Will Ryan · @Animerica
14th Apr 2017 from TwitLonger
Why I Hate Witcher III & Love Breath Of The Wild (Deepthink)
Something that has always bothered me about open world games is the compulsive need to have some kind of sprawling grandiose story spread on top of it. The entire concept of an open world game, as it relates to the player, is for them to make it their digital sandbox, hence people calling them "sandbox" games for quite a while now. This has always created a sharp contrast between that open, vast canvas and the limited colors that storywriters want to paint on it. Almost exclusively, this results in a divergence between the linear, narrow path the plot travels in and every other inch of allegorical 'negative space' left for the player to lust after. This should not be so. The story should be alive in the world; no, the story should *be* the world and the world should be the story.
Enter The Witcher III, perhaps the best example of total failure in regards to the integration of a story into its world. When you are traveling around the countryside in Witcher III, where is the Wild Hunt? Why are you not repeatedly having random brushes with their minions, who are also on the search for Ciri? Why do they arguably not exist unless you are engaged in a plot-specific segment of gameplay? The arbiters of the deadly Frost are supposed to be *the* great force that threatens the world, everyone in it, and, of course, Ciri... but they apparently can't be bothered to show up or do their job unless you basically decide to *let them* by continuing the storyline. This doesn't make them feel like a credible threat; it makes them feel completely artificial and, I would argue, irrelevant to the world at large when that should absolutely not be the case.
On that note, why do far too few (if any) of the ancillary 'side quests' relate to that main storyline allegedly threatening the world? Even tangentially? Even in name only? It makes the plot itself feel practically irrelevant because *the world* is what accounts for the overwhelming majority of time spent in the game. Sure, side quests can be their own thing and giving the player more than enough game is nothing to complain about... but the story is clearly what we're meant to care about the most, and with The Witcher III... I just didn't.
For a good long while, I had no idea how to reconcile these issues. They were game-ruining structural issues for which I had no solution or suggestions. Until, that is, a new game was released--The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. Breath does everything Witcher should have done, and, really, every other game of its ilk: it makes the story into the world and the world into the story. What does this mean? Well, here we go.
Breath of the Wild has one mandatory quest that you must complete in order to beat the game: Defeat Ganon. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Several speed runners have managed to do this inside of 2 hours; that's how little there is in the game that you are absolutely required to do. This means that the entire rest of the plot segments of the game, littered throughout the absolutely massive kingdom of Hyrule, are all *optional.* This means that the entire plot exists out in the world, actively, at all times. The four Divine Beast exist and operate independently. All the shrines are out amongst the hills, mountains, and caves well before you stumble upon them. And, quite obviously, Ganon exists inside of Hyrule castle for the duration of the game. It is all there, right in front of you. At all times. This makes the act of exploring the world to find the rest of the story *the plot itself.* Running, riding, and sneaking from place to place, something that might commonly be abridged via cutscenes, becomes the plot itself. But... what really is that plot?
Another fantastic consequence of making the entire story entirely optional is that it puts those sprawling, epic story beats on the same level of importance--at least on paper--as any of the lesser side quests because technically, it's *all* optional. This strikes a new direction where you are no longer truly playing the story as dictated by writers, directors, focus groups, and animators; you are telling *your* story. The entire experience can be boiled down to a simple concept: Preparing to fight Ganon. Every single thing you do, no matter how inconsequential, pushes you along the path towards your one ultimate quest. Therefore, everything you do anywhere in the world is part of *your* story, *your* plot. And, quite obviously, your story dictates how you experience the world. The two are permanently tied together. Perfect immersion through flawless synergy.
Meanwhile, over in Witcher III, I spent several hours hunting numerous strong beasts, just to get the same underwhelming rewards over and over again. It didn't feel like I was moving in a direction because none of it truly had anything to do with the main plot. Simply nothing. Eventually, I tired of it all and just wanted to be done with the game, which was the only reason I bothered finishing the story in the first place. Game of the Year, ladies and gentlemen. Game. Of. The. Year.
