The Witcher 3 Wild Hunt: Official Thread

M76 said:
Objectively bad, based on what metric? If you want to define good as popular, by all means go ahead, then yes witcher 3 is good, and mea is bad. But then good is just a pseudonym for popular, I don't see a point in doing that.
Click to expand...

Aggregate reviews.

Just like the movies example.
 
Drexion said:
This is the fault of the individual who over-hypes upcoming releases in his own head to the point that expectations cannot be met.
Click to expand...

There is truth to this, and I don't get very hyped myself. But between the constant barrage of "The Witcher 3 is the best game in history", constant comments about how this game went above and beyond other games, and the buzz surrounding how Cyberpunk will redefine gaming and using Witcher 3 as a precedent it does make one want to see what people are raving about. I went in with low to moderate expectations. I got what I expected.

I'm still not too sure why this game gets the high praise that it does. I haven't really seen anyone explain what sets it apart.
 
Flogger23m said:
There is truth to this, and I don't get very hyped myself. But between the constant barrage of "The Witcher 3 is the best game in history", constant comments about how this game went above and beyond other games, and the buzz surrounding how Cyberpunk will redefine gaming and using Witcher 3 as a precedent it does make one want to see what people are raving about. I went in with low to moderate expectations. I got what I expected.

I'm still not too sure why this game gets the high praise that it does. I haven't really seen anyone explain what sets it apart.
Click to expand...

Obviously nobody's going to be able to convince you otherwise, so... what else is there to be said, really?
 
Flogger23m said:
I'm still not too sure why this game gets the high praise that it does. I haven't really seen anyone explain what sets it apart.
Click to expand...

First: Remember this is a 2015 game, I know that's hard to do. Since witcher more studios have tried to mimic or pillage ideas from Witcher.

Couple of areas, the usual suspects are all present, as in it has great graphics for an open world game, the animation is fantastic, and the models when talking face to face are good without being uncanny or stilted. The weather system was well done, the effects are good/great, its easy to learn and difficult to master. The difficulty curve holds up well through most of the game, the world remains interesting till the end.

Where this game sets itself apart for me is in its world building, story and plot. The game does not present anything on a moral black and white, and while many games try to do that, they usually fail and fall back into the trap of good/bad. Witcher manages to pull that through most of the game, and while some side quests are terrible (as they always are in open world games) many where decent and several are stellar (even better than the main game in some cases). Every choice felt like it had weight in a world that largely (again for a computer game) felt alive and functioning. and those choices most of the time had some impact later in the game, even small ones.

For example, I was running around the first map, completing quests which generally involved hunting some monster, when I came across a band of villagers attempting to lynch a deserter. I decided to try and talk them out of it, which was for naught their minds where made up, so they attacked me too, and I promptly killed them all. At which point instead of the generic 'thank you for saving me from bad men' - 'your welcome rando NPC, please give me reward', he went to thank me and I promptly said if I wasn't there one man would be dead instead of seven. Now you might say this kind of reaction is present in some other games, but the difference is the Witcher never forgot what kind of world this was, and constantly hits the player with choices that fall on a moral spectrum rather than Blue, Red, Grey.

So all in all, I believe Witcher lives up to the praise. Yes everyone is entitled to their own judgement, but the majority rules, and the majority have spoken.

As for M76 and Idiotincharge's little debate, the masses are one metric, and as an aggregate they are the best metric. However if your specific likes run counter, you can still be right in disagreeing, for example the Marvel universe, I like most of them, love a few, but for me they ultimately fall flat in artistic values of cinema that I appreciate. So I'd rate them 7/10 by in large, instead of the 9/10 they seem to rake in.
 
Flogger23m said:
There is truth to this, and I don't get very hyped myself. But between the constant barrage of "The Witcher 3 is the best game in history", constant comments about how this game went above and beyond other games, and the buzz surrounding how Cyberpunk will redefine gaming and using Witcher 3 as a precedent it does make one want to see what people are raving about. I went in with low to moderate expectations. I got what I expected.

I'm still not too sure why this game gets the high praise that it does. I haven't really seen anyone explain what sets it apart.
Click to expand...

Different strokes for different folks, nothing wrong with that.

I would like to know what you consider a good game, though.
 
Aireoth said:
First: Remember this is a 2015 game, I know that's hard to do. Since witcher more studios have tried to mimic or pillage ideas from Witcher.

Couple of areas, the usual suspects are all present, as in it has great graphics for an open world game, the animation is fantastic, and the models when talking face to face are good without being uncanny or stilted. The weather system was well done, the effects are good/great, its easy to learn and difficult to master. The difficulty curve holds up well through most of the game, the world remains interesting till the end.

