Support NeoGAF

[NickFire]

The reasons given for liking it are usually the same as those given for an Elder Scrolls game:

- the map was so big and breathtaking
- all of the skills, weapons, items
- I can complete this mission... like.... three different ways!!!
- tons of books scattered everywhere
- tons of "AAA" content, like voice acting

But as a standalone RPG, I cannot think of a single way in which Witcher 3 moves the genre forward. The combat is lame. The map itself is too large and the rewards for off-script exploration are too sparse. The skill tree has some bottlenecks that reduce the overall number of viable builds. Touching your medallion all the time for witcher sight trivializes gathering in the open world. Instead of a true next-gen open world game, we just got a really, really, really massive PS3/360 era open world game.

In and of itself, there's nothing wrong with that. But we cannot ignore the fact that Witcher 3 didn't have any competition from the other big publishers. In a different universe where Bioware and Bethesda were competent, Witcher 3 would've been viewed as a somewhat-flawed RPG release. Certainly one of the better RPGs of the generation, but not the monolith that it is today.

Come at me with your knives. Yeah the title is clickbaity. Obviously the game has plenty of genuine merits and people have different tastes.

You forgot T and A, a/k/a the unsaid reason. Not weird alien attractions and fades to black screens, but real T and A.

 

[Riven326]

An outrageous take, IMO, but you're entitled to it.

Maybe. But I like people that go against the grain.

 

[Kamina]

Its okay to have a bad opinion op

 

[Kumomeme]

it gain attention because it 'fix' one of most common problem of other open world rpg

Spoiler

proper unique quest with storyline than the usual bland, generic, fetch quest

also, despite the combat is suck, it atleast better and 'proper' than skyrim and dragon age inquisition

 

[Tomeru]

I can believe that, especially for Bioware.

Correct. That's why I dont like W3. While it's good, it is far from great

 

[Spukc]

Game was an absolute borefest.

 

[Mossybrew]

I think this is a new low, so desperate to throw shade on something popular, saying people only liked it so much because there wasn't some imaginary better game.Jesus Christ, it's time for you to take a break from the internet OP.

 

[Nankatsu]

The game is good, but I understand what you're saying.

In terms of innovation it didn't bring anything new to the table. Same old elements, but way more refined (expect for combat, which sucks). And that refinement is even more clear when competition is sleeping.

FIFA has been doing that for years, except it's on a different level. It doesn't refine anything, same shit every year as it's still popular af

 

[DragoonKain]

I liked the combat actually. I think it fits the game really well. It had a great balance of action and some minor strategy to where you could fluidly and quickly fight and then move on to what you were doing. Any lengthy battles or overly strategic battle system would slow down the pacing and your exploration, which is what the biggest part of the game is arguably,

And I think in terms of things found on the map exploring, it does it better than any other game. I mean just compare the small sidequests in this game to JRPGs, it’s night and day.

 

[zcaa0g]

One of the rare RPGs I finished. The Witcher 3 deserves all of its accolades.

 

[Riven326]

I just couldn't get into playing as Geralt.

 

[Peenolia010]

I never played Witcher 1 & 2, yet I feel like I know the characters just as well as those who have played them all. I just hope Witcher 4 can trump or at least match what the 3rd did for open world fantasy rpgs.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

DunDun, I get where you are coming for. The combat and RPG features are very simple, without much to mess around. From Software, Capcom and Bethesda have more complex systems in their games. Even CD Projekt Red said they didn't have an encounter designer for Witcher 3.

But IMO, Witcher 3 (and 2) have the best story and narrative in a RPG since Planescape Torment. And not only that, but everyone, from the main character, to a NPC in a quest feels like a real person and the situations are well constructed, very far from "give me X bear pelts". Each side mission or minor quest, damn... sometimes even hidden treasures in the map have an interesting story!

