."
Andrzej Sapkowski, The Lady of the Lake
Vilgefortz has a somewhat different "approach" to the topic but it's quite clear as well that he doesn't want or need Ciri herself neither, but only her blood (and certain parts of her body...):

"Maybe you're concerned about it, maybe you're happy about it, but you should know that you won't give birth to a child. Who knows, maybe it would be indeed a big chosen one with exceptional abilities, a saviour of the world and ruler of all people. But nobody is able to vouch for that and I don't want to wait so long anyway. I need blood. Placenta blood, to be precise. As soon as the placenta will be developed I will cut it out."
Andrzej Sapkowski, The Lady of the Lake

So it seems to be pretty clear that Ciri herself doesn't have such spectacular abilites. Nobody is really interested in her person or abilities but only literally in her crotch. Everyone wants to have sex with her in order to beget a child. That's why everyone is hunting Ciri. But Avallac'h has a lot more to say on the topic. He explains in detail what the White Frost actually is and how Ciri is supposed to deal with it:

"We have [...] more than good reason to assume that your world is in danger of annihilation. A climatic catastrophy of extreme scope. With your profound education you've surely heard of Aen Itlinn Speath, Itlina's prophecy. It relates to the White Frost. We think that it means a strong glaciation. And since 90 percent of the main land of your world are located on the northern hemisphere a glaciation can threaten the very existence of most beings. They will just die of cold. Those who will survive will descend into chaos, wiping each other out in merciless struggles for food, becoming the prey of predators mad of hunger themselves. Remember the wording of the prohecy: time of contempt, time of axe, time of wolve storms... [...]
The child we care about so much, the descendent of Lara Dorren and bearer of her gene which was specially built by us can save the inhabitants of this world. We have reason to believe that Lara's descendent - and yours, naturally - will have abilities at their command that will be more than a thousand times stronger than ours, the ones of the Sages. And which you have at your command as well, in a rudimentary form.[...] It's about the possibility to not only be able to transport yourself, you own not so important person, between the worlds. It's about the opening of Ard Gaeth, the big and steady gate that can be used by everyone. Before the conjunction we once managed to achieve that and we want to be able to do so again now. We will evacuate the Aen Seidhe from the dying world in which they live. Our brothers to whom we owe help. We couldn't live with the awareness that we missed something in order to save them. And we will save them, we will evacuate everyone who is threatened in this world. Everyone, Zirael. Even the humans."
Andrzej Sapkowski, The Lady of the Lake
So while the last passage about the saving of the humans and in particular the conditions of such an endavour are probably highly debatable there is no reason why Avallac'h should lie about the rest. That's pretty much the known prophecy of Itlina anyway, just extended by the concrete interpretation of the Aen Saevherne, probably the most prolific experts on the topic that could be found.

What does this mean for the Witcher 3 and its ending? What does this mean for Ciri and her abilities? Well, first she doesn't seem to have that awesome abilities after all. She can obviously travel between worlds. But can she open Ard Gaeth? Well, actually nobody thinks so. Everybody thinks that one of her descendants will once be able to do so. Obviously the genetic mutation in her blood isn't ready for that step. And then after all, nobody ever talk about an ability to "stop the white froze altogether". For pretty much everyone in the books, every expert on the topic, Avallac'h and the Aen Saevherne and all the powerful sorcerers and sorceresses alike, the White Frost is something that is just there, an irrevocable force of nature. The task of the Elder Blood isn't to fight and win against the Wild Frost but not enable survival for a new beginning. To open a gate. To give people a chance to flee and start somewhere else anew. Nothing of that is even remotely mentined in the ending of the Witcher 3.

Of course Witcher 3 could deviate from the book lore and establish it's own, modified version. The problem is that it never really does. It never explains Ciri's supposed powers. It never explains how she is able to fight and win against the White Frost. It never explains why Ciri should go through the portal and what she should do on the other side. It never explains why suddenly Ciri herself is important. Which ability that is displayed in the game should grant her any power to fight and end the white frost? And why does she need a portal to a different world if the White Frost threatens the world she lives in already? Why does she need a portal after all? If it's only about her why doesn't she just use her normal travelling abilities? Is the White Frost some kind of "living entity" in the Witcher 3? If yes, why isn't that explained to give the proper context? So many question, but not even one satisfying answer. I mean, I get the argument that the games don't necessarily have to stick to all the lore established in the books. But if there is no other explanation for some elements, how should we evaluate them? Either they are based on book lore or they have to be properly explained which obviously isn't the case here.