Where this game sets itself apart for me is in its world building, story and plot. The game does not present anything on a moral black and white, and while many games try to do that, they usually fail and fall back into the trap of good/bad. Witcher manages to pull that through most of the game, and while some side quests are terrible (as they always are in open world games) many where decent and several are stellar (even better than the main game in some cases). Every choice felt like it had weight in a world that largely (again for a computer game) felt alive and functioning. and those choices most of the time had some impact later in the game, even small ones.

For example, I was running around the first map, completing quests which generally involved hunting some monster, when I came across a band of villagers attempting to lynch a deserter. I decided to try and talk them out of it, which was for naught their minds where made up, so they attacked me too, and I promptly killed them all. At which point instead of the generic 'thank you for saving me from bad men' - 'your welcome rando NPC, please give me reward', he went to thank me and I promptly said if I wasn't there one man would be dead instead of seven. Now you might say this kind of reaction is present in some other games, but the difference is the Witcher never forgot what kind of world this was, and constantly hits the player with choices that fall on a moral spectrum rather than Blue, Red, Grey.

So all in all, I believe Witcher lives up to the praise. Yes everyone is entitled to their own judgement, but the majority rules, and the majority have spoken.

As for M76 and Idiotincharge's little debate, the masses are one metric, and as an aggregate they are the best metric. However if your specific likes run counter, you can still be right in disagreeing, for example the Marvel universe, I like most of them, love a few, but for me they ultimately fall flat in artistic values of cinema that I appreciate. So I'd rate them 7/10 by in large, instead of the 9/10 they seem to rake in.
Click to expand...

Even before 2015 I'd say a lot of other games did most of what was described above though. Unless you read the books, the overall story seemed fairly sparse. Mass Effect 2 was similar, but the problem with Witcher 3 to me is that it clearly referenced things or people that didn't occur in Witcher 2 and apparently Witcher 1. There were a lot of cases of "who is this?" or "why do we care about Ciri?". Even one of the better characters, Dijkstra, came out of nowhere. Although at least he was a well written character with motivations that kept you interested enough to start caring so I'd say he was certainly an exception and a good addition to the story. Overall though it seemed to reference events never explained thoroughly, but instead put a lot of effort into other quests that had little bearing on the main story.

World building was somewhat similar to me. The things I found interesting were typically not explained too much. The war between the Northern kingdoms was glossed over as an example. Better than some other games, sure, but I'd say Mass Effect had more relevant world building that was on par in terms of detail. So I'd say Mass Effect did it better in this area.

Graphics I found to be amazing in some areas, but they didn't hide ultra low res textures very well. I also had a lot of animation "quick snapping" into place during conversations. I know ME3 had issues as well, but Witcher 2 and 3 seemed to be worse overall. ME3 had some funny but downright annoying bugs though:


I can see the appeal being greater if you read the books or absolutely love the theme. Personally, I think it is because fantasy is more mainstream than sci fi for games. Even if a sci fi game is better the fantasy game will get more praise due to mainstream appeal. The number of decent sci fi RPG or RPG hybrids is slim for that reason. I think that has a lot to do with The Witcher 3 success.
 
Flogger23m said:
Even before 2015 I'd say a lot of other games did most of what was described above though. Unless you read the books, the overall story seemed fairly sparse. Mass Effect 2 was similar, but the problem with Witcher 3 to me is that it clearly referenced things or people that didn't occur in Witcher 2 and apparently Witcher 1. There were a lot of cases of "who is this?" or "why do we care about Ciri?". Even one of the better characters, Dijkstra, came out of nowhere. Although at least he was a well written character with motivations that kept you interested enough to start caring so I'd say he was certainly an exception and a good addition to the story. Overall though it seemed to reference events never explained thoroughly, but instead put a lot of effort into other quests that had little bearing on the main story.

World building was somewhat similar to me. The things I found interesting were typically not explained too much. The war between the Northern kingdoms was glossed over as an example. Better than some other games, sure, but I'd say Mass Effect had more relevant world building that was on par in terms of detail. So I'd say Mass Effect did it better in this area.

Graphics I found to be amazing in some areas, but they didn't hide ultra low res textures very well. I also had a lot of animation "quick snapping" into place during conversations. I know ME3 had issues as well, but Witcher 2 and 3 seemed to be worse overall. ME3 had some funny but downright annoying bugs though:


I can see the appeal being greater if you read the books or absolutely love the theme. Personally, I think it is because fantasy is more mainstream than sci fi for games. Even if a sci fi game is better the fantasy game will get more praise due to mainstream appeal. The number of decent sci fi RPG or RPG hybrids is slim for that reason. I think that has a lot to do with The Witcher 3 success.
Click to expand...