Aside from the story quality, it is very well acted, with enough character expression to convince. Scenes which have everything to feels awkward, like sex scenes or slice of life moments between father and daughter are convincing as hell. In a 200 hour RPG which makes even more impressive.

I don't deny the quality of its AAA assets (mentioned in the OP), but an RPG is more to me than the total hours of voice acting or the quality of its mocap. I'm not claiming the game is bad, either, even though I didn't personally fall in love with it. Rather, Witcher 3 rose to prominence just as every other major Western RPG dev went to shit. It was a big open-world game with a lot of AAA assets packed into it, but other than borrowing Arkham Asylum's bat-vision, I don't know what it brought to the RPG genre.

I'm also fine with an RPG that isn't "innovative" but does a ton of things very, very well. Craftmanship beats innovation, imo. Witcher 3 has a lot of content, but I think the craftmanship and the overall package isn't all that better than a PS3/360 era Bioware or Bethesda game.

 

[Vawn]

So your hot take is it is on popular because it's quality puts every other open-world RPG to shame?

I mean, yeah, I guess that's not a bad thing.

 

[GetemMa]

The contention that Witcher 3 got more shine than it would have otherwise, had games like Fallout 4, MEA, and DAI not been such giant turds, may have some merit. This gen was pretty shitty for RPGs. But that doesn't mean that Witcher 3 isn't an excellent game, because it is.

Obviously Witcher 3 isn't perfect, but you can go back to last gen's top RPGs and find plenty of problems with them, honestly.



It's a big part of it, no doubt.

The Witcher 3 was nearly universally praised when it was released and it released before Fallout 4 and Mass Effect Andromeda. I don't think there is much to this argument the OP is trying to make that those games shortcomings "are the only reason." the Witcher 3 is loved as it is. The popularity of RPGs isn't some zero sum game. I like the Witcher 3 but it has flaws, most notably the combat is mediocre and the boss fights are below average. But, as far as world building, story telling and actually implementing meaningful choices, it's a massive success and hugely influential. It undoubtedly changed expectations for what RPGs should do with their narratives in both implementation and depth. It changed the way major franchises like Assassins Creed and even Zelda which says a lot in my opinion.

It's a shame Bioware has tanked so hard, but the talent that made classics like KOTOR and the Mass Effect Trilogy have mostly exited the company, and it's plain to see that EA executives control the creative direction of that studio, not the developers.

 

[Aion002]

Bethesda ehhhhh.

I gave two shots at Bethesda games.


Fallout 3, at launch, pc, 10 hours in, so many bugs and glitches then... my save got corrupted.

Skyrim, at launch, Ps3, 40 hours in, my save started to suffer from slowdowns and shit...

Reading about it online, people say that's normal on Bethesda, they always do this crap, people just accept it... I don't.

There won't be a third one.


The Witcher 3 is great, cool story, fun characters, amazing world and beautiful on pc.... However, TW3 does not have the same approach as the Elder Scrolls,l games, I think that is an unfair comparison.

You should compare ES with Divinity... The only difference is the visual perspective... Other than that it has the same aspects.... just a gazillion times better and polished.


Divinity 2>>>>>all.

 

[Moogle11]

I mostly liked it as I thought the story and characters are way better than what you get in an Elder Scrolls or Fallout game with a generic player character. That doesn’t do as much for me as I’m not a very imaginative person. I want to be told a story and see character development and Witcher 3 was great for that, especially with having so many great sidequests with solid stories attached Hell, even some of the simple hunts had neat little stories and lore attached to them.

I agree more with the Bioware comparison as they really dropped the ball and were the other RPG maker who excelled at story telling and character development for me prior to this gen.

 

[Holgren]

The Witcher 3 is alright, but I enjoyed more Mass Effect 1 and Fallout 3.

 

[SirKicksalot]

It does not respect the player. Everything is about Batman vision. It's tiresome.

