In a time when the gaming public is impulsively quick to deride just about anything that fails to meet their lofty, sometimes unpredictable entitlement, The Witcher III managed to not only meet, but exceed expectations. Upon release so many accolades were thrown at Geralt's grizzled mug as to obscure the game itself entirely, and it even managed to garner substantial buzz as possibly the greatest RPG ever made. The Witcher III is unmistakably a great game, no matter how you slice it, but with all the fanfare it receives it may be difficult to see how seemingly unlikely this game's current status is.
The first game in The Witcher video game series was a janky, if ambitious sequel to a book series that was never translated into English. It utilized a modded version of the Neverwinter Nights engine, and as such felt incredibly dated even for 2007. Nevertheless, due to its attention to writing, quests, and well realized world, the game became something of a cult hit. I have a profound soft spot for the first Witcher game, a game that feels as though it should be far more traditional than it is and a game that continually surprises you with how much it is willing to bend in response to your choices. The game is clunky, it looks ugly, and there is more than one feature that could use a quality of life tweaking (for instance, having to open two menus to get to the map), but it very much felt like you were this amnesiac witcher in a world that seemed to know you, with tough choices you needed to make, potions you needed to brew before a fight, and a general persona that needed to be taken up. It felt far more akin to something like Knights of the Old Republic rather than a modern AAA title, a call back to an older style of CRPG with some modern tweaks here and there. Incredible as well is that it was CDProjekt Red's first game after a decade or so of being a third party distributor. It is an astounding achievement under the circumstances, and the fact it caught hold at all being a sequel to an untranslated book series where its primary engagement is plot sort of boggles the mind.
The sequel, The Witcher 2: Assasins of Kings, was the first game in the series I ever played. The Witcher 2 is were the series first finds success, particularly due to the graphical demand at the time and for the most ambitious use of player choice and consequence in a game I can think of. The entire second Act of The Witcher 2 is radically different, in plot and characters, depending on your actions in Act I. Likewise is true of Act III, meaning if you've only played The Witcher 2 once, you've hardly played any of it. Of the three games, The Witcher 2 is by far my least favorite, almost entirely due to an unresponsive combat system that feels incredibly broken, but it was a big enough success to warrant a third game.
The Witcher III has had two lives with me. In the first, I played up to roughly the halfway point before life got in the way and I was forced to put it down. Between the years of my first playthrough and my second, I managed to read the entire book series and watch the Netflix adaptation. Going into these games having read the books is a radically different experience than without. Before, I was able to pick up on the broad strokes of what was happening, but it was easy to confuse some of the greater politics and the significance of certain characters. After, however, the game takes on a grand complexity of which I'm not sure I've ever experienced in a game to date. The amount of plotlines threading together, as well as character movements and alliances, is almost too much to take in having read the books. There is significance everywhere, even in some of the most minute things. Likewise, the game takes a nearly equal pleasure in referencing the previous games in minute detail, although the first game in particular gets largely scanned over (there's an argument to be made that the first game isn't literally cannon, and that only the broad strokes are maintained). Letho, a major character in the second game, pops up in a relatively nondescript side quest here, furthering a lot of the plot, and can even come in to the end game if the quest has been completed.
The Witcher III's claim to fame is in its vast amount of content and the quality of that content, and to be sure this game is long. While the main quest does warrant the length, the side quests are so numerous they can become overwhelming. Whether this is a criticism is going to come down to taste, but given the quality of the side quests available here it is easy to say that The Witcher III is one of the few large, open world games that truly feels like it has the scope of an epic. Most long form open world games are more concerned with the quantity of content, making large swaths of them skippable without much of a problem outside of perhaps level-gates and gear-gates. The Witcher III gives a remarkable amount of effort into even the smallest side quests. I did far more of them in the first half than the second as I was beginning to round the 40 hour mark or so, but even in the late game it was rare I would encounter a quest that felt as though it wasn't given the attention one would give to a short story. The witcher contracts that make up most of the side quests are surprisingly fulfilling, a funny twist on modern game paradigms. It is extremely common to find side quests in games that are, essentially, kill some monsters and get some money or experience, but rarely has it been so well contextualized as to feel like a fulfilling aspect in and of itself. As crazy as it sounds, the main plot could have been far simpler and less grandiose and this game would still be a modern classic because of how thorough and high quality these simple monster killing quests are, and in how they contextualize Geralt into this world. Like the books, these monster killing quests are essentially folklore come to life, with moral plays and unforeseen consequences abound. They tell small stories that inform larger stories of local strife, the politics of kings, and those who suffer their consequences. They likewise discuss how local beliefs can warp a community, how raw, unfiltered human emotion can cause conflict, and how a person deals with things like grief, hate, or fear. They themselves have the artistic voice to tell compelling tales, each informing the greater narrative of moral ambiguity and a world complexity where all sides cannot be seen at once.