If you think the Mass Effect series is similar your only thinking genre not actual content. Mass effect moral system is a clearly defined and rigid good, neutral, asshole moral system, where ultimately you are either doing clearly good things or clearly jerk asshole things (you don't get that pure evil in ME series). The models are stilted and like talking to a porclen doll, a problem with most bioware games. The closest moral grey areas in ME is unintended consequences, where as most of the Witcher 3 exists in moral grey areas, with good and bad aspects intermingled with every faction and choice, this is not something common in games, in fact it is something we haven't really seen, particularly in triple a titles, since the more experimental era of gaming (classic PC games of the 80's and 90's like megatraveller).

Mass effect had some detail, some not, I found plenty of areas in the ME games downright dull and repetitive.

I disagree that the setting is why Witcher is more popular, anecdotally speaking, few of my peers played Witcher, most played Mass effect. Guns over swords is something I hear quite often.

To each their own, but Witcher 3 is by far the best 3rd person RPG experience I've had in modern gaming. (can't speak to 1 and 2 as I only played 70% of one decades ago, and never got far in 2)

I love ME, but the ending destroyed any interest I had in playing it again, where as I've done a few playthrough of Witcher 3.
 
Aireoth said:
The models are stilted and like talking to a porclen doll, a problem with most bioware games. The closest moral grey areas in ME is unintended consequences, where as most of the Witcher 3 exists in moral grey areas, with good and bad aspects intermingled with every faction and choice, this is not something common in games, in fact it is something we haven't really seen, particularly in triple a titles, since the more experimental era of gaming (classic PC games of the 80's and 90's like megatraveller).
Click to expand...

Not too sure what you mean about the bold. I'd certainly say there were many gray areas throughout the ME games. The closure to the Krogan conflict is a good example. Depending on your actions in the first game, both options suck and have downsides. You can lie to the Krogans to get their support short term or keep your word and live with the fact you'll be creating another threat to the galaxy down the road due to the leadership. But you'll also help the innocent Krogan by giving their race a chance. Neither is purely a "good" or "bad" decision. There is a lot of gray area in this decision alone. And ultimately, your choices and options had a beginning in ME1 which carried over. A decision that truthfully mattered. I can't really say the same for anything in Witcher 2 to 3, and I played both paths.

The Quarian conflict also comes to mind. No matter what option you choose, neither was purely "good" or "bad". A very big gray area here both on a massive scale and on a smaller personal scale. It was also great to decide between which you valued more, your personal connection to a supporting character or the bigger issue (your resolution for the conflict). You can't really say that the ME games were purely black and white because that certainly wasn't the case. If anything, your actions had larger and more meaningful consequences compared to Witcher 3.

Yeah, the ME1 to 2 and 2 to 3 decisions mattered little. Saving the Council, choosing Anderson. Little difference, which disappointed me a lot with ME2 which I talked about years ago. But the same can be said about Witcher 2 to 3. Your choice at the end of Loc Muine was worthless as well. Which is too bad because that was the most interesting chapter and you literally spent most of your time there trying to figure out a resolution to the North's struggles. So in this instance, I feel equally disappointed with WItcher 2 to 3. Certainly not an improvement.

Aireoth said:
Mass effect had some detail, some not, I found plenty of areas in the ME games downright dull and repetitive.
Click to expand...

I thought the pacing and length was excellent. There wasn't a lot of wasted time and most of the content was high quality, aside from pure side content in ME1 but that wasn't required in anyway but fun enough to add another 1-2 hours to the game. With Witcher 3 you certainly needed to do some side content to level up appropriately. Obviously some was good, but some was low quality. It was hard to tell what was what until the quest was over.

Aireoth said:
I disagree that the setting is why Witcher is more popular, anecdotally speaking, few of my peers played Witcher, most played Mass effect. Guns over swords is something I hear quite often.
Click to expand...

I think the number of fantasy to sci fi RPGs tells us all we need to know. We have Mass Effect and Fallout. Cyberpunk will be the only big AAA game I can think of outside of those two, carried on the success of a fantasy game.

Aireoth said:
I love ME, but the ending destroyed any interest I had in playing it again, where as I've done a few playthrough of Witcher 3.
Click to expand...

ME3 ending was odd. But the Witcher 3's ending sucked to. To me that doesn't really ruin the good parts of either games. ME3's ending sucked, but the resolution to some of the conflicts throughout the game were simply amazing. Lackluster endings aren't exactly uncommon, if the rest of the game is good enough it isn't that big of a problem. ME2's ending was pretty lame as well.
 
Flogger23m said:
Not too sure what you mean about the bold. I'd certainly say there were many gray areas throughout the ME games. The closure to the Krogan conflict is a good example. Depending on your actions in the first game, both options suck and have downsides. You can lie to the Krogans to get their support short term or keep your word and live with the fact you'll be creating another threat to the galaxy down the road due to the leadership. But you'll also help the innocent Krogan by giving their race a chance. Neither is purely a "good" or "bad" decision. There is a lot of gray area in this decision alone. And ultimately, your choices and options had a beginning in ME1 which carried over. A decision that truthfully mattered. I can't really say the same for anything in Witcher 2 to 3, and I played both paths.