 

[Steve.1981]

So my main takeaway from this is that we can stop saying Dragon Age: Inquisition was only successful because Witcher 3 hadn't released yet

But seriously, I disagree. I think Witcher 3 is good enough to stand tall with the best that Bethesda & Bioware have done. It would've been just as popular with RPG fans last gen, when those 2 were on top form.

In fact now I think about it, Witcher 2 wasn't far off that kind of quality.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Personally, I think Witcher 2 was the better game. I'm not an outsider to the franchise or anything

 

[Dontero]

It is not that Betsheda or Bioware failed at their job.
It is CDPR that simply leapfrogged them.

And CB2077 looks like it will double leapfrog them again.

TW3 put bar so high that it is hard for them to even get close to that bar let alone pass it.

 

[iNvid02]

I dont agree with anything OP said, but lets consider that maybe witcher 3 was not a genre mover and simple like he says

Bethesda and bioware couldnt even match this all gen, they havent dropped the ball, they lost it long ago, lmao

 

[Lionel Richie]

In and of itself, there's nothing wrong with that. But we cannot ignore the fact that Witcher 3 didn't have any competition from the other big publishers. In a different universe where Bioware and Bethesda were competent, Witcher 3 would've been viewed as a somewhat-flawed RPG release. Certainly one of the better RPGs of the generation, but not the monolith that it is today.

I think this is the part I disagree with the most and weirdly it's for the reason you stated there. We're looking at the same fact, "Witcher 3 didn't have any competition from the other big publishers", and reaching different conclusions. IMO that difference is largely based on my idea that a competent Bioware or Bethesda would change something in that scenario. The Witcher 3 is an unbelievably well written game, like the thing is air tight. This isn't peak Bioware, it's much further from that. It's still unique in its delivery and Ubisoft couldn't deliver something close to that quality even if the concept of microtransaction depended on that.

The one thing TW3 nails above all else is pacing, games usually have a problem with that. They either overstay their welcome or end abruptly, while TW3 never makes you question like is this ending now. The arc is perfectly understandable and there's a feeling of reaching the conclusion that lasts just long enough for you to nut but not long enough for you to be messy and questioning your life choices. The one game that I think is somewhat comparable in that regard is the original TLOU, and that game had to sacrifice a LOT to make it so. It was absolutely linear, it was an easier time without much of a difficulty curve and the story was the sole focus. While the combat in TW3 isn't elite, it's good enough to sustain a longer duration and the world is obviously much more open. It's perfectly balanced.

But the writing is really top notch. The dialogues were great, story beats delivered on their premise, the game had a bit of an episodic feel without being broken into clear segments, it's just hard to find many issues with anything that happens. And it all makes you feel like a boss without making you feel like a self insert OP character. It's just a ridiculously well told narrative that does that despite not being a cinematic menial "hide ass first in the tall grass" nightmare of a game.

 

[God Enel]

reported

 

[doboy]

The one thing TW3 nails above all else is pacing, games usually have a problem with that. They either overstay their welcome or end abruptly, while TW3 never makes you question like is this ending now. The arc is perfectly understandable and there's a feeling of reaching the conclusion that lasts just long enough for you to nut but not long enough for you to be messy and questioning your life choices.

I felt like pacing was the biggest flaw in the game. From a gameplay perspective, you get overleveled quickly, and the vast majority of the game becomes approaches story mode difficulty, even on death march. Granted this is not unique in RPGs. However, the stories and characters are so good that you do get in this sort of zen state and lose track of time experiencing everything.

The game is much more of an anthology than a focused story. Personally, I enjoy the latter.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I think this is the part I disagree with the most and weirdly it's for the reason you stated there. We're looking at the same fact, "Witcher 3 didn't have any competition from the other big publishers", and reaching different conclusions. IMO that difference is largely based on my idea that a competent Bioware or Bethesda would change something in that scenario. The Witcher 3 is an unbelievably well written game, like the thing is air tight. This isn't peak Bioware, it's much further from that. It's still unique in its delivery and Ubisoft couldn't deliver something close to that quality even if the concept of microtransaction depended on that.

