The biggest problem with Blood & Wine for me was that after spending all that time in warm and beautiful Toussant, going back to rainy miserable Velen for New Game+ was pretty rough.
I've always preferred colder, foggy and rainy climates; both in video games and in real life. It's aesthetically more pleasing to me, and something about that type of place just feels comforting to me. Velen and Skellige were my favorite regions on the map (velen perhaps a bit more because of the atmosphere). I would never be able to live in a place like L.A. where it's sunny and cloudless nearly everyday, blech.
While there is definitely a time and place for "clear cut" villains (some just being evil for the sake of it, or because they just want to be super powerful, etc, etc), the Witcher games -- or most RPGs -- is definitely not where it belongs, especially considering how heavily the Witcher games (as I haven't read past the first book) leans on the morally grey and "lesser evils" sort or mentality.
I’ve seen people get angry at there being villains capable of being redeemed, and *do* get redeemed, and they get incredibly angry about it. Mind you, these people are terrible in their own right, so I’m thinking that these people don’t like villains being redeemed, because it means that they themselves could be redeemed, but they’d rather continue being awful, than put work into making themselves better. Just a theory though. Edit: For the record, I’m not saying that anyone who wants a “clear cut villain” is a bad person. Like Thorson Wong said, there’s a time and place for them, depending on the story and medium being used to tell it. I’m just giving an example of the people I’ve seen complain about villains being complex.
@@MyGamer125 Every single one in this thread either misunderstood the guy in the video or just plainly straw-maned him because of some superiority complex. “For the record, I’m not saying that anyone who wants a “clear cut villain” is a bad person” Then why even mention that? It wasn't being discussed and there are always those who don't want people to be redeemed and those who want to see just punishment for crimes beyond human forgiveness (like selfishly killing many in order to save one who happened to be close to you or manipulating and blackmailing the very same being for the sake of blind and mindless revenge).
Hell yeah, Regis, imo was the best character in the series. I just loved hearing every single thing he had to say. I exhausted every conversation choice in the game, but regis was different, he was in a league of his own. He was mysterious whilst being an open book.
I loved him in the books, and had read them by the time this expansion came out, so I actually shrieked when it was Regis. And maybe cried a bit (don't judge too harshly, the whole Vilgafortz thing was an emotional trainwreck for me)
Fun fact about the coincidence of Regis' appearance: you can seem many ravens watching Geralt throughout the beginning of the DLC. The camera even zooms in on them. I assumed this was Regis' way of tracking Geralt in the hopes of also finding Dettlaff.
I know I'm replying to a 3-year-old comment, but this guy is being too critical. He's also assuming this game follows the same stark Good vs. Evil trope that nearly every other game follows. In the Witcher, there is no clearly defined line between good and evil, everything is in multiple shades of gray. There are no truly good people and there are no truly bad people, just as in real life. In fact, there are people who believe they are good and righteous, but they do terrible things because they believe they are in the right. This is what sets this series of games apart from all others, why they resonated so well with so many people.
Way late to the party, but I feel like his video’s creator has only played Witcher 3, and not the other two games or read the books. Like how he kinda dismissed Shani as what I felt was him typing her as a quick romance side character, he misses a lot about Regis and his relationship with Geralt.
i dont get the critique: there is no clear cut bad guy. thats what the game is about, its no morally clear. there are enough characters that YOU can see evil. I also think you missed out on a lot of gold moments of the expansion: the elder vampire and the fairy tale world. But you said you wanted to keep it short .
No character has to be solely evil in order to be the villain. The villain is just the antagonist, a character who's ambition directly clashes with the main character. This character can still be made human, but by the end of the day they're ruining what you stand for. If a narrative in which you are supposed to be immersed lacks this pillar then you'll end up feeling detached from the story as there just isn't any emotional content to invest yourself in.
The sister was about as broken as they come. From birth treated like a curse by even her parents, then eventually exiled, raped by the guards that "escorted" her out of the country, raised by and eventually joining bandits (that also raped her, if I remember correctly). She's so broken she tried to manipulate a thousands-year-old higher vampire into exacting her revenge, with brutal results. More than anything, I pitied her. Which is why I totally hit that in the clouds of the fairy tale land.
A villain is not at all the same as an antagonist. There are plenty of acclaimed novels without a villain. Some don't even have a traditional antagonist. For example, which person exactly is the antagonist in McCarthy’s "The Road"? The main function of villains and antagonists is to create obstacles for the main character, but there are plenty of other ways to achieve that. Your main focus in Blood & Wine, and what you're invested in, is to stop the murders, and that objective is maintained until the game's conclusion.
Regis can sense other Vampires of his kind miles away. He can also track them with his crows. He was clearly tracking down Detlaff and happened to stumble upon Geralt.
The progression of villains in this game and its expansions is interesting. I thought Eredin was an utter letdown - a great design and a ton of buildup, but hardly any personality or depth of character, nothing interesting about him in the end. Gaunter O'Dimm was exactly what the game needed; an archetypal yet unique villain with an unmistakable presence and an ominous sense of weight and history to him. He was such a great villain that I'm willing to bet if Blood and Wine had tried to top him, it would've failed. That's why I'm glad Blood and Wine opted for a different approach. The reason the expansion works without a true villain is because it still has very strong antagonistic characters, even if none of them are truly evil or villainous.
Eredin was shaped according to the books. Now you might hear a lot of people saying that the books are very good. My own opinion is that they are pretty bad with some moments of mediocrity. The Wild Hunt was initially introduced as some sort of cavalcade of wraiths lead by Death itself with no clear explanation and a mysterious intent. Later on in his books Sapkowski revealed that they are some elves in armor. Most of the characters in the book suffer from being one-dimensional and forgettable. CDPR took Sapkowski's world and improved it in every aspect,plot/story/atmosphere you name it. Geralt himself is so incompetent most of the time to the point where it gets frustrating. Monsters and monster slaying is mostly non-existent in the books as well.
Eredin serves his purpose the way Sauron serves his purpose in LOTR. He's a presence more than a character which allows more focus on the protagonists.
@@Skrubus Bruh, If you think the book had one dimensional characters then you and I did not read the same books. One of the main highlights of the books was the way the author made the characters complex and interesting.
@@philo2189 After finding Anna's sister, the game literally does a time skip to where Geralt and Regis failed and the last act had such an awkward pacing. I am not sure what game you played but the main story was easily the weakest of the 3 main stories.
@@pulsegamin4790 that's not it being rushed there's literally nothing to do everything between that would've just been useless filler. It was either convince her of seeing detlaff which her character logically wouldn't do or face the consequences and they faced his wraith what the fuck did you want to do for that entire 7 days sit there and constantly convince her? That's dumb I swear ya niggas on the internet is dumb as fuck
James gaunter o’dimm wasn’t nearly as compelling as Olgierd though. Olgierd was a far more interesting “villain” or “antagonist.” And the wild hunt was extremely uninteresting as a villain(s)
@@SandyCheeks1896 It is not exactly his fault that causes people's misfortune. They are partly to blame as well. Olgreid is a ruthless bandit. The wight woman was selfish and disregard other people. They brought it onto themselves. Olgried merely exploit people'a selfish desires to trick them. He did save Geralt after all and helped him find Yennefer. He also kept his word and give Geralt whatever he wanted. Gaunter isnt a clearly cut kill innocents type of villain. He is a reflection of the selfish, horrid and heartlessness side of people.
Alright, I'm roughly 6 minutes in and you have already missed a blatant reference placed by the designers right at the beginning. There's a scene when Geralt and Co are riding slowly and encounter a knight fighting a giant. At the beginning of that scene, the knight is shown (with clever camera placement) galloping towards the windmill with his weapon drawn, followed by the giant breaking through the said windmill. This is a reference to Cervantes' Don Quixote. Specifically, the part where he charges windmills thinking them of giants. In the book, they were simply some random windmills and the protagonist was likely suffering from schizophrenia, but here, there really is a giant. It is hinted right from the get-go that this is a place where fairy tales come true. And this is by no means the only instance of referencing fairy tales and turning them real. The designers have literally littered the landscape with references small and big. From the architecture (like the palace) to quests to things that happen seemingly randomly as part of the living open world. Toussaint, it is shown, is a land where fairytales have formed part of the character of the country and are very much real. I think this is an important aspect of the expansion that should not be glossed over, if for nothing but because it forms such a large part of the narrative and landscape. It also puts a little smile in your face everytime you notice one.
Personally I hated fable land, it was (to me) really boring, “get 3 of these things” in a check list fashion type thing and was a big slog for me, it also tried to get me to like that vile girl so yea, but that’s just me
"No clear villan" as a con??? It was always the "pro" of the entire Witcher series... it's the founding concept of the whole world, being books, comic books and games. That's the thing! Gosh... What is wrong with you? Wild Hund weren't such an absolute villan "because evil", either. Avallach explains that. Eredin was consumed by fear. You know nothing.
GrimK77 you missed what he was trying to say. The series has always had villains. As do most good stories. A villain is not necessarily a bad guy and can be grey or even someone you sympathize with, as in the previous titles. A villain is simply someone who opposes the goals of the main character and with blood and wine it was never clear who that was as it shifted frequently, even at the end it was arguable. Not having that anchor made the story feel a little incomplete to me.
Caleb Friden - No, I did not "missed". I simply don't agree. The story is not "little incomplete" here. It's mature, realistic. In real world there are hardly the villains - you always deal with people who have "good intentions" that loses perspective in the end. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
You're still not getting it. You are still describing an antagonist. The point is that it isn't clear who the person with "good intentions that loses perspective in the end" is. An antagonist can be and is in the case of the Witcher, a mature, realistic, character with complex motivations. The point is simply that it isn't clear, or at least consistent, who that person is in Blood and Wine.
