Why exactly do so many claim that Witcher 3 choices matter?
>whether you cure Anna or let her die Baron either fricks off to some random mountains or kills himself. In both cases you never see him again
>the war choices do not matter at all because once you complete the game the save gets 'reset' like you just arrived in Velen and no new stuff appears. Banners, common character dialogues and soldier armors - uniforms do not change hence whether you let Redania or MILFgaard win does not matter
>the same goes for the Ciri story line, you never see the consequences of your actions
I spent about 60 hours watching an interactive movie because the combat and general gameplay were both laughably bad. 10 hours in I realized the game does not get better yet still played till the end to see what everyone praises the game for then realized it's a Mario 'the princess is in another castle!!' ripoff with some edgy elves as a major plot point despite the fact you see them 3 times in total. Why exactly did everyone shit their pants over this game? Was it due to some heavy shilling campaign? Sunken cost fallacy due to all of that lost time playing thru filler?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
The main quest is bad, yeah. The defense of Kaer Morhen in particular stuck out to me. But the sidequests, insofar as you care about the characters there who CAN die because they're not that relevant, there is a fair amount of consequence to the choices you make.
The only decent side quests were the monster hunting ones and even then it was just follow red tracks then click X and fight a reskin of an enemy - enemies you fought 10 times before. The defense of the keep was stupid because even if you completed all of those 'gather the team' quests the outcome is always the same. The additional characters just frick off somewhere near the end of the quest because the developers had no idea what to do with them considering they decided that Vesemir dies no matter what lmao
Here is your dialogue, bro
I knew you were a loser.
>can die
And then you never hear about them again. They are basically theater paper cutouts meant to entertain you in-between the real action which never happens in Witcher 3 because all quests use the same 2 - 3 mission templates of 'go fight X enemies' or 'go fight X enemies while solving Z brain dead puzzles'
The choices are more flavor than actually consequential, but I enjoy the game because of the setting and the smartly written dialogue.
Th main story isn't that good, everyone admits that HoS and BaW are better narratively.
Hearts of Stone is a romantic novel foid bait
Blood and Wine is just moronic in general. From the 'I can totally fix that murderous sociopath, bro' bullshit to not bailing after letting detlaff go despite Geralt knowing he would get executed because.. Muh Witcher code of conduct or something lmao
Yeah bro a few texture - model swaps and 20 minutes of additional dialogue is so much fricking work for a ESG backed studio
Lmao
>ESG in 2011-2015
yeah...no
I mean it had best combat of the series. But that bar is quite low.
>because once you complete the game the save gets 'reset'
Because... When you complete the game the story is over? You're complaining that the story that has ended doesn't continue. That's because the story is over. You finished the game.
But you know that's completely valid. I often complain about how in Mario after you rescue Peach from Bowser we don't see the two of them go back to the castle and get on with their lives, doing mundane tasks, age over time and eventually die in their old age. That tedious part where you have to play the game and save her from Bowser was so boring. I want to see the consequences of the story extrapolated out to infinity because I am mentally moronic.
.
.
.
Cause Witcher 2 was better and choices actually mattered.
.
.
>Mhm, smells like piss and shit. Pisser-shitter was here.
loot incentivizes exploration
..
.
It's cope. Witcher 3 was a massive Psy op lie by the industry, same with cyberpunk and bg3. Witcher 3 was supposed to have the best combat in a game ever and it ended up having some of the worst. So people cope with this by pretending the cutscenes are really good. The same would have happened with bg3 if act 3 wasn't an unfixable disaster
In other words sunken cost fallacy etc etc
>decent to good
The writing goes from laughably bad to decent across 60 hours. The peak was probably the bloody baron quest line yet even that was very basic in terms of story telling
Originally baron was supposed to be a rapist that sexually abused his daughter. That shit was cut out out before release just like plenty of other good content we learned about due to the 2014 leaks
I am laughing at your excuse of a life btw
writing is decent to good
and that is very rare
it was the last game where i was 175 hours in after completing the DLCs and I did not want to leave
so I decided to ride around for the last time starting from the Hanged Mans Tree. and I ran into 5 quests that I had missed. the sheer amount of stuff in the game is fantastic
.
>no choice to have canon sex with ciri
shit game
>>the same goes for the Ciri story line, you never see the consequences of your actions
Actually you do get a consequence in Blood and Wine, since that's post story.
I like in Blood and Wine where you can tell the b***h sister off and she ruins the ending.
If you ever see someone say TW3 choices matter ask them why 99% of people's playthroughs end with Cerys ruling Skellige and Nilfgaard winning the war