The Quarian conflict also comes to mind. No matter what option you choose, neither was purely "good" or "bad". A very big gray area here both on a massive scale and on a smaller personal scale. It was also great to decide between which you valued more, your personal connection to a supporting character or the bigger issue (your resolution for the conflict). You can't really say that the ME games were purely black and white because that certainly wasn't the case. If anything, your actions had larger and more meaningful consequences compared to Witcher 3.

Yeah, the ME1 to 2 and 2 to 3 decisions mattered little. Saving the Council, choosing Anderson. Little difference, which disappointed me a lot with ME2 which I talked about years ago. But the same can be said about Witcher 2 to 3. Your choice at the end of Loc Muine was worthless as well. Which is too bad because that was the most interesting chapter and you literally spent most of your time there trying to figure out a resolution to the North's struggles. So in this instance, I feel equally disappointed with WItcher 2 to 3. Certainly not an improvement.



I thought the pacing and length was excellent. There wasn't a lot of wasted time and most of the content was high quality, aside from pure side content in ME1 but that wasn't required in anyway but fun enough to add another 1-2 hours to the game. With Witcher 3 you certainly needed to do some side content to level up appropriately. Obviously some was good, but some was low quality. It was hard to tell what was what until the quest was over.



I think the number of fantasy to sci fi RPGs tells us all we need to know. We have Mass Effect and Fallout. Cyberpunk will be the only big AAA game I can think of outside of those two, carried on the success of a fantasy game.



ME3 ending was odd. But the Witcher 3's ending sucked to. To me that doesn't really ruin the good parts of either games. ME3's ending sucked, but the resolution to some of the conflicts throughout the game were simply amazing. Lackluster endings aren't exactly uncommon, if the rest of the game is good enough it isn't that big of a problem. ME2's ending was pretty lame as well.
Click to expand...

I think you just want to argue, I've stated why Witcher 3 has the praise it does, and why ME series doesn't add up for me. I liked ME, would give it a 9/10, but with their ending, and how they shit all over what they promised and laid out for years took a 9/10 franchise and made it a 6. ME choices where 100% black and white from a SJW moral compass, Free the Krogan from the phage and show them they can lead a better life, good decision, keep them enslaved to the other races, bad decision. Yes the consequences that never show up might make things worse way down the road, but who cares, the series ended before it was even an issue.

ME3 Ending was utter shit, not odd, utter shit, I came up with the same ending unplugging my old composite cable TV one cable at a time. I don't care to get into a long dissertation of why, if you don't know why it was a shit ending by now I can't help you (promise that choices mattered, the promise of unique endings, marketing that, ham fisted writing about star kid and the Illusive Man, shitting RGB color pallet swap end, nonsensical cut scenes, ruined franchise, etc). It was so bad that the studio that continually doubled down on their artistic vision meaning more than their marketing and promises, came out and patched the ending to slap together a few more scenes. It was a disaster.

But this is about Witcher not ME. Witcher 3 built as solid a foundation for CDPR as Bioware has ever had, and I'm excited for Cyber 2077.
 
Aireoth said:
I think you just want to argue, I've stated why Witcher 3 has the praise it does, and why ME series doesn't add up for me. I liked ME, would give it a 9/10, but with their ending, and how they shit all over what they promised and laid out for years took a 9/10 franchise and made it a 6.
Click to expand...

Damn that is harsh for any game. One small bad parts doesn't make the excellent games and moments prior terrible all of a sudden. Witcher 3 underwhelming to as it was more or less gibberish. I'm pretty sure if you read the books it would have a lot more relevance, but as it was I had little reason to care for Ciri or what became of her. All I could gather is "she is like your daughter and has special blood, and everyone loves her except the Wild Hunt". I wish they solved the finding Ciri plot mid way through the story and turned the attention elsewhere. I know Geralt is a Witcher, but he dabbled so much in politics at the end of the 2nd game they may as well have done it at the end of Witcher 3 as well. Certainly a case of the journey being more interesting than the destination.

Aireoth said:
ME choices where 100% black and white from a SJW moral compass, Free the Krogan from the phage and show them they can lead a better life, good decision, keep them enslaved to the other races, bad decision.
Click to expand...

That isn't even close to being an "SJW" plot device. And again, you missed the nuances of the decision which I mentioned above if you forgot. It was a lot more than "be nice and help them" or "be bad and let them die". If you talk up and praise moral gray areas in Witcher 3, you should also see why this sub plot was an amazing one in the ME story.