Caleb Friden having clearcut villains just because, is lazy ass writing. IRL, people don’t behave “evilly.” They pursue their own goals which conflict with others’ goals. That’s great writing. Like Faulkner said, the only thing worth writing about is the conflict in the human heart. No one is truly evil except Gaunter O’Dimm who is not nearly as interesting as Olgierd. Mario vs Bowser is not narrative genius. For someone who talks so much about, “narratives,” this guy really dropped the ball. The video would be fine if it was just about opinions, but he confused anout narrative structure and writing in general. He obviously didn’t go to school for writing, etc. Also he just doesn’t like the main fucking theme of Witcher - that there are different degrees of evil and that in reality there is no legit single evil, and everyone operates in a gray moral landscape. The first mission of the game was great in that sense. The Baron was a great guy with horrible domestic abuse tendencies. It’s a shame Luke doesn’t get how in line with the theme this dlc was. Btw, the wild hunt was the least interesting part of the game. The wild dogs had a more interesting M.O. in the story than they did (they were sadistic because they got the tendency from humans).
Blood & Wine critiqie without the mention of the "Wonderland",which was one of the best parts of the DLC and was simply amazing, and also some great side quests.
Eloquent language, but I find it that most of the points you make boil down to personal preference (and very much so). It doesn't help that you don't seem to know the universe all that well too. More of an easy-going rant than a critique... but, that's just me.
While I enjoyed this review and respect your opinion, I felt as though you came off a little bit harsh. You expressed criticism of there not being a clear-cut villain, yet part of what makes this DLC stand out so much is that there isn't supposed to be a clear-cut villain. You could make the argument that (SPOILER ALERT) Detlaff is the "primary antagonist" since he committed the murders, but you could also argue that Sylvia is the true villain in the end since she both orchestrated the murders and planned to kill her sister. So which is it? It's up to the player to decide. Secondly, I was a bit disappointed with how you didn't discuss anything about the DLC's design and presentation of the world, its soundtrack, and its side-quests. I understand that you wanted to keep this review short, but next time, if you're going to criticize the narrative aspect this heavily, you should discuss other elements (i.e.: map design, soundtrack, and side content) and try to more effectively balance out the good with the bad. Because most of this review felt inherently negative, and while that doesn't bother me too much, other people might take that the wrong way. Still a great review though. I can't imagine the amount of time and effort this took to make. Nice job!
Fundamental Medium hit the nail on the head. Having just watched a video on why there aren’t many video games where you can play as a true villain (which touched on how there’s few villains with great reasons to be villains without becoming some time of anti-hero), I thought Blood and Wine did a great job is creaing a web of “villains” or people just acting out of their own self interest which caused chaos and mayhem on a national level. Even though, I thought the childhood bad blood was almost a little silly sometimes, it was executed fairly well.
Yes! aptly said. I didn't understand much of his urgency critique as well, because I feel like that's just inherent in narratively driven RPG games? So if it made you feel a sense of urgency, wouldn't it be a testament to the storytelling? But yeah, it's still a great review, just feels like a lot of personal preferences were framed to be the authority or the standard of what the dlc should be.
Agree. This dude unwillingly comes off as a person who takes things for granted when they work well, and really wants to shove minor issues into people's noses. This is a trend in reviews that has existed for a long time on the internet, since rage reviews sell out much better than praise reviews and people become so accustomed with quality thy're presented with they don't even bother to address the good parts. I respect his critiques on the DLC but he left out far too much for me to accept it as a review.
[you should have read the books, because Blood and Wine DLC is FOR the readers, some sort of fan service. @LukiePoo the fact that regis appears last minute to save Geralt isn't a coincidence. And Regis does explains that later when you ask him about the crows. He's using them to follow Dettlaff and see if there is something big going one. No coincidence. Dettlaff doesn't "detest" humains, he just doesn't understand them. Sound like you didn't enjoyed the DLC.
This was exactly what I was going to comment on! Like, yes, Regis' appearance is very last minute and feels a bit like "oh boy that was lucky!" but it's clear Regis has been following his friend, Dettlaff, for some time and it would entirely make sense that if he see's another friend, Geralt, about to be murdered horrifically, he'd obviously step in. It's not so much a coincidence as it is Regis already following what's going on and just stepping in when he sees that someone he cares about is going to get hurt. Regis is such a bro, love that guy. One of my favourite Witcher characters. :3
Raigho yeah even without the crows explanation I think we can assume that since Regis is so powerful and competent and cares about Geralt and Detlaff, he has been keeping tabs on both for a while, especially if they have both converged in the same region.
Thanks for the work you put into this but the lack of understanding of lore and themes is evident. That may sound harsh but it's honestly just constructive criticism. Most of the backlash has been over the top but I do find it understandable. Maybe a bit of research would help next time, especially regarding Regis and the "no clear villain" complaint, among some other things. Still, this was well presented and pretty eloquent, so well done for that.
dxc no one ? I just don't like the ending her sister causes innocent people to die but if you let her die you somehow did something wrong and there's no way to help dedlafft or Regis it's total bs
I think the fact that there's no clear cut villain is part of the point and the (lesson) that can be learned from B&W and TW3 as a whole. There is no such thing as good vs. evil, the good guy vs. the bad guy, the hero vs. the villain. To see anything as purely black and white is seeing it wrong. Everyone has a backstory, a motive, reasons- even good ones- to justify sometimes horrible actions (which doesn't necessarily make them any less horrible). Detlaff himself brings this up to Geralt when he asks him how many innocents Geralt himself, the "good guy," has cut down- and that number is a lot. Even in HoS, Gaunter is just collecting on a debt, based on the terms he and Olgierd agreed to. It's not his fault that Olgierd agreed to it, even though Gaunter was taking advantage of him and essentially tricking him. Even the villain of the main game in Eredin is just trying to save his people from annihilation and extinction. Granted, he's still not "good" since he wants to do it at the expense of the lives of many others- there is clearly such a thing as better vs. worse- but that was one of the main things I took away from the game.
Totally Agree. Even the back of the game case seems to promote the gray morality you just described. It says, that the world doesn't need a hero, it needs a professional.
He says villain, not that the villain should just be a bland Bowser character. He just wants there to be A villain that you clearly know is A villain Not that the villain’s motivations are boring and bland
@Plague Doctor My point is that there is no clear villain, in Batman the villain is the Joker, but the reasons why he is a villain are still unclear. He is still clearly a villain to the protagonist though. There's no real antagonist in the DLC.
While I really enjoyed your last two reviews, I'm highly disappointed with this one. Almost every point of critique you make isn't something that should be negative but positive (for example that all villains have a motive for what they do. A clear cut villain is boring and lazy writing, because you don't have to write a full character with both sides of good and evil but only the bad side which makes it really easy to hate him. Also that the best expansion on this entire planet gets only 35 mins while the other two parts are about an hour, doesn't seem justified to me. I could possibly do a video alone on what you can explore in this expansion and it would be longer than your critique of the whole expansion. Sadly I don't agree with you.
Best expansion on this entire planet? Maybe for you not for everybody. Lol entire planet xD god damn it that really retarded xD as you dont agree with him I dont agree with you but the problem for me is that witcher 3 is not that good and its just overrated
Agree with you bro it was very interesting and there were many twists and turns in the story and having no clear villain is a good thing in my opinion and is different for once
I respectfully disagree with many of your alleged gripes. Of course you felt like things were missing! You rushed through the main campaign, ignoring sidequests which is quite frankly not the reasonable way to play this expansion and thus were confused! Blood & Wine was rich with content, setting and story. I never felt a break in immersion as the Detlaff investigation is well segmented between quests. I remember being awestruck by Beyond The Hill and Dale and after, being breathtaken running down the palace through the once beautiful city at night whilst the vampires attacked. There's so many wonderful and refreshing sidequests in B&W. The painting, the house renovation, the photographer to list only a few? The tournaments and overall different feel? The party at Olenna's was so damn cool. So many highlights to be found here. To me it's a welcome and fitting epilogue campaign. The new characters who were teased in footnotes in the WIld Hunt questlne (there's a crypt you can find with Regis mentioned, you can find references to beauclair. Syanna was a really interesting fatal attraction, too! All of the higher vampires are powerful and interesting characters, Detlaff is a superb antagonist. The mystery and detective chase is great. The final boss is spectacular. The true epilogue is absolutely heartwarming too :)
22:20 you know there is an option for enemy upscaling? It's very useful and prevents you from constantly feeling overpowered. I also urge you to try NG+ with death march difficulty (and upscaling on) if you ever decide to replay the whole game. It's a hell of a different experience, and it does emphasise on being prepared and more tactical in your approach to enemies. The boss battles are probably the most affected. Suddenly Toad Prince, Ofieri Mage or final clash with Detlaff become really satisfying and give you a sense of real achievement once you get through.
I can agree, when I first played the witcher 3 on the 3rd hardest difficulty, I never felt like I needed to use oils or upgraded potions until the last two bosses. But when I tried NG+ on death march, I got killed by the ghoul pack in the beginning of the game. I started to brew and upgrade potions and oils, and it still was a challenge, but it made the fights feel so rewarding after winning them. Although I never felt like I needed to use crossbows, even with flying enemies, I would just use aarad on them, but I did use it when fighting the toad prince, that thing is a tank in death march.
I played only vanilla when it first came out, my second playthrough was on NG+ DM when HoS and B&W were already out. I went into both expansions blind. The three fights I mention were probably the only times I wanted to flip the table from utter frustration.
dzejrid I wish there was a way to apply upscaling to different enemies. Doesn't make much sense that Geralt towards the end of the game being taken out by a pack of feral dogs
For me personally Toussaint (Blood & Wine) was the cherry on top of the cream. The beauty, the music, the Mediterranean flair, the colors, the light, my own mansion, the knight culture, a new Gwent deck, new creatures....all after going through hundreds of hours in rather dark, depressive, cruel and wicked Velen, Novograd and Oxenfurt (where as Skellige always seemed like a refreshing vacation in Scottland)....it just blew me away. It was fantastic and I was entangled emotionally from the moment the Blood & Wine Logo appeared on my screen accompanied by those sweet tunes, my heartbeat picked up pace and I was like "Yeahhhhh buoi, Toussaint and adventure, here I come, get ready for Sir Gerald of Rivia....I'll show yall who the Mc Daddy Knight is...". It was as if the invisible godess of epicness had just wiffed a kiss in my direction and I had felt it on my cheek. Remembering how I entered Toussaint for the first time gives me goosebumps to this very day. Last time a video game made me feel that way saw my wife looking at me very concerned as I was jumping up from my Pc hands and head raised towards the room ceiling screaming: "I AM DOVAKIN, I AM DOVAKIIIIIIIIN!!!!...." \😂/ Honestly, Toussaint was like the finest dessert after a rich and hearty dinner. I only have love for this masterpiece that is THE WITCHER III and all its marvelous add-ons.