I'll give it that. I loved the story in W1 and W2. Witcher 3 somehow maintained the quality across an extremely large play area. As a feat of raw content, it's impressive.

The one thing TW3 nails above all else is pacing, games usually have a problem with that. They either overstay their welcome or end abruptly, while TW3 never makes you question like is this ending now. The arc is perfectly understandable and there's a feeling of reaching the conclusion that lasts just long enough for you to nut but not long enough for you to be messy and questioning your life choices. The one game that I think is somewhat comparable in that regard is the original TLOU, and that game had to sacrifice a LOT to make it so. It was absolutely linear, it was an easier time without much of a difficulty curve and the story was the sole focus. While the combat in TW3 isn't elite, it's good enough to sustain a longer duration and the world is obviously much more open. It's perfectly balanced.

But the writing is really top notch. The dialogues were great, story beats delivered on their premise, the game had a bit of an episodic feel without being broken into clear segments, it's just hard to find many issues with anything that happens. And it all makes you feel like a boss without making you feel like a self insert OP character. It's just a ridiculously well told narrative that does that despite not being a cinematic menial "hide ass first in the tall grass" nightmare of a game.

I don't agree with your praise for the pacing. I lost interest after approximately 30 hours. I reached Skellige, realized it would be another sprawling web of NPC points of interest with no meaningful open-world in between, and shelved it. I beat W1 twice and W2 four times, so it was certainly a shock to me.

But my experience is anecdotal. I'm not trying to get into why the game was a flop for me.

 

[Steve.1981]

It's the setting, characters & story that do it for me in the world of The Witcher. Everything feels so richly detailed, with proper history & place. It has a wonderfully grounded style, even with all the fantasy stuff.

It's definitely up there with the Elder Scrolls & Mass Effect. I'm looking at this much less in terms of actual gameplay systems, lol.

 

[Strider Highwind]

Just no.

 

[martino]

 

[cookiemuffin]

Bethesda and Bioware will never make a good game again.

 

[I Love Rock 'n' Roll]

Just no.

The Witcher 3 two DLC are the best things ever in the gaming industry.

 

[Lionel Richie]

I don't agree with your praise for the pacing. I lost interest after approximately 30 hours. I reached Skellige, realized it would be another sprawling web of NPC points of interest with no meaningful open-world in between, and shelved it. I beat W1 twice and W2 four times, so it was certainly a shock to me.

But my experience is anecdotal. I'm not trying to get into why the game was a flop for me.

Skellige was the one tricky are and I could see how it could mess up the immersion, but for me I was pretty dead set on my personal quest to fuck Yennefer as hard as humanly possible. I suppose if you're waifuing Triss it could lead to that part being less interesting.

 

[GeorgPrime]

The reasons given for liking it are usually the same as those given for an Elder Scrolls game:

- the map was so big and breathtaking
- all of the skills, weapons, items
- I can complete this mission... like.... three different ways!!!
- tons of books scattered everywhere
- tons of "AAA" content, like voice acting

But as a standalone RPG, I cannot think of a single way in which Witcher 3 moves the genre forward. The combat is lame. The map itself is too large and the rewards for off-script exploration are too sparse. The skill tree has some bottlenecks that reduce the overall number of viable builds. Touching your medallion all the time for witcher sight trivializes gathering in the open world. Instead of a true next-gen open world game, we just got a really, really, really massive PS3/360 era open world game.

In and of itself, there's nothing wrong with that. But we cannot ignore the fact that Witcher 3 didn't have any competition from the other big publishers. In a different universe where Bioware and Bethesda were competent, Witcher 3 would've been viewed as a somewhat-flawed RPG release. Certainly one of the better RPGs of the generation, but not the monolith that it is today.

Come at me with your knives. Yeah the title is clickbaity. Obviously the game has plenty of genuine merits and people have different tastes.