Aireoth said:
Yes the consequences that never show up might make things worse way down the road, but who cares, the series ended before it was even an issue.
Click to expand...

The difference is the issue was built up over the course of three games. It was very relevant and central to the plot of ME1. Both in terms of the grand scale of things as well as on the personal level (your squad members). If we're going by that logic, then nothing matters in Witcher 3 or any other game which gives you the choice of an ending. Because the game ends and it is no longer an issue. That just doesn't make sense.

Anyhow, while you don't see what will become of your actions, you've been directly dealing with it throughout the course of three games. That is why the decision felt like it had weight. As a contrast, the children side quest in the Bloody Baron arch didn't matter much. You had the same gray area with choices that were not ideal. But you're given little reason to care much about these Crones, the swamp they inhabit, or the children's relevance. It stops being relevant as soon as you turn the quest in. Maybe this quest wasn't the best comparison, but I use it because it has been cited a few times to me as an example of one of the better subplots in W3.

Aireoth said:
ME3 Ending was utter shit, not odd, utter shit, I came up with the same ending unplugging my old composite cable TV one cable at a time. I don't care to get into a long dissertation of why, if you don't know why it was a shit ending by now I can't help you (promise that choices mattered, the promise of unique endings, marketing that, ham fisted writing about star kid and the Illusive Man, shitting RGB color pallet swap end, nonsensical cut scenes, ruined franchise, etc). It was so bad that the studio that continually doubled down on their artistic vision meaning more than their marketing and promises, came out and patched the ending to slap together a few more scenes. It was a disaster.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah it was a let down alright. But it wasn't that bad. We all knew our decisions wouldn't matter that much after 10 minutes into ME3. And if you paid attention in ME2 you knew the score. Witcher 2 to 3 proved to be very similar in this regard. Both series brushed off the important decisions and made them irrelevant. But I liked how ME built up and carried over issues, stressed their importance directly, and gave us closure to them in the end.

Aireoth said:
But this is about Witcher not ME. Witcher 3 built as solid a foundation for CDPR as Bioware has ever had, and I'm excited for Cyber 2077.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

Eh, still seems shaky at best to me. Your opinion is fine and relevant. But more or less what you described was done, often better in ME (story) going by what you described above. I don't consider a "darker" story to be better. I find that over the top "darkness" and shock value is often used to in place of intellect to gather attention. And honestly the same can be applied to the melee combat as well.
 
To me the sum result of Mass Effect series was one ending in 3 different colors. A total joke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Damar
like this
IdiotInCharge said:
I have to have played it through over a half-dozen times- like a good book or movie, it's about the playthrough, not just the ending.
Click to expand...

the issue with that is over the course of the game you built up relationships, meanings through your actions with the groups you may have sacrificed or saved. And none of that applied to the ending. How could they make a game without noticing that was a problem. And the ending boss battles were even worse nonsense that had nothing to do with the rest of the story. STILL SALTY
 
Aireoth said:
First: Remember this is a 2015 game, I know that's hard to do. Since witcher more studios have tried to mimic or pillage ideas from Witcher.

Couple of areas, the usual suspects are all present, as in it has great graphics for an open world game, the animation is fantastic, and the models when talking face to face are good without being uncanny or stilted. The weather system was well done, the effects are good/great, its easy to learn and difficult to master. The difficulty curve holds up well through most of the game, the world remains interesting till the end.

Where this game sets itself apart for me is in its world building, story and plot. The game does not present anything on a moral black and white, and while many games try to do that, they usually fail and fall back into the trap of good/bad. Witcher manages to pull that through most of the game, and while some side quests are terrible (as they always are in open world games) many where decent and several are stellar (even better than the main game in some cases). Every choice felt like it had weight in a world that largely (again for a computer game) felt alive and functioning. and those choices most of the time had some impact later in the game, even small ones.

For example, I was running around the first map, completing quests which generally involved hunting some monster, when I came across a band of villagers attempting to lynch a deserter. I decided to try and talk them out of it, which was for naught their minds where made up, so they attacked me too, and I promptly killed them all. At which point instead of the generic 'thank you for saving me from bad men' - 'your welcome rando NPC, please give me reward', he went to thank me and I promptly said if I wasn't there one man would be dead instead of seven. Now you might say this kind of reaction is present in some other games, but the difference is the Witcher never forgot what kind of world this was, and constantly hits the player with choices that fall on a moral spectrum rather than Blue, Red, Grey.

So all in all, I believe Witcher lives up to the praise. Yes everyone is entitled to their own judgement, but the majority rules, and the majority have spoken.