You missed the whole point of the expansion. The story is supposed to have no villain, it works with the shades of gray that exist within humans. Even the side quests works with that, in the beginning of the dlc when you are giving a choice to spare the shaelmaar or in a side quest where you are giving a choice to spare a rare archgriffin. All comes down to the end where you are giving a choice whether to save dettlaff or not.
you pretty much have to on DM as a safety net unless you're really astute. enemy attacks are pretty erratic so ye. not sure what he said exactly but i didnt like being pretty much forced to use it for the reason above. thats where all my stamina went so combat was generally pretty static. quen > dodge > dodge > dodge > dodge > dodge
i can survive without quen on DM, it's REALLY fucking hard and requires me to be razor focused and not balls stoned and just fucking around like i usually am with singleplayer games but i can do it. you just kinda have to know your enemy, know what works on them and use it to your best. i was really stubborn and beat the first bruxa at about level 35 without using the typical bear n quen build or quen n griffin with flamespam..... after countless tries, but i don't advise people to play video games like i do because i get burned out on shit real fast.
I really totally disagree with B&W missing a main villain. In fact the definite villains in Wild Hunt and HoS were really the one's to step out of line. Sapkwoski's world is dominated by the idea that noone is really good or bad. Hell, in the entire 8 books there is really only one (maybe two if counting Season of Storms) character that can definitely be defined as the villain. To go even further, the Aen Elle actually have a motive to do what they do in the books that can be understood and are not just pure evil. Wild Hunt dumbed the name giving Aen Elle down and turned them into batman-voiced skeleton-armor-wearing bad dudes on evil horses. Quite the opposite of what they are in the source material. B&W perfectly falls perfectly into the line of being true to Sapkowski's grey world and I personally think it has even the best characters and story of the entire W3. I even prefer it to HoS. That said. I don't think that it is really possible to fully grasp anything related to the Witcher games without having read the books. There are just so many references, whole questlines and character ideas (Saskia or Ioverth f.eks.) hintingat the source material that I personally consider them as a must read (preferably before playing the games). Additionally, Regis saving Geralt in the last minute is a thing that's very much like him. He was always quite theatrical, up to being downright somewhat of a egocentric smartass. And finally, something totally unrelated: Just Axii those guys with shields. And really, really finally. You say: "This is the end of the story, I can go start working on the sidequests." I think for W3 this is just a downright wrong way to approach the game. I always include all the sidequests in my main-playthrough and typically have all these done before finishing the mainplot. In fact there are always instances in which Sidequests will no longer be available after reaching a certain point in the mainquest. To me, the last quest of the main plot should always be the final part of the game. I also never have the urge to rush through the main plot, as I not in all my years of gaming found a game that immersed me that much, that I couldn't look behind the facade of it being just a game. Of course the developers wouldn't stop you from exploring and doing sidequests als long as you like, before continuing with the main story and thus Sidequest are for me always a priority over the main plot. Especially W3 makes this very easy for the player, though. Just play the quests in the order of their level-requirements. That's what I did in my four playthroughs and I never stepped away from that concept. Talking about that, I also never really had the feeling that the plot was done, before it really was. The objectives are pretty clear and in a straight way forward that never had me left, thinking that it was concluded, before it was. Find the beast -> find out why he is killing -> find the blackmailer/lover -> Detlaff rages because of the betrayel -> solve the problem between Syana and Detlaff -> End of Plot. To me it could not stop anywhere earlier than there. Wow. Now that was a wall of text...
*I really totally disagree with B&W missing a main villain.* Same. I feel like the reviewer either doesn't understand what the Witcher series conveys thematically or he's blaming an apple for not being an orange.
I loved the Witcher 3's narrative and presentation of characters, however i agree with the Wild Hunt critique. For book readers who already know about the Aen Elle, Eredin & the white frost, it's easier to understand what's happening in the 3rd game. I feel like they wanted to minimise screen time for Eredin and the Wild Hunt to make them more mysterious and spooky. I wish (perhaps in the part of the game where you travel to Aen Elle world with Avallach) they showed the Wild Hunt from a different perspective like Sapkowski did. I also wish they touched upon Lara Dorren a bit more so people understand why Ciri's Elder Blood is so important.
This is the playstyle I always adopt for storygames with the RPG element, because most times, the side quests can tie in with the story and offers you different routes for the ending. Having me go home to Yen meeting me there and have the rest of their days living peacefully and at rest drinking wine. It felt right to put down the controller then, as I didn’t have to do any sidequests/contracts or treasure hunts. The perfect ending. My next playthrough, I’m gonna incorporate HoS with Wild Hunt and see how it goes
You complain about the fact that CPR used the same "Contract introduction" as Hearts of Stone or being repetitive, yet when they try to create a new villain instead of some evil supernatural creature, you complain. This is a great game with great in depth dlc. Great value for some crowns. I really don't think it deserves the critique, when there are other game companies selling a half finished game and dlc being way to expensive. All I'm saying is, give critique where it is actually needed. Games are getting more vague and more expensive, Witcher 3 is in my opinion a beam of light in a dark time for video games. But let's agree to disagree, still a great in depth video, I'll leave a like.
Although I don't agree with a lot of Lukie's critiques on B&W, this ends up being his opinion and it is his channel after all. There's room for every type of criticism, even if 99% of people don't think that is necessarily true. We are a complex species with a lot of differences between us. I think that B&W's plot is really good and unexpected. It's not same old same old, nor is it the typical "THIS GUY IS THE EVIL GUY", much like HoS's plot. But if Lukie feels like it wasn't great, then that's his opinion. I mean, there are people that didn't enjoy TLOU even though I absolutely loved it (2nd favorite game, right after TW3).
Julius .Drejer Everything should be critique, especialy art and video games... without critique art would not advance and stay the same, same with video games.
Pretty angsty. I give it a 7/10 on the "im a frumpy little bitch" meter. Also Blood and Wine is the highest rated product on all of Steam with the expansion pass being the second highest rated so im goin out on a limb here to say its probably not just the "but(t) hurt fanboys of the bitcher 3" who are saying its good.
There is almost never ever a clear cut villain in the Witcher. That's been a BIG PLUS for MANY fans. It gives it a realistic, grounded, and mysterious vibe to the conflicts you face in the game.
The two knights who bring Geralt the contract aren't exactly "strangers". In the book series, Geralt has already been to Toussaint once and both of those knights, Peyrac-Peyran and the other one whose name I don't recall, are at least acquaintances of him. Which is why he recognizes them as such in the game.
How it a coincidence if Regis himself says that he was with Laf in the town? He had no idea what Laf was has getting into at the time, so he was doing his own investigation job, that lead with the encounter with Geralt. I known that it a freaking 30h DLC, but Regis say this right in the beginning it not that hard to miss.
Keyser94 this was his weakest analysis so far. Damn shame. He didn’t like the style of the narrative, so it seemed like he was ready to dislike it. Hearts of Stone had such an emotional story, it probably overshadowed this experience for him. I think most players would agree that Blood and Wine might not have as much of an emotional punch, but it is worth equal value, when you consider everything else BW brought to the table.
I got the "bad" ending but I was fully content and satisfied with my choices. Really liked the strike contrast between Touissant when we had arrived and Touissant after the bad ending. I rather liked how it also implied that there are no happy endings unlike in the fairy tales, of which the expansion pack was very evidently a well-done satire. It ultimately turned out to be a bitter-sweet ending with a final farewell to Geralt living happily ever after with Yennefer which ironically depicts a cliched fairy tale ending.
This. I feel none of the endings is truly good, even the "good" one is not really that. They are all pretty grim and which is the best is up to the player.
Letting a sociopathic serial killer rule the country, while condemning your best friend to pretty much a certain death does not sound like a good ending to me. Anna and Syanna are far worse than Dettlaff and unlike them, he actually has a chance to start a new life and be better
Regarding the introduction of Regis; you need to read the books to understand why he went back to Toussaint. Geralt and company stayed there for a bit and Regis actually had a romance with a succubus. After the incident with Vilgefortz, he regenerated and returned to Toussaint, which was the only place out of all their travels together where they actually had a good time and got to relax a bit. In the books they even describe how Toussaint is like a fairy-tale land and lulls your senses, alluring you, they stayed much longer there than any other place. To me, it makes sense that Regis would return there after analysing all his other options.
I thought Blood and Wine was the best DLC for the Witcher 3 and imo the best DLC I have played for any game. I loved the story and thing that after the Witcher main storyline setting, which is very much a gritty and grim fantasy world, going to Toussaint which is almost like a high or epic fantasy setting, yet still have Geralt be his grumpy self is a great twist on an otherwise very serious fantasy story.