I mean, it's really a shame. The whole thing is pretty complex in the books which includes the motives of the Wild Hunt. In the books they aren't all evil super villains. They are pretty much like many humans, just from a different perspective. They think that they are naturally "better" and superior than every other race and that every other race should serve them. Of course that is fundamentally opposed to the human interest in the witcher world and so the Aen Elle are natural enemies, so to say. But they are not just "evil", not even Eredin. He's a power hungry murderer and invader but he shares these traits with human rulers of the likes of Emhyr var Emreis.

If you ask me the end just doesn't make any sense in the given context. It's not consistent with the lore and characterization of Ciri in the books. It's not consistent with the characterization of the White Frost in the book. It's not properly explained in the game itself neither. But by excluding all sexual topics from the game (except Geralt's "love interests") they also took away the basic motivation why every "villain" wanted to capture Ciri in the first place, Eredin included. There is no real motivation left for Avallac'h's actions after all, at least not a (newly) described one (Auberon is dead and he obviously doesn't want Eredin to capture Ciri for whatever reason). No matter how you look at it, the deus ex machina portal event at the very end makes no much sense and is full of narrative inconsistencies. It's just a hot mess, like I said in the title of this thread.

I've written a lot on the main narrative of the game but I always thought that I missed something. I couldn't really explain why I feel so disappointed after the ending of TW3. I tried to find reasons why I thought the main narrative especially in the last third of the game was so lacking in my opinion and I think I find some good points. But at the same time, I felt that I didn't explain it thoroughly enough, maybe because I lacked the the proper insight or because I lacked the right words on maybe because I haven't gotten to the core of the problem yet. Well, in short: I never stopped thinking about it. I read a lot of other opinions from different people and - probably most important - I reconsidered why I love story-driven RPGs in the first place and what caused satisfaction in similar games. And I think I've found a big issue that hasn't been addressed in depth so far: it's an issue with choice mechanics in the game and how they relate to the concept of player agency. I've talked about choices (and consequence) before but I want to add this chapter to my assessment because I think it looks at the issue from a quite different angle and makes the problems with choices perhaps more comprehensible.


6.) Choice re-evaluated: where is the player agency?

Like always, I want to start with a bit of theory about choice in video games in order to get a proper foundation for the analysis. Choice is actually at the heart of video games as an interaction medium. Interactions in games are arguably either actions or choices. So, what's the difference? An action is basically everything the player can do in the game. Shooting enemies in an action game is simply an action. The most striking example for a purely action-driven game is a simple shooting gallery. It's your task to shoot at things. Either that or you don't progress. Either that or you die. There is no choice. Kill everything on the screen that moves or be killed. So what's the difference to choices? A choice is basically always a trade off between different possibilities, may it be a trade off between a long and a short term goal, a trade off between weapons or abilities you can use ora trade off between ingame goals and the player's desires on the outside. To put it simple: in a choice situation there is no simple right or wrong. A choice situation is no calculation that can be solved by pure reason and logic. At least that's what the player has to feel or think in the moment. The player has to think that he has an actual choice between two or more valid and comprehensible actions.

Basically there can be two different spheres of narratives in video games, especially RPGs: choices in terms of gameplay and narrative choices. Let's have a look at the former one first. Choices in gameplay means that you have different tools and abilities at your proposal to solve situations. Think of a tactical RPG. There usually are many options to solve a situation by using different strategies or tactics. Or think of Dark Souls. You try again and again to kill a certain enemy, trying different things to get it done. You continue to do so because you have the feeling that with a different approach or strategy you could do it someday. That's true choice, in a gameplay perspective. It's much what makes these games based on gameplay choices so satisfactiory. But then there is also the second category, choices which determine the storytelling and narrative. These are choices that decide how a story will continue. Almost every great (story-driven) RPG builds on both of these choice aspect, but RPGs are together with (point and click) adventures pretty much the only genre which usually offers extensive narrative choice (most action games offer a purely linear story that can't be changed or influenced by the player on a significant level). So it's perhaps no exaggeration to say that narrative choices are pretty much at the heart of RPGs, defining the genre and being one of its greatest strengths. Just think of the many RPGs that use this tools, games like Deus Ex Human Revolution, Mass Effect, Planescape Torment, Wasteland 2, Fallout 3, Alpha Protocol and - of course - Witcher 1 and 2. All these games build in certain way and at certain points heavily on narrative choices.