That moral ambiguity is one of the defining traits of The Witcher series, both in book form and game form, but what exactly that means to some has been warped in general discussion. There is an odd trend in conversations around The Witcher that the series is some great proponent of centrism, which is precisely the issue it argues against. Understandably, this comes from the so called witcher path. The path dictates that a witcher should always remain neutral, that they should never choose a lesser evil. They should do their job and get out, let the men of the world argue and fight amongst themselves. This is an obvious centrist sentiment, but how so many have missed the fact that, in the very third story of The Witcher series (and the first episode of the TV series), the series argues explicitly against this interpretation, is beside me. Geralt's labeling as "The Butcher of Blaviken" is in response to his choosing the neutral path. The neutral path, as it turned out, determined the outcome of the conflict in the story, thus not being neutral at all. The moral ambiguity of The Witcher is that there is no neutral side at all, that tough decisions have to be made at some point, and that though the lesser evil is not necessarily the right choice, a choice needs to be made regardless. The ambiguity of morals is not meant as a disincentive to choice, but rather a keen eye to the complexity of conflict. You will have to make choices without knowing all of the information, and you will have to shoulder the burden of those consequences. No, it isn't fair, but in real life things like that simply aren't fair. It is still your responsibility, as someone living in the world you live in, to contribute and take part. Geralt learns this the hard way, as the entire book series follows his denial of this cosmic requirement to take part in the politics of his world, and then in how he takes and expresses the engagement required of him. Geralt wants to be a centrist, but destiny and the context of his existence within this world makes it an impossibility. It is an incredibly well executed theme throughout the books, and one of the most expertly expressed themes as well. The books have their issues, for sure, but here excel where few other stories do. This is why the games focus so heavily on consequences for your actions. Regardless of your intentions, things are not going to end up the way you want them to, and this is coming from someone who got the "good" ending.
The Witcher III starts off as a result of consequences. A king was raised poorly by a sorceress, and so leads a campaign of extreme violence and prejudice against the marginalized magical people of this world. The opposing ruler of the nation to the south, emperor Emhyr, is equally less than fond of magical people, and also rules with an iron fist. Their approach to the same issue is very different, with Emhyr, despite being a big bastard in his own right, especially if you've read the books, being the more understanding of the two. Emhyr's encroaching of the northern kingdoms is in line with where the books left off and what has been happening throughout the last two games. Emhyr's want in this game, and the reason he wishes to talk to Geralt, is actually a spoiler for the books. So is the commitment these games have to being proper sequels. The plot, generally, has you playing as Geralt, looking for his adoptive daughter Ciri. Ciri is part of a long lineage of people dating back to one of the most powerful elven magic users, and has inherited her powers in full. Those powers have the ability to either stop the white frost, essentially a global warming allegory, or start it. Thus, while she would desperately wish to be independent, her very existence is either a threat or a method towards greater power. She is being pursued by two forces, with one in particular being a greater threat: the Wild Hunt. The Wild Hunt and who they are is a complex subject that is very weirdly tackled in the books, and attempting to explain them and the general plot of The Witcher III with the context of the books to friends of mine has proven a great challenge. The books don't have a cleanly laid out story. There are subplots constantly happening in the background, and there is the distinct feeling we are seeing only a handful of perspectives to a story that exists within a greater story before, during, and after the books. It is messy, but messy in a way that feels like the world of The Witcher exists far outside of the small viewer we are given. The plot of The Witcher III, then, is best described somewhat vaguely so as not to go on too long talking about the various important details. Ciri is important and powerful, and the Wild Hunt wants her for that and for taking Geralt away from them, who was magically bound to them before the events of the first game. The reason for this alone is a mouthful in and of itself, so let's leave it at that. Geralt, now, must find Ciri and help her stave off the Wild Hunt, assuming they haven't already gotten to her.