Are you kidding me bro .... Witcher is all about morality in life and with every quest it tells you that the world is not black and white ... there is always some black in white and white in black .... life isn't about clear cut heroes and clear cut villain .... the complexity of these characters is what makes Witcher the best game ever made
After watching all of your Witcher 3 critique videos, I find myself disagreeing with this one the most. With the B&W expansion, exploration alongside the myriad of side quests are the best aspects it has to offer. The new areas added by the game are stunning, and made me want to explore every inch of it. The Land of Fables in particular is a segment of the DLC that I believe is crucial to this. By going to this vibrant land of fables, you get to see some unbelievable visuals alongside hearing the motivations of Syanna. Hearing Syanna's motivations make the story far more compelling and adds ample depth to her and some of the other characters, like the Duchess. In my opinion, it is best to approach B&W without a sense of urgency, even if you want to roleplay as Geralt. It makes for a far better experience when you complete the main and side quests at the appropriate levels, instead of solely focusing on the main quest. The main quest doesn't feel as dragged out then, as you have a nice break in between major story segments. I would also like to say that B&W has by far the best side quests out of any of the three major plotlines in the Witcher, with Toussaint's altogether new and robust culture being a delight to play through after the base game and HoS. I do agree that the characters introduced in HoS are more interesting, but I prefer B&W due to it's superior gameplay, better side quests and even some strong character development, with characters like Syanna, Regis and Anna Henrietta. Overall though, this video is your opinion and I find that you've presented it in a well organised fashion, leading to an enjoyable watch.
holy shit I just realized that the first fight in BaW is introduced by a knight attacking a windmill as practice and than being attacked by a giant. could this be a reference to Don Quixote? the guy was fighting windmills thinking they were giants.
I absolutely loved Regis. He was one of my favourite character in the books. Although I imagined him different in looks but his dialogues were in pair with his personality in the books.
The moment when Lady of the Lake gives you Aerondight is, and the Dusk in Northern Kingdoms starts to play sends me shivers down my spin. Goddamn this DLC is so nostalgic!
Why I didnt have that kind of trouble dealing with monsters in Toussaint? Blood and bones difficulty on my NG In NG+/DM, yes, Toussaint may give a very hard time if you keep fighting monsters with your health indicator staying in red. Get your health indicator a mixture of red and green, dude. Fight like a real witcher.
This guy makes me MAD! On one hand he wants a mature, tasteful game handling real world themes on the other hand he wants an overarching, clear cut villain. Another pretentious, bratty reviewer detected.
For speaking so much on lazy writing and about the “narrative,” it really does seem hypocritical. It seems less that he wants an objectively better product, and more like he wants something that suits his subjective tastes better. Unfortunately, the job of a critic or reviewer is to learn about proper narrative structure, etc. and try to stay objective as possible. Because, after all, their criticisms are for public consumption.
Catman. That's fine as long as the reviewer is consistent. This dude wants a mature, nuanced story, but in fact, he just wants a "Big Bad," which is more akin to stories like Super Mario. On another note, critics have a responsibility to be less subjective than the casual viewer because they are making decisions that affect others.
That's why when it comes to art evaluation, people need to learn the craft that goes into whatever art there. This applies to literally every kind of art, whether it's painting, culinary, or narrative design. There are techniques that painters, chefs, and writers employ. And critics must be as objective as possible. Casual fans, eaters, viewers, etc. trust critics and their tastes. Sure it's subjective to a degree. But the amalgamation of solid techniques produce good product/art. An easy analogy that you can refer to is a person's subjective preference for big macs over a filet mignon. It doesn't take much objective skill or technique to create a big mac, but it takes years of skill and careful practice to cook a proper filet mignon. At the end of the day, a critic has to have reasonable qualms in their critiques.
I think you're misunderstanding me. There is no way way to remove subjectivity completely from anything that's art-related. I think a critic should have the capacity to say something like, "this wasn't for me, but I can respect it for what it is." An example could be, "I'm not a fan of super hero movies, but I can't deny that Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight is a good movie." A proper critic, or any student of art should be able to recognize the craftsmanship that went into a piece, and respect it, even if he/she isn't the target demographic. And it's even more complicated for a video game, because the "craftsmanship" going into it is so complex, encompassing, sound design, level design, character design, narrative design, etc. The best critics are familiar with what goes into building each of those facets. That's what separate proper critics from the average joe, who just says things like, "I didn't like it, so it wasn't good." Tina Fey said it best, “It is an impressively arrogant move to conclude that just because you don’t like something, it is empirically not good."
I completely agree with the concluding thoughts of the critique. Blood and Wine was never meant to be as narratively complex and memorable as Hearts of Stone. Its main draw was exploration and new gameplay changes. Like you, I personally enjoyed HoS more than this since I played the Witcher mostly for the narrative, but I can absolutely see why people may prefer B&W. Still this excellent expansion is far better than many base games nowadays and is well worth the 20 dollar price.
Regis has this thing, appearing out of nowhere and saving everyone. He always does it in the books, so i think its acceptable in this case. He is basically a super Vampire and can do whatever he wants.
Even then, regis was already living in toussant and already sensed something was off with dettlaff so it's still not a coincidence if he actually payed attention
Well, I disagree on the critique, especially about Regis. I think you didn't really made your homework, introduction of his charater is rather winking at people who read the book, than lazy writing. Liked the video though, it's nice you showed how Gaunter O'Dim was brought up.
On the topic of urgency/immersion my impression was that Blood and Wine was intended to be played after the main story as it is meant to be the farewell for Geralt. It's communicated pretty clearly through it tone and themes of putting the past to rest and in conversations with whoever visits at the end.
Blood And Wine keeps telling you again and again that the world is no fairy tale (and satirized in the shrek-like "land of a 100 fables" quest). That's why I liked that they avoided the typical good vs. evil story line and showed a much more nuanced and complex situation in the end. It's entirely in tone with that narrative theme for me.
This DLC was honestly my favorite part of the Witcher 3 (aside from great story moments in the main game) I loved the new characters, especially Regis, and the land of Toussant was such a refreshing change of pace from the horrors and poverty of Velen and the coldness of Skellige (even though I love all of these places too). I also loved that the player was given a choice about who they felt was the "villain". It was a very tough choice for me and made me want to try all the options.
A great video, I just really think it's too short. 1 hour and 19 minutes for Hearts of Stone but only 35 minutes for Blood and Wine, which adds at least 20 more hours of gameplay? It really felt that you glossed over or didn't even mention any of the side quests that Blood and Wine has to offer. What about Equine Phantoms? The Lebioda Statue? The Grandmaster set Quests? The Hanse bases? Contracts? Like I said, it's a great video but it honestly doesn't do the DLC any justice as a review or as a critique.
While I agree that having a "sense of urgency" behind a main story can feel pretty stupid, such as apparently urgently tracking Ciri, but having time to stop and do side quests, play gwent etc. I also think it's stupud to say that being truly immersed in a game means you have to rush through the main storyline as quickly as possible because that's what Geralt would do. I'm amazed you said in another review that your first playthrough of Witcher 3 was rushed and you regret the fact you missed a lot of quests because you were so focused on the main mission to rescue Ciri, but then you say you did EXACTLY the same thing for this expansion and rushed through, missing most the side quests. Can you seriously not suspend your belief enough to sit back and enjoy everything the game has to offer. Yes, the developers should really find storylines that don't pressure players to rush the main content, but also players should have enough sense to realise it's just an overarching plot to drive the narrative and they can take their time to enjoy the game because the main quest isn't going anywhere.
Ugh. All the people in this comment section going on about how the books had no true villains and conveniently forgetting about Bonhart, Vilgefortz and the literal DOZENS of rapacious thugs who are clearly depicted as villains astound me. Yes, The Witcher is a gray world, with some characters who aren't as bad or good as they seemed. But there are absolutely villains who absolutely deserve to be stopped. Just because someone has reasons for what they do doesn't mean they're justified, you sophomore ethics students. I pray that none of these geniuses are actually involved in anything morally important.
Kinda weird that you didn't even mention the best thing in this expansion: the fairy tale world. Also kinda unprofessional to admit that you ignored the new gameplay features (supermutagens), as they are a lot of fun and allow many different ways to have a great time in this game. Also, I understand that it's a matter of preference, but I have to say I'm surprised that you didn't like the fact that there was no clear villain. It's such a simple and uninteresting structure when there is (worst thing about core game are the boring and undeveloped antagonists from Wild Hunt).
MrKosobi I don’t mean to insult your taste because the fairy tale world is awesome, but I think the true ending of the game is the version that Gerald goes to confront the vampire lord. I know that leads to a bad outcome but it just felt so fitting to the Witcher story. Idk what it is, but after that horrific outcome I felt that was a good time geralt could spend time reflecting on his life and career and what’s important to him, he loses, big time, but finally gets to exit the story (and maybe his career) on his own terms. The momentum he’s been riding the whole series finally dies down right at the perfect time.
I was hoping that Dandelion could tag along for Geralt's trip back to Toussaint. It would have been a great way to reunite the hansa since Regis was there. Was also hoping for some super awkward moments between Dandelion and Anna Henrietta, but alas. I'm sure most people who haven't read the books aren't interested in seeing Dandelion any more than is necessary.
I think my issue with teh story is that they it is unfocused: they tried to tell the story of the dark side of Toussant hiding under the shiny veneer of chivalry and also cram in their own commentary on "The Lesser Evil" story from the books substituting Syanna for Renfri. The introduction of Syanna shifts the focus and muddles the themes not to mention a lot of the possible tonal dissonance available in all of the endings.
After watching your three critiques, I'm ready to offer my own on the videos themselves. As someone who is a huge fan of the Witcher (games and books), I was hoping to learn something new from these critiques and find something I may have missed. Sadly they just boiled down to you telling me things I already knew, and things that simply weren't true. Obviously these kinds of videos are very opinion based so, I took them with a grain of salt but, man oh man did the lack of research shine through. From what I gathered, this video in particular took you around a week to make and for an expansion of this size and caliber, even that is rushing it. The gameplay alone should have taken you that long, let alone the extensive extra research you needed on top of that. You also brought up so many pointless and unwarranted complaints, and contradicted yourself so many times that I found myself wanting to pull my hair out over and over. To add to that, it didn't feel like you meant it either. It sounded as if half the complaints you brought up were pulled right out of your ass just so you wouldn't be called "fanboy". Of course, that's just me assuming so, if you truly stand by these opinions then more power to you. To me they didn't feel justified or like they had any evidence behind them though. Also, a very small nitpick but, what the hell is up with you and these pronunciations? For instance, "Gunter" or "Dett-laugh". I could understand if you had some crazy accent but, you're from the US and it feels like you either didn't play the game or you're just trying to be unnecessarily fancy. Do yourself a favor and fix this video, or it will forever be an unwanted stain on your channel. Anyways, this is quite possibly the last you'll see of me so, good luck in the future.