As for M76 and Idiotincharge's little debate, the masses are one metric, and as an aggregate they are the best metric. However if your specific likes run counter, you can still be right in disagreeing, for example the Marvel universe, I like most of them, love a few, but for me they ultimately fall flat in artistic values of cinema that I appreciate. So I'd rate them 7/10 by in large, instead of the 9/10 they seem to rake in.
Click to expand...
Wow, this is one of the better explanations i've read in a long time. I bought the Witcher 3 game with all DLC on the ps4 a while ago and it's still in its wrapper. I heard it sucks you in and you really need to devote time for it. now that i've build my computer i'm contemplating buying it for the Pc and just playing there. Thoughts?
 
from people that have played all three, Do I need to start with the other 2 to really enjoy witcher 3? I dont think i have that many game hours just to play the latest, however if it completes the story and immerses you in the game i will.
 
g00z13 said:
from people that have played all three, Do I need to start with the other 2 to really enjoy witcher 3? I dont think i have that many game hours just to play the latest, however if it completes the story and immerses you in the game i will.
Click to expand...
I tried to play w2 before 3, but I didn't enjoy it (played about an hour or so).
 
g00z13 said:
from people that have played all three, Do I need to start with the other 2 to really enjoy witcher 3? I dont think i have that many game hours just to play the latest, however if it completes the story and immerses you in the game i will.
Click to expand...

You'll be fine jumping to Witcher 3. Witcher 1 is good but has a very slow start. Doesn't pick up until Act 2.

Witcher 2 is a weird game in itself. Much more linear and very short for an RPG.
 
g00z13 said:
from people that have played all three, Do I need to start with the other 2 to really enjoy witcher 3? I dont think i have that many game hours just to play the latest, however if it completes the story and immerses you in the game i will.
Click to expand...

To add in a bit more, I barely remembered Witcher 1 when I started Wild Hunt. I vaguely remembered a few characters but not really what they did in the first game's story. I played the 2nd game many times and thus it was easier to remember characters I met in it.

That being said, the few characters who appeared in all 3 games I very much gave a damn about and it influenced a few choices.

From what I've heard, CDPR tried to make Witcher 3 as self-contained as possible. What might be best is watching a playthrough of the first two games. A side benefit of being aware of the content of the first two is you can see how much CDPR improved gameplay.
 
g00z13 said:
from people that have played all three, Do I need to start with the other 2 to really enjoy witcher 3? I dont think i have that many game hours just to play the latest, however if it completes the story and immerses you in the game i will.
Click to expand...

Thanks for asking this. Timing was never right for me to pick this series up, but I really want to try the third one.
 
g00z13 said:
from people that have played all three, Do I need to start with the other 2 to really enjoy witcher 3? I dont think i have that many game hours just to play the latest, however if it completes the story and immerses you in the game i will.
Click to expand...

You don't, BUT there are a lot of things referenced in the Witcher 3 that pertain to the first two games. I suppose you can get caught up by watching Youtube videos.
 
g00z13 said:
Wow, this is one of the better explanations i've read in a long time. I bought the Witcher 3 game with all DLC on the ps4 a while ago and it's still in its wrapper. I heard it sucks you in and you really need to devote time for it. now that i've build my computer i'm contemplating buying it for the Pc and just playing there. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Depends on disposable income and your PC power, it is a pretty game and you can grab a few graphic mods to make it even better.I would, but I bought it on PC, master race all the way.
 
g00z13 said:
from people that have played all three, Do I need to start with the other 2 to really enjoy witcher 3? I dont think i have that many game hours just to play the latest, however if it completes the story and immerses you in the game i will.
Click to expand...
witcher is based on a series of polish books, very good series btw. the witcher series comes after the books. author made a mistake and thought the games would tank so he took a lump sum payment of I think about 40k instead of a royalty.
anyway two of the three main characters of witcher series are not in W1 or W2. W1 has some interesting stories and consequences. W2 is more a political drama. I could not bring myself to finish it. W3 is a very solid all around RPG. Much better and more refined game mechanics.
 
AngeloBJ said:
Thanks for asking this. Timing was never right for me to pick this series up, but I really want to try the third one.
Click to expand...
Same, never enough time but i can't keep putting it off an longer lol. Gonna take some PTO and just play games and eat pizza ha ha
 
Oh, nasty

Art. 44 of the Act on Copyright and Related Rights.

The abovementioned clause is, first and foremost, unconditionally binding (J. Barta, R. Markiewicz,
Ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych (ed.) J. Barta, R. Markiewicz, Warsaw 2003, p. 364),
and furthermore it may be invoked when the compensation remitted to the author is too low given the
benefits obtained in association with the use of that author’s work.
 
Armenius said:
After publicly stating that he hates the video games and that it was a mistake to sell the rights, Andrzej Sapkowski is suing CD Projekt RED for additional royalties not stipulated in the original contract he signed. And the sad thing is he may win the case according to Polish law. The total amount he is seeking is £12.5m.

https://www.cdprojekt.com/en/investors/regulatory-announcements/current-report-no-15-2018/

cageymaru
Click to expand...