Bethesda never was an AAA developer. They never will.

And Bioware.... well.... they dropped ball since Dragon Age 1, that was the last good game

 

[The Bloody-Nine]

I'll give it that. I loved the story in W1 and W2. Witcher 3 somehow maintained the quality across an extremely large play area. As a feat of raw content, it's impressive.


I don't agree with your praise for the pacing. I lost interest after approximately 30 hours. I reached Skellige, realized it would be another sprawling web of NPC points of interest with no meaningful open-world in between, and shelved it. I beat W1 twice and W2 four times, so it was certainly a shock to me.

But my experience is anecdotal. I'm not trying to get into why the game was a flop for me.

It's a real shame you quit without experiencing Blood and Wine. It's magical.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

It's the setting, characters & story that do it for me in the world of The Witcher. Everything feels so richly detailed, with proper history & place. It has a wonderfully grounded style, even with all the fantasy stuff.

It's definitely up there with the Elder Scrolls & Mass Effect. I'm looking at this much less in terms of actual gameplay systems, lol.

I would go a bit further and argue it exceeded the last-gen efforts of Elder Scrolls and Mass Effect. Heck, even Witcher 2 was top shelf compared to its peers.

That said, I think Witcher 3 was still mired in the same general western RPG conventions that continue to hold Bethesda and Bioware back. It's an excellent game in its own right but doesn't push anything forward. The AAA RPG landscape this gen kinda sucked overall, now that I think about it.

It's a real shame you quit without experiencing Blood and Wine. It's magical.

I've come to terms with the fact that I will miss many amazing gaming experiences, Witcher 3 included. But I view that more as "it didn't click for me" instead of the game itself being low quality.

 

[ChoosableOne]

I couldn't play dlcs after beating it. It's a eight out of ten game for sure, but not a legend as everyone suggesting. Who ever loves that kinda games should try Kingdom Come: Deliverance. That's how you make a 10/10 game! Every gameplay mechanic feels great; horse riding, alchemy, melee/bow fights etc. It gives you great feeling of exploration too(in hardest mode)! I ride my horse for hours without thinking any quest at all. That game reminded me how i missed those linear(semi-open?) rpg games, which has few but great content. I highly recommend it.

 

[Lionel Richie]

It's a real shame you quit without experiencing Blood and Wine. It's magical.

Hearts of Stone is also a masterpiece and features the best quest in the entire thing. Vlodimir was an absolute bro.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I couldn't play dlcs after beating it. It's a eight out of ten game for sure, but not a legend as everyone suggesting. Who ever loves that kinda games should try Kingdom Come: Deliverance. That's how you make a 10/10 game! Every gameplay mechanic feels great; horse riding, alchemy, melee/bow fights etc. It gives you great feeling of exploration too(in hardest mode)! I ride my horse for hours without thinking any quest at all. That game reminded me how i missed those linear(semi-open?) rpg games, which has few but great content. I highly recommend it.

I second this. I'm about 60 hours into my first playthrough and I feel far more immersed in the world, even though I'd prefer the more fantastical fantasy Witcher world (if given a choice).

 

[Bolivar687]

I LOVE bold takes like this and do not want to discourage them, so I"ll respond with one myself:

Had CD Projekt Red prioritized consoles earlier, Bioware would not have the marquee name it enjoys today. The Witcher 1 utterly annihilates Dragon Age Origins as a dark fantasy RPG. The characters, writing, and performances were leagues better. I've found Bioware's dialogue options oftentimes a total illusion, taking you to the same destination despite the appearance of choice. Many of the outcomes are either a character being alive or dead and nothing beyond that, whereas the Witcher really does recontextualize its story with the consequences of your actions and neither outcome being ideal. I already considered the Witcher 2 to be one of the top games of the decade before Wild Hunt and it also enjoys a Crysis-like status of pushing the boundaries of PC technology for its time.