I wonder where they will take the witcher next, obviously it won't happen for a while, since there working on cyberpunk 2077. But I hope this isn't the last we see of geralt, awesome video
better late than never i would like to point out a few things. just for the sake of information. 1) milton and palermin are no strangers to geralt, they are comrades from his former adventure in toussaint. 2) nothing regis ever does is a coincidence. not even becoming friends with a witcher like back in the books. that is who regis is and how he makes his life in geralts world liveable. 3) on gaunter o'dim: it's funny that everyone is theorising about what he is, when he clearly is a crossroads demon. every culture has one, just by different names. and as the witcher is heavily rooted in eastern european lore, it seems they call him master mirror. but when you look back at HoS you should clearly see the pattern, the actual deal between geralt and gaunter was made at the crossroads, not on the ship. and that is their pattern, they reel you in by tending to your needs until they get you to form the contract. and then, well say goodbye to your soul in most cases. plus, not even gaunter is a real villain, he is a demon. a different beeing from another realm or dimension or whatever which has probably not the same moral or ethnical standards as geralts world. they even have none. so is gaunter realy the big bad evil or is he just acting according to what he is and where he comes from. 4) the world of the witcher always was a world of thousands shades of grey, never of black and white. characters are never just one dimensional, they're complex, as it should be. you called certain things lazy writing, i would call creating archetypes lazy writing. and funnily you pointed it out so well in you're core game critique, that the witcher doesn't try to woo you with a big plot twist, but rather a well told story. the story is pretty straigth forward. you actualy can guess the ending at the begining. and now in B&W you complain about exactly that. like in the core game, it is not about the goal, not about the endgame, it is about the journey that you take there. 5) i don't know why people would think to rush the main quest, that there is this urgency. in the books, his travels and his searches or tasks often take weeks and months. and now cause it's a game we need to deal with it within a week or even days? realy? 6) you forgott the most important thing, this is (hopefully someday was supposed to be) the end of the witcher series, so imagine how you would feel parting with a companion of 15 years. you would try to drag it out as long as you could. and the fairy tale happy ending for geralt, well, i honestly think, after what he's been through in his quite long life......he very much deserves it. i could actualy point out even more, but then this already very lengthy text would be 5 times the size. i apologize for bad grammar or spelling, english is not my mother tongue. :) but to leave on a positve note, i like how you sturcture your videos and try to follow a clear thread. which is more than most youtubers do, most of them just rant around randomly. so i realy enjoyed that and the fact that you always pointed out, that this is your opinion. which i hopefully still respected with my little text here. ;)
I watch this video a very long time after the release. I finished Wild Hunt after it's release and did not touched the DLC after that. Just went back to game because I'm reading the books and it drove me into buying season pass. As I'm playing in Death March, it took me around 14h to complete Heart of Stone's main quest (including 1h30 on Iris' Nightmare which in a sense became mine too ^^). Heart of Stone looks like one of the novel, it's short, focused, and you (Geralt) have to make decisive choices. But I found it to be to focused and too short, with some parts that can be very challenging with no chance to save or to leave and come back for a long time (that moment in painted world...). Blood & Wine is more like a part of the base game. A full new region with it's monsters, npc, political intrigues, folklore... You explain that quite well. BUT, I totally disagree about the secondary quests that can be locked away if you run too fast into the game. First, if you arrive in Toussaint around level 38 in Death March you will feel the need to level up and get a better gear before going into the main quest. In addition, the mutation system is really an addition because it gives some mechanics a better place in fight (mostly signs & alchemy) and allow variety of builds to be viable in DM. If players run through the main quest without looking at the secondaries they will miss things and that's a very good move IMHO, even more because most of them will not know they missed something. It gives the game the need to be played carefully and to make choices OR to come back thanks to NG+. At the moment I played unitll that moment you're sharing a drink with Regis in the Mere-Lachaise graveyard (shoot out to the devs for the name of the graveyard ^^) and made it to the end of the tournament and the Vivienne's story line. I already encountered A LOT of choices in the quests (main and secondary) which feels like you really are part of the city for time you're in and it already gave me the chance to gather "Aerondight" and the grandmaster's plans for the set I'm playing. Secondary quests are very touching and you can trully reveal the personnality you want Geralt to have (you have the chance to be kind, sarcastic or rough in almost all of them and that's very cool, I don't care if it doesn't affect the end of the DLC, it feels like I can really choose between options that are more than just black or white). As you say (as in previous videos) that you are playing in the 2nd easiest difficulty (even though you say "the third most difficult"), I find your judgement hard on the mechanics you fell "not necessary" because you can made it to the end of the DLC without them. As I said earlier, mutations are a huge new mechanic, it feels like you really can focus your gameplay like you want, you can alter sword fights if you are a melee only fighter (like you seem to be), or go for a more alchemy oriented fight, or signs, (that Arad mutation looks really cool) or whatever.... Playing in the 2nd easiest difficulty is not hard enough to be able to judge on whether something makes the game too easy or is not mandatory. And anyone who enters Toussaint without being more than level 40 (in DM difficulty) will probably not go through the main quest without feeling the need to upgrade his stuff AND playstyle. I think I can stop there because the video is almost a year old and you probably won't read it. By the way as you ask it in the video, I prefer Toussaint's encounters with more small bosses scattered throughout the experience. There is also that mechanic of rogues' base (don't know if there is more than one) it feels huge to fight this lots of humans + dogs and killing the big boss to make people come back in the place.
First let me talk about Marlene since you mentioned that quest and the tie with the man of glass, I took my time to restore Corvo Bianco to it's former glory, I took my time with this INCREDIBLE DLC, no not dlc, this is a true Expansion Pack, anyway, when I got to the quest and Geralt was telling B.B. the story, the sword Iris was hanging in the back, as a memento, as the theme started and I saw the blade, I felt a chill on my back, I felt like he was watching me, waiting... that is good story telling, so good it was disturbing! I love this game so much. For story I prefer Hearts of Stone, but for Everything else, Blood and Wine is incredible, so unique and fantastic, and I also love wine.
The name is Gaunter, not Gunter. And how did you ever think that the story was over before it was over? What could have possibly indicated that to you?
Watching a Luke Stephens review is the equivalent of eating a cardboard box, you're full but the taste afterwards is mere but the taste of bloated nothingness
Seems like you rushed this critique, this expansion is 40 hours long how is it that this video is the same length as your Hearts of Stone critique? It should be an hour long atleast! You missed the fairytale land and so much more!
During my first playthrough I prefered HoS over B&W just like you. But after the second and third playthrough I realized that I'm actually looking forward to getting to Toussaint. The reason is hard to explain but probably has something to do with the huge contrast between Toussaint and the rest of the game. It gives a nice flavour to this expansion and a perfect ending to Geralt's story. It is a must have to everyone. Oh, and Ana Henrietta is just awesome. Also, please remove that realistic lighting mod that you apparently have installed. Toussaint should be experienced in its original over-the-top and fairy tale-like vibrant colors and lighting.
So I knew that Marlena was cursed by O'Dimm most likely but it just seems out of character for him. He usually doesn't curse people for no reason or out of spite. He always makes it a game or a pact because his main desire is souls. Marlena as a Wight is shown to have extended life, and more importantly her curse can be easily broken so how does O'Dimm plan to claim her soul? She isn't gonna die anytime soon and any compassionate person with rudimentary knowledge of curses can help her.
So why do you think odimm insert the spoon inside the poor lads eyesocket? He could have just made a pact with him then take his soul afterwards because that's clearly what you're hinting at. Just because he takes souls doesnt mean he needs to for every individual he came across with. And you say it was a curse that can easily be lifted yet she'd been a wight for over a hundred years. Easy to talk if you're not living in the universe where geralt lives.
Not knowing who the real villain is, or rather discover that there isn't a true villain is central to the Witcher story and narrative : There are no true Good or Evil, that's why Geralt values his neutrality so much and has such a high sense of nuance. So I like what they did with Blood and Wine's plot a lot. And with the map design, gameplay, graphics... Overall probably one of the best extention for any game ever.
So when I finished the entirety of the game and it’s expansions, I’ve concluded that the majority of the ‘antagonists’ in the game depends on how your (Geralt’s) view is. Dettlaf is ‘evil’ if you believe him killing humans is evil, and completely ignore his intentions. Syanna is ‘evil’ if your believe in the curse and that she is a monster. I really wanted to save Dettlaf, but due to me being soft and buying Syanna her ribbon, I saved her, and caused Dettlaf his ultimate demise, and forcing Regis to be shunned by his people. And I was relieved that Anna and Syanna were able to resolve their dispute, an antagonist redemption arc, however, if she died, and Dettlaf survived, I would’ve been even more happier
You issue with the urgency is solved with the up-scaling setting. You could just finish the main story then turn on enemy up-scaling and go through the side quests.
This isn't a review its just a list of bullshit issues you personally have with the DLC and the game in general. No clear cut villain, that just adds to the story complex and the whole point of it, the feel of urgency in the story, would you rather a story where you didn't care about what happens to the main characters? and i started writing this when you said it drags on at the end. Whether you go unseen elder or the land of fables ending route it is super interesting and fun and im glad it didn't end at the ceremony and you get to drink with regis afterwards it adds a personal touch to the end of the witcher game series...for now.