YoungYea did an excellent video on the topic:

 
They offered me a percentage of their profits. I said, 'No, there will be no profit at all - give me all my money right now! The whole amount.' It was stupid.

I get the feeling he sold the rights as a pittance (Edit: $9500 USD whoops), so giving him something would be decent... (but only if they feel like it, he made his bed)
 
Well, IMO they should probably offer up the original royalty percentage, but then I have no idea what that is. I question the royalty business though, since the game references content in the books but the stories are pretty much not based on the book content. The actual game mechanics are completely different. There is only a bit of magic and elixirs. the books though did not have dual swords.
 
I've been doing some digging. Sapkowski (author) has a bit of ego going on, and his current actions feel founded in jealousy, or at the very least, the result of a "ambulance chaser" Lawyer he has on staff. He has historically been opposed to games as a story vehicle, and before now, has largely blown them off as an insignificant medium. This has been well documented as shown in YoungYea's video. However before the Witcher games his books were only successful on a local level (Poland and portions of the U.K.). Since the games, particularly since the success of Witcher 2 and after, he's enjoyed worldwide success. He maintains that would have happened anyway and the games only had a small contribution. I know I had no idea about him or his books until after playing the games, and have since bought all of those that have been translated to English. Andrzej Sapkowski is worth over $200 million today, he has dramatically benefited from the success of the Witcher game franchise. However he has come off as bitter about their success and made some very "I was first and I'm still more successful" comments over the years, as though he's been tarnished some how by the games making more money than his books. The fact that he has verbally played down the game industry and CDPR's take on the IP is interesting given that, now he's basically throwing a tantrum over them having greater success than him. In one interview, the most he would credit the games' success was "about equal" to his own, but CDPR net worth is north of 2 Billion today, based almost entirely on the the Witcher Franchise (granted, they are different entities with different financial dynamics, but that can only account for a percentage).

Now the wording of Article 43 & 44 could potentially grant him some compensation with the right Judge. CDPR seems confident in where they stand and made Sapkowski's letter and their response public the day after it arrived. Personally, I don't think Sapkowski has a leg to stand on and I think his motives are egocentric... that does not mean however, that I do not emphasize with his situation as the original author. He choose a lump sum instead of royalties, that was his own fault, but CDPR was an unknown at the time and the game industry in Poland was almost non-existent; would anyone else have done any differently? Ideally I would like to see this get worked out peacefully between the two. I don't think CDPR has done any wrong (which is only reinforced by how they have partnered with Michael Pondsmith for CP2077) and admit Sapkowski is basically being a bitter child, but for the sake of the IP I think it would be best for everyone if both parties stayed on 'good' terms, even if it's only on a business level.
 
Last edited:
I fucking love that the Metro 2033 author called Sapkowski "an arrogant motherfucker." :ROFLMAO: Everything I have read about Sapkowski (going back to around Witcher 2's release) was that he is a dickhead and thinks he's king shit of turd mountain.

edit: I wonder if CDPR's legal team can prove (to a satisfactory degree) whether the Witcher game releases boosted Sapkowski's books' sales. If so it might be one way of showing that he did receive a form of remuneration as a result of the license deal. Other than that, I have a feeling Sapkowski, as much of an asshole and arrogant prick he seems, has the upper hand and will probably be set for life after this. Well, not that he wasn't already...
 
Last edited:
Colonel Sanders said:
I fucking love that the Metro 2033 author called Sapkowski "an arrogant motherfucker." :ROFLMAO: Everything I have read about Sapkowski (going back to around Witcher 2's release) was that he is a dickhead and thinks he's king shit of turd mountain.

edit: I wonder if CDPR's legal team can prove (to a satisfactory degree) whether the Witcher game releases boosted Sapkowski's books' sales. If so it might be one way of showing that he did receive a form of remuneration as a result of the license deal. Other than that, I have a feeling Sapkowski, as much of an asshole and arrogant prick he seems, has the upper hand and will probably be set for life after this. Well, not that he wasn't already...
Click to expand...

I read that too, lol. Gave me a good laugh.

I cannot comment on Polish Law, but I'm guessing Sapkowski's chances will largely depend on the Judge the case gets if it goes to Court. They DID offer him royalties and he turned them down. He has publically admitted this in interviews. Some Judges could look at that, especially if they are familiar with his ego, and say 'too bad so sad'. But of course it is just as likely to be the other way around; we'll see. Sapkowski wanted to keep all this quiet, but CDPR has published everything, remaining transparent to their fans and share holders. It could get ugly, or they could settle out of court quietly, who knows at this point.
 
Didnt they say they want to keep things amicable and will put effort into keeping it this way?