In a lot of ways the plot of The Witcher III is finishing off a lot of loose plot threads from the book. The book's main conflict actually sidesteps the prophecy about whether Ciri will save or destroy the world, rather focusing on groups and entities that wish to use that power for their own will. Ciri is, as well, the heir to a throne that has been swallowed up by Emhyr, making her a political chess piece. The books largely focus on a few years worth of conflict, leaving the ultimate fate of this world and Ciri's participation in it left hanging. The Witcher III instead approaches this plotline, and attempts to finish it off. Taken generally, The Witcher III does a great job finishing up a major story element from the books and letting us finally see exactly what could happen if things truly came to a head, and Ciri's prophecy came to the forefront. While this sounds like an exciting continuation or even ending for book fans who wanted more of this world, in reality The Witcher III plays to the books a little like how Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade plays to Raiders of the Lost Ark. It's slightly funnier, more lighthearted, and gives us a sense of conclusion for several characters without totally closing off the chance for a Witcher 4. Pretty much all of the characters in this game feel like softer versions of their book counterparts. Yennifer is nicer at times than she would be in the books, and rude at others without nearly as much wit. Geralt is a hell of a lot softer than he is in the books, losing some of his self pity and obvious frustrations and anger, played more for laughs here than as a genuine character flaw. Dandelion somehow has a sensible ending to his story if they decide not to make Witcher 4, and characters like Dijkstra feel somewhat incongruent to their book counterparts. The differences between the games and books don't warrant a demerit for taking liberties with these characters, but it would be wrong of me to say they feel like a 1:1 extension of the books. It's a different take, and while I would love it to be slightly more akin to the characters of the books, it is such a small difference for the most part that it is easy to write off changes as being natural within the games' new plot.
How you interact with these characters and this plot is something of a hybrid. The game plays mostly like a modern day Aciton RPG, but with the attention to story and detail more common in CRPGs. Plots and quests snake over one another in important ways that aren't immediately obvious, making several side quests determine the ending of a given chapter of the game or even the ending of the game entirely. One side quest towards the end of the game, in particular, has drastic consequences for the world, essentially determining the outcome of the war, with three different possibilities. You will grab quests either from notice boards that post witcher work or missing persons issues, or from stumbling across people throughout the world. These are in such a quantity that I was stumbling across quests on the road even as I was finishing up the game. Combat is your usual parry, dodge, attack type system, but much better done than in the previous games. While it is no Dark Souls, the combat here is tight enough to allow for you to take on creatures far outside your level and still come out on top so long as you are skilled enough to do it. Gear progression, a relatively simple stat/perk system, and utilizing potions and oils (for extra damage against oil-specific enemies) all act as ways of increasing your power and sustainability as you face stronger and stronger foes. The game is very well balanced with the exception of the main quest, which is designed in such a way that you should be able to complete it while doing minimal side questing. This means if you do a hefty amount of side quests, you could find yourself overleveled for much of what the main quest asks of you. This is mostly handled well, by giving you minimal experience for side quests and a mountain's worth for main quests, but there are so many side quests that it is still able to break the difficulty curve if you're one to see every side quest before ending the game. This isn't a criticism, as much as it may sound like it. It is a compliment, a welcome design choice to keep the game mostly fulfilling throughout from a difficulty aspect. the game is by no means hard, easily exploitable by simply having a couple good perks, a keen eye for when to dodge, and some food to replenish health, but it never feels boring either. Most of the systems for combat in The Witcher III are set dressing, there for either self-imposed challenges such as fighting something over your level, or for helping those that struggle with Action RPGs in general, but they are hardly required to get through the game. If there was one criticism I would lay to The Witcher III's combat, it would be that I wish I was required to prep for my fights as I was in The Witcher. Once a potion or oil is made, it is made automatically any time you meditate, making a lot of the strategy moot. But, since the system isn't really required anyway, I suppose it was a way of granting options to those in a pinch who realized that the whole sytem was rarely useful, preventing a frustrating reload or death.