Loved reading the comments calling you out on your bullshit. You just had a bad experience with this expansion and I won't waste the time to listen to all these half baked conclusions you are putting forward whilst simultaneously trying to imply that there is any objectivity and depth in their formulation. I experienced this expansion in what would be story mode plus a trainer, played it many hours every day until I got it finished, I was completely immersed in the story, but you weren't, so I don't care for this 'critique', likewise, my playthrough of HOS was bad, I did not enjoy it much, but it wasn't the game's fault. I won't list the reasons here but you get the gist, right? ... Cuek
I think not having a clear cut "villain" is actually not a critique, but a plus point. Because that is what the Witcher's about, the idea of lesser and greater evil. And, what if I told you, that the Wild Hunt wasn't wholly evil? They belong to a land where the White Frost has already taken over, and they need Ciri's Elder Blood powers to make a new world for the Aen Elle elves to live in. But then that puts Ciri in danger, and so Geralt and team must protect her.
I love both expansions, but if I had to recommend only one, it would be Blood and Wine. More than anything it's because of the new upgrades that open up. Not only with mutations, but they also have great merchants there where you can get way more money for your stuff, and they offer some good stuff too. Some of the merchants there also provide new quests which can actually give you quite a bit more time of gameplay. And that expansions story was absolutely amazing in my opinion. So I guess we will have to agree to disagree lol.
The story revolves around the Duchy and her sister, with Detlaff and Regis as the side character. Although i loved toussaint, but i don't think that the story of blood and wine is as intriguing as Hearts of Stone. The HoS is perfect in its own way, you feel for Olgierd, you feel the pain of Iris, you understand the actions of GoD and then make a decision. They are both evil in that, Olgierd and GoD but you have to either choose the lesser one or no one. So, that's why, i think its better
Im late on this one but this dlc started the same as hearts of stone? Getting a contract from a STRANGER???? These guys aren't strangers to Geralt they've known him for years and so does the duchess annarietta which is why she hired him to do the job in the first place because shes capable of his abilities they said like a thousand times they've known each other you have no clue what youre talking about what a horrible review
+Playmis Thank you so much for this recommendation, I just looked at a video of polish vs english, and I can't believe how epic geralt sounds, it instantly gave the game a different feel. It made him seem more powerful, if that makes sense.
Eng dubbed Geralt sounds like awfully dubbed Nolan's Batman, while polish Geralt sounds like an actual Witcher which is on his path to make money on killing monsters.
Jak mnie wkurwiają takie buraki jak ty, którzy pod każdym, ale to kurwa każdym możliwym filmikem z wiedźmina piszą jaki to polski język nie jest zajebisty. Typie zrozum, że dla nich polski to jakaś bezmyślna paplanina dziwnych wyrazów i nie będą zmieniać języka tylko dlatego, że banda polaczków wypłacze się o tym w komentarzach.
English Geralt is way more realistic to his character, you guys are the type of people who always watch things in their original language because you want to seem like some elitist idea. The english actually puts way more effort on accents and better voice actors. While the polish only puts effort in the main cast.
The music that plays in the scene with O'Dimm and Marlene, is also played in the main game whenever you go to Crookback Bog. In fact, whenever seriously creepy supernatural shit is going on, that cheerful tune seems to start playing.
The biggest problem with Blood & Wine for me was that after spending all that time in warm and beautiful Toussant, going back to rainy miserable Velen for New Game+ was pretty rough.
same
too true
Patrik Karlsson Gotta work your way to paradise again. X
I've always preferred colder, foggy and rainy climates; both in video games and in real life. It's aesthetically more pleasing to me, and something about that type of place just feels comforting to me. Velen and Skellige were my favorite regions on the map (velen perhaps a bit more because of the atmosphere). I would never be able to live in a place like L.A. where it's sunny and cloudless nearly everyday, blech.
sal zerilli though the goal is to destroy the class society and establish communism
Who the hell asks for a 'clear cut' villian? I know for sure I don't want that
FranklinRichards I know I’m late but seriously what kind of compliant is that he’s basically saying “ your characters are to complex and that’s bad”
While there is definitely a time and place for "clear cut" villains (some just being evil for the sake of it, or because they just want to be super powerful, etc, etc), the Witcher games -- or most RPGs -- is definitely not where it belongs, especially considering how heavily the Witcher games (as I haven't read past the first book) leans on the morally grey and "lesser evils" sort or mentality.
I’ve seen people get angry at there being villains capable of being redeemed, and *do* get redeemed, and they get incredibly angry about it. Mind you, these people are terrible in their own right, so I’m thinking that these people don’t like villains being redeemed, because it means that they themselves could be redeemed, but they’d rather continue being awful, than put work into making themselves better.
Just a theory though.
Edit: For the record, I’m not saying that anyone who wants a “clear cut villain” is a bad person. Like Thorson Wong said, there’s a time and place for them, depending on the story and medium being used to tell it. I’m just giving an example of the people I’ve seen complain about villains being complex.
@@arthurmorgan1809 He didn't say that, nor did he mean that.
@@MyGamer125 Every single one in this thread either misunderstood the guy in the video or just plainly straw-maned him because of some superiority complex.
“For the record, I’m not saying that anyone who wants a “clear cut villain” is a bad person”
Then why even mention that? It wasn't being discussed and there are always those who don't want people to be redeemed and those who want to see just punishment for crimes beyond human forgiveness (like selfishly killing many in order to save one who happened to be close to you or manipulating and blackmailing the very same being for the sake of blind and mindless revenge).
I loved all my conversations with Regis
Hell yeah, Regis, imo was the best character in the series. I just loved hearing every single thing he had to say. I exhausted every conversation choice in the game, but regis was different, he was in a league of his own. He was mysterious whilst being an open book.
Jacob Smith asking indirectly lol
in books, he is even better
At first i didnt like him but he became one of my favourites.
I loved him in the books, and had read them by the time this expansion came out, so I actually shrieked when it was Regis. And maybe cried a bit (don't judge too harshly, the whole Vilgafortz thing was an emotional trainwreck for me)
Fun fact about the coincidence of Regis' appearance: you can seem many ravens watching Geralt throughout the beginning of the DLC. The camera even zooms in on them. I assumed this was Regis' way of tracking Geralt in the hopes of also finding Dettlaff.
Sarah Kenny
You are totally right, Regis even mentions this at some point
He missing that out
I know I'm replying to a 3-year-old comment, but this guy is being too critical. He's also assuming this game follows the same stark Good vs. Evil trope that nearly every other game follows. In the Witcher, there is no clearly defined line between good and evil, everything is in multiple shades of gray. There are no truly good people and there are no truly bad people, just as in real life. In fact, there are people who believe they are good and righteous, but they do terrible things because they believe they are in the right. This is what sets this series of games apart from all others, why they resonated so well with so many people.
@@TheZorch This!
Way late to the party, but I feel like his video’s creator has only played Witcher 3, and not the other two games or read the books. Like how he kinda dismissed Shani as what I felt was him typing her as a quick romance side character, he misses a lot about Regis and his relationship with Geralt.
So you found the story too predictable...yet seemed surprised on several occasions that you didn't reach the "end"
😂
i dont get the critique: there is no clear cut bad guy. thats what the game is about, its no morally clear. there are enough characters that YOU can see evil. I also think you missed out on a lot of gold moments of the expansion: the elder vampire and the fairy tale world. But you said you wanted to keep it short .
No character has to be solely evil in order to be the villain. The villain is just the antagonist, a character who's ambition directly clashes with the main character. This character can still be made human, but by the end of the day they're ruining what you stand for. If a narrative in which you are supposed to be immersed lacks this pillar then you'll end up feeling detached from the story as there just isn't any emotional content to invest yourself in.
i thought the beast and the sister of the queen are such persons, maybe i just didn't get it.
The sister was about as broken as they come. From birth treated like a curse by even her parents, then eventually exiled, raped by the guards that "escorted" her out of the country, raised by and eventually joining bandits (that also raped her, if I remember correctly).
She's so broken she tried to manipulate a thousands-year-old higher vampire into exacting her revenge, with brutal results. More than anything, I pitied her.
Which is why I totally hit that in the clouds of the fairy tale land.
A villain is not at all the same as an antagonist. There are plenty of acclaimed novels without a villain. Some don't even have a traditional antagonist. For example, which person exactly is the antagonist in McCarthy’s "The Road"?
The main function of villains and antagonists is to create obstacles for the main character, but there are plenty of other ways to achieve that. Your main focus in Blood & Wine, and what you're invested in, is to stop the murders, and that objective is maintained until the game's conclusion.
I would say the World is the antagonist in The Road.
7:48
That is a reference to the books. Regis saves Geralt MANY times. Regis and Geralt are really good friends because of that. Among other reasons.
Plus I assume Regis is follwing Detlaff around or something and saves Geralt subsequently
If you chose the right dialogue Regis admits himself it's not a coincidence that he's there
Of course not. Luke just immediately stated that its a coinciedence.
Fanthomas What?
Regis can sense other Vampires of his kind miles away. He can also track them with his crows. He was clearly tracking down Detlaff and happened to stumble upon Geralt.
I made sure to get painted naked on my horse by the painter in the city.
It was beautiful.
Samsies. The ol’ Burt Reynolds full spread pose.
Man so I’m 5th playthough of the blood and wine dlc and I’m struggling to find the painter. Where is he exactly?
The progression of villains in this game and its expansions is interesting. I thought Eredin was an utter letdown - a great design and a ton of buildup, but hardly any personality or depth of character, nothing interesting about him in the end. Gaunter O'Dimm was exactly what the game needed; an archetypal yet unique villain with an unmistakable presence and an ominous sense of weight and history to him. He was such a great villain that I'm willing to bet if Blood and Wine had tried to top him, it would've failed. That's why I'm glad Blood and Wine opted for a different approach. The reason the expansion works without a true villain is because it still has very strong antagonistic characters, even if none of them are truly evil or villainous.
Eredin was shaped according to the books. Now you might hear a lot of people saying that the books are very good. My own opinion is that they are pretty bad with some moments of mediocrity. The Wild Hunt was initially introduced as some sort of cavalcade of wraiths lead by Death itself with no clear explanation and a mysterious intent. Later on in his books Sapkowski revealed that they are some elves in armor. Most of the characters in the book suffer from being one-dimensional and forgettable. CDPR took Sapkowski's world and improved it in every aspect,plot/story/atmosphere you name it. Geralt himself is so incompetent most of the time to the point where it gets frustrating. Monsters and monster slaying is mostly non-existent in the books as well.