Unfortunately, the Witcher 1 was PC exclusive and the Witcher 2 came to consoles a year later, on Xbox only, at the tail end of the generation. Their publishing partners in many regions were second tier houses like Bandai Namco and THQ. Launching on consoles, engaging the American media, and having Microsoft behind them is why the franchise was finally able to cross over. The series was already among the elite AAA franchises, most of you just never had the chance to play it.

I also contend that its open world is not the reason why the Witcher 3 was successful. It added the functional depth of a random minimap marker events in Saints Row. It doesn't have the first-person immersion of the Elder Scrolls overworld or the distant hilltop vistas of its cities. Rather, the Wild Hunt's open world is just one more beautifully presented area in the game that enamored players. Maybe it pushed it into the stratosphere, but I believe the game still would have been a sales juggernaut if it had followed the Witcher 2 formula.

 

[Flying Toaster]

DunDunDunpachi refilling the buckets with salty tears.

Honestly I see them as completely different games and perspectives of how to tell a story. Yes there are similarities in open world, multiple choices, fantasy but the nuances and the worlds are different enough. The Witcher series for PC players has always existed. Three coming out on consoles shocked the world as it was CDPR's first real delve into console gaming with the series and was a new world for many. There are valid complaints about each of the games you brought up but at the end of the day I believe Witcher 3 is a much more complete package than anything Bioware or Bethesda has done at least story telling wise this generation.

 

[ChoosableOne]

I second this. I'm about 60 hours into my first playthrough and I feel far more immersed in the world, even though I'd prefer the more fantastical fantasy Witcher world (if given a choice).

I hate magic, no offence mages, because it's cheesy in games so in that regard i love it's setting. But generally i prefer fantasy too, that's how i introduced with rpgs. I want to see dragons, fireballs, chain lightning etc. Who doesn't?

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I LOVE bold takes like this and do not want to discourage them, so I"ll respond with one myself:

Had CD Projekt Red prioritized consoles earlier, Bioware would not have the marquee name it enjoys today. The Witcher 1 utterly annihilates Dragon Age Origins as a dark fantasy RPG. The characters, writing, and performances were leagues better. I've found Bioware's dialogue options oftentimes a total illusion, taking you to the same destination despite the appearance of choice. Many of the outcomes are either a character being alive or dead and nothing beyond that, whereas the Witcher really does recontextualize its story with the consequences of your actions and neither outcome being ideal. I already considered the Witcher 2 to be one of the top games of the decade before Wild Hunt and it also enjoys a Crysis-like status of pushing the boundaries of PC technology for its time.

Unfortunately, the Witcher 1 was PC exclusive and the Witcher 2 came to consoles a year later, on Xbox only, at the tail end of the generation. Their publishing partners in many regions were second tier houses like Bandai Namco and THQ. Launching on consoles, engaging the American media, and having Microsoft behind them is why the franchise was finally able to cross over. The series was already among the elite AAA franchises, most of you just never had the chance to play it.

I agree with this hot take. W1 and W2 were both excellent compared to their peers, and Witcher 3 is no different. The root of my gripe is that -- unlike W1 and W2 -- Witcher 3 wasn't held up to a standard of peers and therefore its flaws were minimized and its strengths were screamed over a loudspeaker.

I also contend that its open world is not the reason why the Witcher 3 was successful. It added the functional depth of a random minimap marker events in Saints Row. It doesn't have the first-person immersion of the Elder Scrolls overworld or the distant hilltop vistas of its cities. Rather, the Wild Hunt's open world is just one more beautifully presented area in the game that enamored players. Maybe it pushed it into the stratosphere, but I believe the game still would have been a sales juggernaut if it had followed the Witcher 2 formula.

I think it was successful in spite of its open world. I agree that it would have sold incredibly well if it followed the Witcher 2 formula. I do wonder what would've happened if CDPR invested more time into perfecting the combat and some of the simulation elements instead of making such a huge world and pouring in so much voice acting and scripting. What sort of game Witcher 3 could've been...