Yep, 1st post
https://hardforum.com/threads/witcher-creator-demands-16-million-from-cd-projekt.1968956/
"It is the Company's will to maintain good relations with authors of works which have inspired CD PROJEKT RED's own creations. Consequently, the Board will go to great lengths to ensure amicable resolution of this dispute."
Click to expand...

He will get a reasonable settlement without going to court imo.
Whether its enough for him is another matter but I imagine the good will of the company will go a long way.
 
I don't feel like CDPR should be obligated to give this asshole ANYTHING. He got what he wanted in the first place, and now has buyer's remorse? Too fucking bad. Especially after slagging off the idea of a video game initially.

I guess Polish law could be different, but caving to this sets a dangerous precedent.
 
The author is an idiot. The witcher books were only popular in Poland, other slavic countries and a little bit in the UK, prior to the first Witcher game, it was impossible to find versions of the books not in Polish, Czech or some other slavic language.

I had a buddy in the Army (in the late 90's Germany) that was Polish and he was a huge fan of the book and would never shut up about the Wiedžmin. We would be stuck in the back of a Bradley or HMMWV and he would be translating parts of the book to us. I thought at that time the stories were awesome, but English versions were non existent, not in Europe, not anywhere until like 2006 or something.

The CDProject games put the Witcher saga on the global map, that is a fact. The books would not have the global fan base they have without the games. The author is just playing the douche card.
 
Fun fact. Before the games there was a movie and TV series based in the books. Its just that nobody ever heard of it because they weren't popular and were Polish language (if I recall). He decided to take a lump sum upfront. He took the less risky option. That was his choice. He signed a legal document and all that. I'd be upset to, but I hope he doesn't win any case. At least CDProjekt can hire him again for another story concept. He'll certainly have more bargaining power this go around. With luck CD Projekt knew what they were doing and didn't have any loopholes or shortcomings in the agreement they signed all those years back.
 
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-witcher-2015-7

Poland’s Prime Minister loves this spectacular video game so much he gave it to Obama as a gift

The last time I was here, Donald [Tusk] gave me a gift, the video game developed here in Poland that's won fans the world over, "The Witcher." I confess, I'm not very good at video games, but I've been told that it is a great example of Poland's place in the new global economy. And it's a tributre to the talents and work ethic of the Polish people as well as the wise stewardship of Polish leaders like prime minister Tusk.

I bet the author was fuming when he read that
 
Frraksurred said:
I've been doing some digging. Sapkowski (author) has a bit of ego going on, and his current actions feel founded in jealousy, or at the very least, the result of a "ambulance chaser" Lawyer he has on staff. He has historically been opposed to games as a story vehicle, and before now, has largely blown them off as an insignificant medium. This has been well documented as shown in YoungYea's video. However before the Witcher games his books were only successful on a local level (Poland and portions of the U.K.). Since the games, particularly since the success of Witcher 2 and after, he's enjoyed worldwide success. He maintains that would have happened anyway and the games only had a small contribution. I know I had no idea about him or his books until after playing the games, and have since bought all of those that have been translated to English. Andrzej Sapkowski is worth over $200 million today, he has dramatically benefited from the success of the Witcher game franchise. However he has come off as bitter about their success and made some very "I was first and I'm still more successful" comments over the years, as though he's been tarnished some how by the games making more money than his books. The fact that he has verbally played down the game industry and CDPR's take on the IP is interesting given that, now he's basically throwing a tantrum over them having greater success than him. In one interview, the most he would credit the games' success was "about equal" to his own, but CDPR net worth is north of 2 Billion today, based almost entirely on the the Witcher Franchise (granted, they are different entities with different financial dynamics, but that can only account for a percentage).

Now the wording of Article 43 & 44 could potentially grant him some compensation with the right Judge. CDPR seems confident in where they stand and made Sapkowski's letter and their response public the day after it arrived. Personally, I don't think Sapkowski has a leg to stand on and I think his motives are egocentric... that does not mean however, that I do not emphasize with his situation as the original author. He choose a lump sum instead of royalties, that was his own fault, but CDPR was an unknown at the time and the game industry in Poland was almost non-existent; would anyone else have done any differently? Ideally I would like to see this get worked out peacefully between the two. I don't think CDPR has done any wrong (which is only reinforced by how they have partnered with Michael Pondsmith for CP2077) and admit Sapkowski is basically being a bitter child, but for the sake of the IP I think it would be best for everyone if both parties stayed on 'good' terms, even if it's only on a business level.
Click to expand...

All that may be true. The big question is does any of it matter. Not sure any of it will under their laws. Just reading the Articles I'd say no. Not a lawyer so my viewpoint doesn't mean a thing.
Looking forward to the youtube lawyers future videos on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top