Eredin serves his purpose the way Sauron serves his purpose in LOTR. He's a presence more than a character which allows more focus on the protagonists.
NeonFirefly
Eredin - ras al ghoul (spelling?)
O’Dimm - Joker
Detlaff - Bane
@@Lynchotype Yeah but Sauron is a very dangerous person lol. Far more than Eredin could ever hope to be.
@@Skrubus Bruh, If you think the book had one dimensional characters then you and I did not read the same books. One of the main highlights of the books was the way the author made the characters complex and interesting.
Luke: „I don't like when I can predict the big plot twist.“
Also Luke: „I couldn't predict the ending of the DLC so that's a bad thing.“
Lol ikr 😂
If you rush through the game and miss out on half the content of course it feels rushed. You rushed it
Nah, the main story was rushed. Deal with it, fanboy.
@@pulsegamin4790 it wasn't but ok lol
@@philo2189 After finding Anna's sister, the game literally does a time skip to where Geralt and Regis failed and the last act had such an awkward pacing. I am not sure what game you played but the main story was easily the weakest of the 3 main stories.
@@pulsegamin4790 that's not it being rushed there's literally nothing to do everything between that would've just been useless filler. It was either convince her of seeing detlaff which her character logically wouldn't do or face the consequences and they faced his wraith what the fuck did you want to do for that entire 7 days sit there and constantly convince her? That's dumb I swear ya niggas on the internet is dumb as fuck
@@pulsegamin4790 no it wasn't
If you think Hearts of Stone had a clearly defined Hero/Villain, I disagree.
the man who is referred to as "evil incarnate" isn't the clear cut antagonist?
James gaunter o’dimm wasn’t nearly as compelling as Olgierd though. Olgierd was a far more interesting “villain” or “antagonist.” And the wild hunt was extremely uninteresting as a villain(s)
dxc I wasn't saying who was better, just that O'dimm was a clear cut bad guy.
O’Dimm was about as clear cut as it gets. Yes he had depth and nuance, but he was an evil incarnate bad guy, no bones about it....
@@SandyCheeks1896
It is not exactly his fault that causes people's misfortune. They are partly to blame as well. Olgreid is a ruthless bandit. The wight woman was selfish and disregard other people. They brought it onto themselves. Olgried merely exploit people'a selfish desires to trick them. He did save Geralt after all and helped him find Yennefer. He also kept his word and give Geralt whatever he wanted. Gaunter isnt a clearly cut kill innocents type of villain. He is a reflection of the selfish, horrid and heartlessness side of people.
Alright, I'm roughly 6 minutes in and you have already missed a blatant reference placed by the designers right at the beginning. There's a scene when Geralt and Co are riding slowly and encounter a knight fighting a giant. At the beginning of that scene, the knight is shown (with clever camera placement) galloping towards the windmill with his weapon drawn, followed by the giant breaking through the said windmill.
This is a reference to Cervantes' Don Quixote. Specifically, the part where he charges windmills thinking them of giants. In the book, they were simply some random windmills and the protagonist was likely suffering from schizophrenia, but here, there really is a giant. It is hinted right from the get-go that this is a place where fairy tales come true. And this is by no means the only instance of referencing fairy tales and turning them real. The designers have literally littered the landscape with references small and big. From the architecture (like the palace) to quests to things that happen seemingly randomly as part of the living open world.
Toussaint, it is shown, is a land where fairytales have formed part of the character of the country and are very much real.
I think this is an important aspect of the expansion that should not be glossed over, if for nothing but because it forms such a large part of the narrative and landscape.
It also puts a little smile in your face everytime you notice one.
There is also a reference to Winnie the Pooh. I found it while doing the wine wars quests. Pretty cool.
@@kakaioantunes there are countless references to many different things. I’ve even found npcs humming Beatles lyrics.
Never really felt rushed to finish either the main game or the DLCs.
Me either
I loved this DLC, especially when you go to the "fable world" to get Syanna. Just a beautiful addition.
Icky's Pop Yeah, cept if you do tht you cant do the unseen elder path 😣
Boba66 yeah, I know. The elder is worth playing on a second run. It's not nearly the experience you get if you go the alternate route.
Personally I hated fable land, it was (to me) really boring, “get 3 of these things” in a check list fashion type thing and was a big slog for me, it also tried to get me to like that vile girl so yea, but that’s just me
I honestly think that not having a clear villain is one of the witcher 3's strengths. Even Geralt himself talks about multiple evils to choose.....
Isaac nobel Luke never really seemed to understand or embrace the themes of the game, which BW did fantastically.
"No clear villan" as a con??? It was always the "pro" of the entire Witcher series... it's the founding concept of the whole world, being books, comic books and games. That's the thing! Gosh... What is wrong with you?
Wild Hund weren't such an absolute villan "because evil", either. Avallach explains that. Eredin was consumed by fear.
You know nothing.
GrimK77 you missed what he was trying to say. The series has always had villains. As do most good stories. A villain is not necessarily a bad guy and can be grey or even someone you sympathize with, as in the previous titles. A villain is simply someone who opposes the goals of the main character and with blood and wine it was never clear who that was as it shifted frequently, even at the end it was arguable. Not having that anchor made the story feel a little incomplete to me.
Caleb Friden - No, I did not "missed". I simply don't agree. The story is not "little incomplete" here. It's mature, realistic. In real world there are hardly the villains - you always deal with people who have "good intentions" that loses perspective in the end. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
You're still not getting it. You are still describing an antagonist. The point is that it isn't clear who the person with "good intentions that loses perspective in the end" is. An antagonist can be and is in the case of the Witcher, a mature, realistic, character with complex motivations. The point is simply that it isn't clear, or at least consistent, who that person is in Blood and Wine.
Try to be consistient, and read what I actually wrote.
Caleb Friden having clearcut villains just because, is lazy ass writing. IRL, people don’t behave “evilly.” They pursue their own goals which conflict with others’ goals. That’s great writing. Like Faulkner said, the only thing worth writing about is the conflict in the human heart. No one is truly evil except Gaunter O’Dimm who is not nearly as interesting as Olgierd. Mario vs Bowser is not narrative genius. For someone who talks so much about, “narratives,” this guy really dropped the ball. The video would be fine if it was just about opinions, but he confused anout narrative structure and writing in general. He obviously didn’t go to school for writing, etc. Also he just doesn’t like the main fucking theme of Witcher - that there are different degrees of evil and that in reality there is no legit single evil, and everyone operates in a gray moral landscape. The first mission of the game was great in that sense. The Baron was a great guy with horrible domestic abuse tendencies. It’s a shame Luke doesn’t get how in line with the theme this dlc was. Btw, the wild hunt was the least interesting part of the game. The wild dogs had a more interesting M.O. in the story than they did (they were sadistic because they got the tendency from humans).
Blood & Wine critiqie without the mention of the "Wonderland",which was one of the best parts of the DLC and was simply amazing, and also some great side quests.
Eloquent language, but I find it that most of the points you make boil down to personal preference (and very much so). It doesn't help that you don't seem to know the universe all that well too. More of an easy-going rant than a critique... but, that's just me.
yeah, I'm getting the same feeling. A lot of these points I don't agree with at all
It’s not just you
It’s is very easy to make an opinion instead of a critique.
He definitely fell with the former.
While I enjoyed this review and respect your opinion, I felt as though you came off a little bit harsh. You expressed criticism of there not being a clear-cut villain, yet part of what makes this DLC stand out so much is that there isn't supposed to be a clear-cut villain. You could make the argument that (SPOILER ALERT) Detlaff is the "primary antagonist" since he committed the murders, but you could also argue that Sylvia is the true villain in the end since she both orchestrated the murders and planned to kill her sister. So which is it? It's up to the player to decide.
Secondly, I was a bit disappointed with how you didn't discuss anything about the DLC's design and presentation of the world, its soundtrack, and its side-quests. I understand that you wanted to keep this review short, but next time, if you're going to criticize the narrative aspect this heavily, you should discuss other elements (i.e.: map design, soundtrack, and side content) and try to more effectively balance out the good with the bad. Because most of this review felt inherently negative, and while that doesn't bother me too much, other people might take that the wrong way.
Still a great review though. I can't imagine the amount of time and effort this took to make. Nice job!
Fundamental Medium hit the nail on the head. Having just watched a video on why there aren’t many video games where you can play as a true villain (which touched on how there’s few villains with great reasons to be villains without becoming some time of anti-hero), I thought Blood and Wine did a great job is creaing a web of “villains” or people just acting out of their own self interest which caused chaos and mayhem on a national level. Even though, I thought the childhood bad blood was almost a little silly sometimes, it was executed fairly well.
Yes! aptly said. I didn't understand much of his urgency critique as well, because I feel like that's just inherent in narratively driven RPG games? So if it made you feel a sense of urgency, wouldn't it be a testament to the storytelling? But yeah, it's still a great review, just feels like a lot of personal preferences were framed to be the authority or the standard of what the dlc should be.
Agree. This dude unwillingly comes off as a person who takes things for granted when they work well, and really wants to shove minor issues into people's noses. This is a trend in reviews that has existed for a long time on the internet, since rage reviews sell out much better than praise reviews and people become so accustomed with quality thy're presented with they don't even bother to address the good parts. I respect his critiques on the DLC but he left out far too much for me to accept it as a review.
[you should have read the books, because Blood and Wine DLC is FOR the readers, some sort of fan service.
@LukiePoo the fact that regis appears last minute to save Geralt isn't a coincidence. And Regis does explains that later when you ask him about the crows. He's using them to follow Dettlaff and see if there is something big going one. No coincidence.
Dettlaff doesn't "detest" humains, he just doesn't understand them.
Sound like you didn't enjoyed the DLC.