So what's make these narrative choices so attractive? Why do we want to experience them in RPGs? Well, that's probably just my interpretation but I think one of their core strengths is that they challenge us. They expose us to questions we have to think about. They confront us with situations in which we feel torn apart. They create the feeling in us that it's us who have influence on the world we're immersed in. That it's us who have the power anc control to change the fade of characters we like. That it's on us to make the ultimate decision. That's what is usually called agency, the feeling that you have power and control in a game, that you not only experience or watch it like a book or movie but that your actions and decisions have influence on how the narrative continues. Good choice situations can have a great emotional impact on us if they find the right tone and topic to challenge us on either a mental or emotional level (or both). When I play a good RPG that offers great situtions to make choices I often think about them a lot, even some time after I finished it. It's not always just about the consequences. A good choice situation doesn't in all case require a resolution or visible consequence. Our imagination is a great tool and it is often sufficient to feel the impact of a good choice situation. We envision the possible changes to the world we cause by our choices in our own imagination, struggling with ourselves if we did the right thing. Of course, something like that can only happen if the choice situation has a proper trade off like desribed above. The effect isn't the same if the assumed choice sitution is just a mere calculation.

So theory aside, what's the problem with choices in Witcher 3. Well, that might come as a surprise but the last third of the game narrative doesn't really offer many meaningful choice at all which sounds rather weird for a story-driven RPG that was so heavily marketed as a game that is ultimately based on meaningful choice and consequence and whose predecessors were a great example of good choice situations. And you might say that I neglect the situations in which Geralt deals with Ciri, the situations that determine which ending and epilogue you will see. Of course these situations exist, but are these real choice situation with a proper trade off? Is there a trade off between moral aspects? Is there a trade off between a long term or a short term goal at all? Is there a trade off betwen ingame goals or player's desires? Well, I don't think so. These situations are very much only calculations instead of choices and therefore simple actions wthout any emotional impact on the player. Ironically some people obviously even defend these dialogues between Geralt and Ciri with the argument that there is a definite path to the "right" ending if you follow a simple rule or psychological behaviour which is pretty much the definition of a simple calculation (right vs wrong) instead of a meaningful choice. I admit that there is basically one situation in the last third of the main narrative that could count as a "true" meaningful choice, namely the choice whether you tell Emhyr about Ciri or not. In that case you have an internal conflict between various considerations like your wish to protect Ciri, your probably reluctance against Nilfgaard and the emperor and your ongoing thought process about the various results that could arise from Ciri's fate (concerning the White Frost, the Wild Hunt, the northern kingdoms, her life, your life, and so on). That's meaningful choice that challenges the player without a clear, more or less obvious "right" decision.

Another issue that harmed these situations were the often completely misused time constraint to give an answer. They probably copied that element from games like The Walking Dead, but sadly without truly understanding the concept. In The Walking Dead these situations made sense and were properly used because two requirements were fulfilled: first, there was an actual urgency to the respective situation and second, the options were clear enough to give the player the actual chance to decide on an informed basis. Simple example: zombies are about to break into a house you're hiding in and you have to decide whether you send person A or person B to the door in order to stop them. Obviously there is urgency because the zombies could break in every minute. And the option to send one of these person is a clear task that doesn't involve a complicated thought process or higher moral concepts that needs time to be explored in depth. It's also a true meaningful choice because there obviously is no right or wrong. You know that whomever you sent might be killed and that in both cases you might feel sorry. It's a true "the lesser evil" situation in which you have decide in a certain amount of time. That entices you to make an emotionally guided decision, maybe just on the basis whom you like more. In such a situation the time contraint adds to the tension and the emotional impact. And in Witcher 3? Well, sadly in almost none of the situtions in which a time contraint is used in a dialogue choice there is any real urgency. So the context of the urgency is completely lacking. And then the choice situations themselves are not realy meaningful or written well enough to enable an emotional answer in such a short time, especially if you just follow the "I always make what she wants" principle. It's really weird. Either you see these situations just as simple calculations based on pure logic. In that case the time contraint makes no sense at all because there is not tension to be enhanced in the first place. Or you see these situations as proper meaningful choice situations. In that case the dialogue options aren't clear enough to give the player proper, unmisleading(!) information for a decison that doesn't feel arbitrary in the end. Of course the second option diminishes over time once you've realized that pretty every decisive narrative situation in the last third of the game between Geralt and Ciri follows the very same pattern with the very same calcuation behind it.

