Not that I saw.

Then you were not paying attention, and that's not the fault of the game.

The "while" in that sentences worries me. The only time that not using "Show, don't tell" is appropriate is if you are covering very large swathes of time in a short period, because then you start to focus on negligible details and blur out the stuff that's actually important.

You mean like eight books worth of character development, topped off by a timeless interval on a magical island after Geralt supposedly died? I'd consider that a lot of time.

Another warning sign. Unless the point is for you to not care for the sake of comedy or theme, making your reader not care is a bad idea.

But you're not a reader, you're a player. While a reader has to be drawn in by the purely the story and characters in it, games don't. Games can give you very ambiguous and shoddy motivation for doing something just to get you playing, and then expand upon that later since the gameplay can hook you just as well.

You start off with something basic, that's not really even that interesting and then you build upon that. In a book the reader would lose interest, in a game where you have a thousand other things to do? Not so much.

You mean the black-garbed twat voiced by Tywin Lannister? The one who yanked me into his chambers, grumbled "Find my daughter, I'll pay you, now piss off."? Because that doesn't really count.

Yes? I mean that is pretty much the entire job description of a Witcher. People have problems, they hire Witchers to help them. That's it. That's what Witchers do. That's how every single contract and side quest in the games work. Someone just tells you to do something and you do it because that's your job as a Witcher.

The implication, again, here is that you cannot do effective intro sequences if you're building off old material. This is demonstrably not true.

What? Of course you can, but you can't expect to fit all that exposition in there.

That's the whole point of what I've been saying: throw the books out the damn window and put a better spin on the potential this story has. I'm saying that this entire premise needs a revamp because what it's doing is flawed in so many amateurish ways.

Then you're talking about an entirely different IP with entirely different characters, it would no longer be the Witcher series but something completely different. Maybe you want something that's completely different, in which case just play something that's completely different.

You could start by perhaps establishing what this Wild Hunt actually is.

Except again, no one actually knows, or technically Geralt knows because books. But the player who hasn't read the books doesn't know, so it's an unknown entity that the player unravels throughout the games.

Make them a constant, imminent threat that Geralt learns about in the first game, encounters in the second and clashes with in the third

Escalation works if the enemies have a reason to pursue the protagonist, they actually don't. The Wild Hunt doesn't really care about Geralt for reasons that are made clear in Witcher 2 and 3. Even in the first game the king of the hunt interacts with Geralt only a couple of times, probably just to fuck with him. But they don't really have a good reason to pursue Geralt.

They're pretty much only interested in Ciri, for reasons that are made clear in Witcher 3 but foreshadowed in the second game.

Now I also don't think that simply making something a threat actually makes it important. Every enemy is a threat, but most of them are not important. With your description the Wild hunt would be nothing more than a boss enemy and the only reason the characters care about it is because it's a threat.

I would argue that layering more on top of being a threat, makes the Wild Hunt much more interesting. In the games it's not really a threat until the third game, but rather a key to Geralts memories and something of an unknown to the player. The tie to Geralt makes it interesting, and their motivation, reason for existing and all that make it interesting, much more interesting than just being a threat.

I'm not a fan, you probably are; therefore, you would probably want to listen to the criticism people have for your product more than you would the praise

I'm listening, I just don't understand those complaints. You say there's too little about characters and you really don't care about them, even though the game builds up and develops the characters quite well throughout the game. You argue that it's never explained why something happens even though it's perfectly well explained.

You argue that the things related to the story, I.e Wild Hunt are not explained even though they are.

You top it off with saying that Geralt shows no emotion even though his face is quite expressive in W3.

Actually they don't have to. Demands of the plot can be anything, and when you align them with your characters and refuse to give your characters genuine motivations, the two might as well be the same thing. This is a hallmark of bad writing because I can't tell the difference between the two, since you forgot to actually characterize your main lead.

Yeah sure, the plot can demand anything, but the way the character reacts and satisfies those needs is the important part. Geralt has genuine motivation to progress the plot, the needs of the plot and Geralts motivations are aligned.

Different facial expressions might be a decent start; I can count on one hand the number of times Geralt has smiled in this series.

Which is exactly how he is displayed in the source material.

A decent voice actor who knows what inflections, pitch and tone are is the next step (and no, I don't accept "Witchers have no emotions" as a valid excuse; I've made my views on that idea already clear).

Which is again how it is in the source material.

Showing some intimacy between the people Geralt allegedly cares about as well, since that's how normal humans (might I remind you, the group that is listening to your story) relate to one another.

Which, as far as I know is shown. Geralt has friends, he interacts with them, helps them, he forms romances, confesses his feelings and possibly love, gives a rose remembrance to Triss as a present and all that.

And while we're at it, burn most of the dialogue and rewrite it with more uses of phrases that start with "I feel" and "I wonder" and "I like", like how actual humans feel, since most of the game's dialogue as it is is just devoted to more explaining.

Most of Geralts dialogue is blunt and to the point because again, that's the kind of character he is. He's a professional, he's not interested in random sob stories but rather wants to get his job done.

To me it seems like you want to make Geralt into something he simply isn't and in fact make the entire game into something completely different that has nothing to do with the Witcher universe. Rehash everything and create something more traditional and something that reminds me much more of titles that already exist out there.

Not really. Those are your choices as the player. There's a difference, since Geralt has no canon in regards to the player choice.

Player is Geralt, player choices are Geralts choices and reflect his character in the game you're playing. That's the entire point of a role playing game.

...because not helping someone in need makes you an asshole.

Sure, assuming you judge situation as someone being in need. That elven woman being harassed? She wasn't in need, she was totally able to handle the situation. She chastises the player for attempting to be the knight in shining armor and points out that you probably only made the whole thing worse overall.

The player has no idea of the context of any of the situation happening but has to make choices based on their own view of the situation at hand. Not everyone who looks to be in need, actually need help. Helping is not always the best option and can in fact make things worse. Being the good guy and everyone's friend is not always the best option.

That's what makes them more interesting than the traditional "to be or not be a dick" decisions. Because there is no correct answer.

To all situations. I cannot distinguish between the voice, actions and tone he uses while interacting with customers to the voice, actions and tone he uses with friends and loved ones.

Well that's pretty much his voice and way of talking, has always been so there's no reason he's suddenly change it. There are plenty of times he talks way more casually and intimately, but usually only to Dandelion, Zoltan, Triss of Yennefer, because those are pretty much his only friends.

Then why am I supposed to be interested in him? If he's doing nothing that I can even identify with, why am I here?

How would I know? Are you only interested in Geralt and how he acts, how he reacts and all that? There are plenty of other characters to interact with along with the entire plot to unravel.

As long as they display something I can relate to or lash myself to, I can theoretically get invested in their story. Emotions, struggles, flaws, development, etc

Again, one of the main points of a role playing game, is assuming the role of a character and personally developing them. Geralt doesn't develop the same way other characters because you are in control of Geralts actions. What you choose and how you make Geralt react is his development.

Then why are they not showing that?!

Because he has been dealing with it for a century and probably figured out a way to cope? I'd find it a bit weird if after a hundred years, Geralt still couldn't deal with these things.

If they make a new game set in the Witcher universe and put you in the shoes of a new Witcher just setting out from training, then yeah sure totally.