The Witcher III's combat facilitates its questing, and its questing the world. The world of The Witcher III is fantastically realized. The game is gorgeous, with swaying trees and brush and oncoming storms, or explosive sunsets and delapidated buildings. There is a definite lived in feeling to this world. Graphically the game is astounding for 6 or so years ago, although the game has a weird dithering affect at all times on its graphics I was never able to understand or turn off, but it is hardly noticeable unless you are playing on a 2K monitor like I am (and recently CDProjekt Red announced a graphical update coming in 2021). The world's sense of environmental storytelling is above average, although it does fall short of the best in the business, a small criticism that affects the game virtually not at all. The first area you explore is small, easily traversed without fast traveling to give you that witcher feel. You'll quickly get out of this area, even if you do everything here, and end up in one of the best zones in the entire game: Velen. Velen is massive, a sprawling European countryside with political strife and ancient, magical oddities still gripping various communities. While Velen isn't the prettiest in the game - that would go to the mountainous islands of Skellige, the fourth area), it has probably the best side quests and main quests outside of the climax. The communities here have history, citizens that have an invested presence, and are suddenly set off kilter due to the war raging in their land. The quests involving the Crones of Crookback Bog are still some of my favorite throughout the game because of how cool this area feels, and how dark a mysterious the lore is. Skellige has its share of ancient evils to contend with, but none feel as important or complicated as those in Crookback Bog. The third area, the city of Novigrad sitting at the north end of Velen, is probably my least favorite area of the game, a considerable praise given how damn good it is. The main problems with Novigrad are its difficulty in maneuvering its layout (not many fast travel points contribute to this), and in that the main quest reaches its most silly here if you've read the books. Triss playing the innocent sorceress hopelessly in love with Geralt rings horribly wrong if you've read the books, where she comes of as incredibly manipulative and childish. On my first playthough, however, I sided with her, and after reading the books it was one of the main reasons I wanted to start the game over again rather than carrying on to Skellige.
The final stages of the game have you briefly (for the main quest, anyhow) going to Skellige, but the side quests here are so interesting and significant you would be mistaken to skip all of them. The isles have lost their leader, and you can help in determining who their next one should be, an exciting side quest that has a lot of interesting turns and consequences. After leaving Skellige, you will be bouncing around from place to place trying to narrow down where Ciri is now, and finally preparing for your confrontation with the Wild Hunt. The last chunk of this game is a lot longer than it seems at first glance, and though I felt for four days that I was going to complete it any minute, it took those four days to go from what I thought was the end to the actual end. The story, it turns out, really requires this amount of build up and moving parts to tie everything up, and the ending is more than rewarding enough for the long play. The various endings (quoted as being 36, but in reality it is 3 with some variations on how the different characters turn out) are incredibly cool, although they don't exactly encourage me to replay it for another ending alone. The game's vast amount of content is sure to have me return every so often to do another side quest or two, but a full playthrough, if there ever will be one, will be a long time away, especially as I still intend to do the two expansions next.
The Witcher III is a serious contender for greatest RPG of all time, and if it doesn't make the cut you'd be hard pressed to drop it out of the top five. I've never played a game with this much love and attention played to stories alone, and while there is certainly a trend for cinematic games with the likes of God of War (2018) and The Last of Us Part II, rarely has cinematic storytelling felt like it was also a part of a game, not just a film with interactive elements sprinkled in. You feel like Geralt while playing, and the sidequests have been given an unprecidented amount of time and effort to make them feel as significant as the main quest. There is a feeling of completeness here, that nothing was left underappreciated, and while this amount of quality content can be exhausting by, essentially, not giving you any sort of fodder to glaze your way through a game you really like, the game more than earns the engagement it requires to play. The Witcher III is an incredible work, one that will be in the history books, and one CDProjekt Red are going to have extreme trouble living up to with Cyberpunk 2077. Until then, there's always witcher work.
10
No comments:
Post a Comment