Instead of a true evolution of the franchise, Witcher 3 felt like Witcher 2 stretched over the much-larger skeleton of an open world.

 

[Flying Toaster]

This thread has made me want a Deep Dive with DunDun thread in which a few small paragraphs of thought are put into much cherished games. Not for hot take perspective but an actual conversation. This thread is actually a great thread and the idea of stretching out into design and writing of a game because of such a great emotional jarring first post would be great

DunDunDunpachi I am calling you out to waste more time on GAF!

 

[Steve.1981]

DunDunDunpachi you've got me thinking again about the game.

It does rely too heavily on Witcher Vision. It's actually ridiculous how many quests revolve around that.

& I never liked the skill tree/grid thing that only let you add a new perk every few levels. I felt like the game was just holding me back for hours until all the perk slots were open, when I could take the respec potion & make the actual build I wanted.

Still one of the best ever though

 

[imsosleepy]

personally I dont get the combat hate but thats not what the witcher is all about to me.
The witcher was such an amazing experience due to its questlines and most importantly the AMAZING side quests!!

I remember getting to that first big city and walking into a random shop, talking to the owner and all of sudden I'm thrown in a long quest with many twists and turns and I absolutely loved that. And at some point I really started to love the side quests alot. Even the small one. It made it all so great for me personally. Never had that in a game. Also.. Their 2 DLC's are freaking awesome

 

[LuisBell]

Just no.

The Witcher 3 two DLC are the best things ever in the gaming industry.

Yes! Witcher 3 is a masterpiece no matter how popular it gets. Just the DLCs alone puts a lot of games to shame.

 

[YukiOnna]

Neither company has made a modern game as good as the Witcher 3, in my opinion, so I disagree.

This. While I ain't no big Witcher fan, Bethesda and modern TES was no where near that quality. Ever.

 

[lock2k]

Toss a coin to your Witcher
Oh, valley of plenty

 

[Holgren]

Spoilers of the game ahead. Don't read if you haven't finished the game:

I think one of the main problem The Witcher 3 has (apart from the gameplay) are the antagonists. The Wild Hunt sucks. Eredin had pretty much no character development outside of evil faces. I have trouble remembering parts where he talks outside of the Kaer Morhen battle and the final fight. Those two parts and Avallach's flashback is everything we get from him in the whole game. The same is true for his two generals that only get a name and a bit of personality for the final section of the game, only to be quick targets that get disposed extremely quickly. The White Frost is also something that comes out of nowhere and is a non factor for most of the game.

There are definitely highlights in the game, like Velen and some of Novigrad, but the sidequests are greatly overrated imo. Most of them are nothing special and if you aim to do every quest you'll be running around a lot, with some of them ending up in dissapointing results. For example: They did my boy Dijkstra dirty at the end of Reason of State sidequest. It forces you to either kill him or Roche's team in a decision completely unlike what the character has done before. The only reason I see why he would take the decision to kill them there, in front of Geralt, without figuring another option that ends up him fighting them (Dijkstra constantly say throughout the game he is no fighter, he is a spy) is just for videogamey reasons to force you, the player, into a moral decision. That's just bad writing imo.

Radovid also ends up being nothing more than a lunatic leader, and I don't see why I should care for Vernom Roche and her female companion, Temeria is nothing to me. All of these characters + Triss makes me disagree with people saying that you can play The Witcher 3 without playing the others. With what the game gives you, it is not enough to care for them.

I feel like I missed out on some things by not playing previous games of the series. At least for me, it ended up being a mediocre experience. I don't feel any desire to comeback to the series anytime soon.

EDIT: Forgot to add that I have not played the DLCs and that Crach's death is lol worthy for how terrible it is. He dies in front of Geralt and he doesn't even acknowledge it.