In Breath of the Wild, I went to an Ancient Tech Lab, where the lady running it told me about another Ancient Tech Lab much further north. When I arrived at THAT Ancient Tech Lab, I was faced with an arduous quest: Bringing a blue flame across an expansive valley. My torch had very little durability left and I was constantly on the edge of my seat, hoping no more enemies showed up *and* that my flimsy, battered firestick would go the distance. It did, thankfully, and my reward was the ability to purchase the best Ancient weapons in the game along with new Armor. The purpose of these things? Taking down the brutal Guardian enemies, who guard what exactly? Hyrule Castle, the stronghold of Calamity Ganon. Wow, it's almost like the whole thing came full circle, even though this entire sequence could not have been more optional; it was wildly out of my way and there was nothing else of consequence in the entire region. Still, it mattered. It dramatically altered the path I now take towards defeating Ganon. Welcome to Breath of the Wild.
The entire game is like this. Sure, many side quests are brief and inconsequential, but the ones that do matter at all tie in to your grand journey and sole objective. Elegance in simplicity, if it ever was.
Then, there's the ultimate divide between the two: the respective girls both male protagonists endeavor to save. For Geralt, it's Ciri... and this causes significant plot issues. For Link, of course, it's Zelda, and this only amplifies the importance of his quest. What's the big difference? Relevance. Once again, relevance.
Both female characters are powerful and capable women; they can both handle themselves and, in fact, both make great sacrifices for the greater good. However, Breath isn't afraid to let Zelda be human and still need help, while The Witcher is absolutely terrified of doing so with Ciri. Zelda is the descendent of the Goddess Hylia. She has magical power so strong, that she has used it in the past to finish off Ganon. However, she is not a goddess. She is not all-powerful. She needs the aid of one entire other person, Link, the great Champion of Hyrule, to stand by her side so that the both of them, together, can defeat Ganon. This makes Link, and, vis a vis, the player, *relevant.* You have an explicitly vital role to play in the game. Without you, the world would be left in ruin. *You* matter.
Now, ask yourself this question: How much does Geralt *actually* matter in The Witcher III? When does Ciri actually *require* saving? Is the answer never? Because I'm pretty sure the answer is never. She's an all-powerful offspring of a Dragon. Maybe she can't stand against The Wild Hunt on her own... but then again, The Wild Hunt only really cares about her in the first place. So... what, exactly, does Geralt have to do with any of this? Well, one day, he decides to seek out Ciri. That's it. No calamitous event, no *need* for heroism, no true relevance for him specifically in the game, and, therefore, no true importance, specifically, for the player. There is absolutely nothing Geralt did that a well-trained group of 2 or 3 warriors could not have also accomplished. There is nothing special or unique about his involvement whatsoever. Again, Game of the Year.
Contrarily, Zelda needs *Link* to save her; no one else can do it. *Link* is the only one to wield the Master Sword, the Sword of Evil's Bane. No one else can do what he can do. So why *wouldn't* you want to play as him?
Finally, the biggest sin, at least from where I sit, is Witcher's inexplicable need to restrict access to its world. There are several areas that the game legitimately will not allow you to enter. Why? Because the game says so. It knows better than you what you're capable of dealing with. Right.
What about Breath of the Wild? Oh, yeah, right. You can wade into the nightmare of Ganon's Hyrule Castle pretty much right out of the gate, ready or not. Sure. Because that's what good games do: trust the player. I guess Games of the Year are above that though.
Basically, the point here is that there is now a fantastic precedent for how stories should *always* be implemented into a sprawling fantasy setting, and that standard is Breath of the Wild. I see it as so phenomenal in this regard, that it makes The Witcher wither in comparison, and even makes Horizon: Zero Dawn, which was released *the same day,* feel just as outdated and inept by comparison. Maybe by the time Witcher 4 comes out, the writers will have learned a thing or two. Or we could just have more of the same bullshit. Whichever.