Apart from these situtions pretty much the whole rest of the last third of the main narrative is purely a linear experience without any meaningful decision involved. I asked myself why I felt this part of the game felt so underdeveloped (apart from obvious inconsistencies in the story itself and badly written ore underdeveloped characters) and that's the answer: I felt almost no agency. I didn't feel that my actions (as Geralt) matter or change anything that's going on on a greater scale. I just do what the game and the narrative wants me to do without any real influence on it. Weirdly enough the game doesn't even offer the illusion of choice very often. And when it does, it feels arbitrary or simply superficial (like e.g. the decision whether Geralt should grant Sile a mercy killing or not). Maybe the biggest diappointment was the realization that the ultimate end of the game was a pure matter of consequences based on these previous calculation-style "choice" situations. I mean, that's pretty weird since every other great RPG I know offers the player some kind of agency in the end, some bigger, some smaller. The end of a game has a big influence on how we feel about the game once we finished it. It determines whether we're satisfied or not. Usually RPG makers understand that. Often they even do a bit "too much" in that direction, as you could e.g. argue for example for Mass Effect 3. But then again, the ultimate choice in Mass Effect 3 was satisfactory because it challenged the player and gave him ultimate agency and feeling of "power" at the end (of course there were obvious problems with the story and the execution of the whole story in ME3, including the deus ex machina moment at the end, but that's a topic for a different discussion). Or think of Deus Ex Human Revolution, where you could decide on the future of augmentations and even sacrifice yourself in the process at the very end with the epilogues presented the though process behind these decision and the probable outcomes. Or think of Alpha Protocol which is almost exclusively made of meaningful choice situations until the very end. These games got this aspect right, the usage of meaningful choice situation at the right time to give the player agency and therefore satisfaction. In Witcher 3 however, the very end didn't give me the feeling that I had any power or agency. I did what I was supposed to do and then I watched what others did instead of doing or deciding something on my own. What makes it even worse is that the epilogues are far away from the actual choice situations and not influenced by what the player does in the last 2-3 hours in the game - at all. Instead, the epilogues are based on these calculation-based "choice" situations (which determine whether Ciri returns or not) and on the one true choice situation (which determines whether Ciri becomes Witcheress or empress) alone. It shouldn't come as a surprise that many gamers ask themselves how the hell the epilogue they see came together. And it also shouldn't come as a surprise that many players are not happy with the ending they got. That's actually a pretty weird thing since in a real meaningful choice situation along the famous line of "the lesser evil" that shouldn't even be possible. But without that there is no real and obvious chain of causality that connects your choice with how the narrative plays out. No matter which ending you see it's mostly not based on you struggeling with yourself about two almost equally hard options (the lesser evil) that both seem promising and depressing at the same time in certain ways in different situations but based on you saying arbitrary things to Ciri in arbitrary situations, situations which are neither urgent, nor provocing, nor challenging, nor offering any kind of trade off between different aspects. If you see the "bad" ending it's not because you made hard decisions, carefully considering different outcomes in your mind, it's only because you've failed at doing the "right thing". You've failed in doing what CDPR obviously wanted you to do and how they wanted you to treat Ciri (which becomes quite clear in the quite "negative" cutscenes you get to see if you decide wrongly in these situations". That's not a meaningful choice sitauation at all. That's not causing satisfaction for the player. That doesn't cause the player to think about the choice situations and decisions, at least not in a good way. That's actually not what the whole concept of narrative choices in RPGs is all about and that's a huge shame.

Looking at the end of Witcher 3 and the last third of the main narrative it almost seems that CDPR have forgotten everything they knew about meaningful choices and player agency in story-driven RPGs. It's hard to believe since they are pretty much the same people who did in outstanding job on the same matter in previous games and even in other parts of the same game. They neglected both all the best practice examples of the industry (including their own games in the same series....) and the basic theory of choices in video games for the end of Witcher 3 - on top of all the logical inconsistencies and underdeveloped aspects of the narrative. I cannot explain that. I wish I could but I can only guess and that probably leads nowhere. I can only assess and evaluate what's there. And what's there is a true and complete disappointment in one of the very basic and most fun aspects of story-driven video games that leaves the player behind without any satisfaction at the end an RPG player usually expects from such an experience. And that's a damn shame for a game, with these developers, with these predecessors and with such striking qualities in other aspects of the game.

Source: http://forums.cdprojektred.com/thre...-of-the-game-is-a-bad-hot-mess-major-spoilers!!!

I'm in disagree with his vision of the Witcheress and Empress finals of the game, but he is right about the Deus ex machina of Ciri saving the world. It looks something rushed and a waste of potential. Looks like Cd Projekt hadn't enough developing time.