This was exactly what I was going to comment on! Like, yes, Regis' appearance is very last minute and feels a bit like "oh boy that was lucky!" but it's clear Regis has been following his friend, Dettlaff, for some time and it would entirely make sense that if he see's another friend, Geralt, about to be murdered horrifically, he'd obviously step in.
It's not so much a coincidence as it is Regis already following what's going on and just stepping in when he sees that someone he cares about is going to get hurt. Regis is such a bro, love that guy. One of my favourite Witcher characters. :3
Raigho yeah even without the crows explanation I think we can assume that since Regis is so powerful and competent and cares about Geralt and Detlaff, he has been keeping tabs on both for a while, especially if they have both converged in the same region.
Thanks for the work you put into this but the lack of understanding of lore and themes is evident. That may sound harsh but it's honestly just constructive criticism. Most of the backlash has been over the top but I do find it understandable. Maybe a bit of research would help next time, especially regarding Regis and the "no clear villain" complaint, among some other things. Still, this was well presented and pretty eloquent, so well done for that.
Aleczandxr I get the lore and everything but honestly I found my self siding way more with dedlafft way more then Ana's sister
John Herrera which girl spurned you in your life?
dxc no one ? I just don't like the ending her sister causes innocent people to die but if you let her die you somehow did something wrong and there's no way to help dedlafft or Regis it's total bs
dxc (claps hands slowly) Oh golly. You REALLY got me there 😂😂😂 Must suck not having any balls.
ryan seneczko you really are a virgin. holy shit.
I think the fact that there's no clear cut villain is part of the point and the (lesson) that can be learned from B&W and TW3 as a whole. There is no such thing as good vs. evil, the good guy vs. the bad guy, the hero vs. the villain. To see anything as purely black and white is seeing it wrong. Everyone has a backstory, a motive, reasons- even good ones- to justify sometimes horrible actions (which doesn't necessarily make them any less horrible). Detlaff himself brings this up to Geralt when he asks him how many innocents Geralt himself, the "good guy," has cut down- and that number is a lot. Even in HoS, Gaunter is just collecting on a debt, based on the terms he and Olgierd agreed to. It's not his fault that Olgierd agreed to it, even though Gaunter was taking advantage of him and essentially tricking him. Even the villain of the main game in Eredin is just trying to save his people from annihilation and extinction. Granted, he's still not "good" since he wants to do it at the expense of the lives of many others- there is clearly such a thing as better vs. worse- but that was one of the main things I took away from the game.
Totally Agree. Even the back of the game case seems to promote the gray morality you just described. It says, that the world doesn't need a hero, it needs a professional.
Witcher 3 was never supposed to be the simple Mario vs clearcut bowser villain experience that this guy wanted...
He says villain, not that the villain should just be a bland Bowser character. He just wants there to be A villain that you clearly know is A villain
Not that the villain’s motivations are boring and bland
@Plague Doctor My point is that there is no clear villain, in Batman the villain is the Joker, but the reasons why he is a villain are still unclear. He is still clearly a villain to the protagonist though. There's no real antagonist in the DLC.
While I really enjoyed your last two reviews, I'm highly disappointed with this one. Almost every point of critique you make isn't something that should be negative but positive (for example that all villains have a motive for what they do. A clear cut villain is boring and lazy writing, because you don't have to write a full character with both sides of good and evil but only the bad side which makes it really easy to hate him.
Also that the best expansion on this entire planet gets only 35 mins while the other two parts are about an hour, doesn't seem justified to me. I could possibly do a video alone on what you can explore in this expansion and it would be longer than your critique of the whole expansion. Sadly I don't agree with you.
SkullTune agreed
Best expansion on this entire planet? Maybe for you not for everybody. Lol entire planet xD god damn it that really retarded xD as you dont agree with him I dont agree with you but the problem for me is that witcher 3 is not that good and its just overrated
Agree with you bro it was very interesting and there were many twists and turns in the story and having no clear villain is a good thing in my opinion and is different for once
@@budlikycz2445 Name a better expansion then
@@ogeraldo1388 Hearts of Stone
I respectfully disagree with many of your alleged gripes.
Of course you felt like things were missing! You rushed through the main campaign, ignoring sidequests which is quite frankly not the reasonable way to play this expansion and thus were confused! Blood & Wine was rich with content, setting and story. I never felt a break in immersion as the Detlaff investigation is well segmented between quests.
I remember being awestruck by Beyond The Hill and Dale and after, being breathtaken running down the palace through the once beautiful city at night whilst the vampires attacked. There's so many wonderful and refreshing sidequests in B&W. The painting, the house renovation, the photographer to list only a few? The tournaments and overall different feel? The party at Olenna's was so damn cool. So many highlights to be found here. To me it's a welcome and fitting epilogue campaign. The new characters who were teased in footnotes in the WIld Hunt questlne (there's a crypt you can find with Regis mentioned, you can find references to beauclair.
Syanna was a really interesting fatal attraction, too!
All of the higher vampires are powerful and interesting characters, Detlaff is a superb antagonist. The mystery and detective chase is great. The final boss is spectacular.
The true epilogue is absolutely heartwarming too :)
22:20 you know there is an option for enemy upscaling? It's very useful and prevents you from constantly feeling overpowered.
I also urge you to try NG+ with death march difficulty (and upscaling on) if you ever decide to replay the whole game. It's a hell of a different experience, and it does emphasise on being prepared and more tactical in your approach to enemies. The boss battles are probably the most affected. Suddenly Toad Prince, Ofieri Mage or final clash with Detlaff become really satisfying and give you a sense of real achievement once you get through.
I can agree, when I first played the witcher 3 on the 3rd hardest difficulty, I never felt like I needed to use oils or upgraded potions until the last two bosses. But when I tried NG+ on death march, I got killed by the ghoul pack in the beginning of the game. I started to brew and upgrade potions and oils, and it still was a challenge, but it made the fights feel so rewarding after winning them. Although I never felt like I needed to use crossbows, even with flying enemies, I would just use aarad on them, but I did use it when fighting the toad prince, that thing is a tank in death march.
I also play with boss health bar hidden for that extra level of difficulty ;)
I played only vanilla when it first came out, my second playthrough was on NG+ DM when HoS and B&W were already out. I went into both expansions blind. The three fights I mention were probably the only times I wanted to flip the table from utter frustration.
dzejrid I wish there was a way to apply upscaling to different enemies. Doesn't make much sense that Geralt towards the end of the game being taken out by a pack of feral dogs
If those dogs survived for that long, you'd think they leveled up too, eh? ;)
For me personally Toussaint (Blood & Wine) was the cherry on top of the cream. The beauty, the music, the Mediterranean flair, the colors, the light, my own mansion, the knight culture, a new Gwent deck, new creatures....all after going through hundreds of hours in rather dark, depressive, cruel and wicked Velen, Novograd and Oxenfurt (where as Skellige always seemed like a refreshing vacation in Scottland)....it just blew me away. It was fantastic and I was entangled emotionally from the moment the Blood & Wine Logo appeared on my screen accompanied by those sweet tunes, my heartbeat picked up pace and I was like "Yeahhhhh buoi, Toussaint and adventure, here I come, get ready for Sir Gerald of Rivia....I'll show yall who the Mc Daddy Knight is...". It was as if the invisible godess of epicness had just wiffed a kiss in my direction and I had felt it on my cheek. Remembering how I entered Toussaint for the first time gives me goosebumps to this very day. Last time a video game made me feel that way saw my wife looking at me very concerned as I was jumping up from my Pc hands and head raised towards the room ceiling screaming: "I AM DOVAKIN, I AM DOVAKIIIIIIIIN!!!!...." \😂/
Honestly, Toussaint was like the finest dessert after a rich and hearty dinner. I only have love for this masterpiece that is THE WITCHER III and all its marvelous add-ons.
You missed the whole point of the expansion. The story is supposed to have no villain, it works with the shades of gray that exist within humans. Even the side quests works with that, in the beginning of the dlc when you are giving a choice to spare the shaelmaar or in a side quest where you are giving a choice to spare a rare archgriffin. All comes down to the end where you are giving a choice whether to save dettlaff or not.
Bro you said in your witcher 3 critique video that you dislike using Quen. Yet in this video and Hearts of Stone you use it constantly.
He's not the only person guilty of this but, it's become clear that he constantly changes his views on things depending on what will benefit him most.
you pretty much have to on DM as a safety net unless you're really astute. enemy attacks are pretty erratic so ye. not sure what he said exactly but i didnt like being pretty much forced to use it for the reason above. thats where all my stamina went so combat was generally pretty static. quen > dodge > dodge > dodge > dodge > dodge
on DM quen is needed unless you like reloading game 25 times a minute because you die 1-2 hits.
i can survive without quen on DM, it's REALLY fucking hard and requires me to be razor focused and not balls stoned and just fucking around like i usually am with singleplayer games but i can do it. you just kinda have to know your enemy, know what works on them and use it to your best. i was really stubborn and beat the first bruxa at about level 35 without using the typical bear n quen build or quen n griffin with flamespam..... after countless tries, but i don't advise people to play video games like i do because i get burned out on shit real fast.
But he clearly stated he wasn't on DM
I really totally disagree with B&W missing a main villain. In fact the definite villains in Wild Hunt and HoS were really the one's to step out of line.
Sapkwoski's world is dominated by the idea that noone is really good or bad. Hell, in the entire 8 books there is really only one (maybe two if counting Season of Storms) character that can definitely be defined as the villain. To go even further, the Aen Elle actually have a motive to do what they do in the books that can be understood and are not just pure evil.
Wild Hunt dumbed the name giving Aen Elle down and turned them into batman-voiced skeleton-armor-wearing bad dudes on evil horses. Quite the opposite of what they are in the source material.
B&W perfectly falls perfectly into the line of being true to Sapkowski's grey world and I personally think it has even the best characters and story of the entire W3. I even prefer it to HoS.
That said. I don't think that it is really possible to fully grasp anything related to the Witcher games without having read the books. There are just so many references, whole questlines and character ideas (Saskia or Ioverth f.eks.) hintingat the source material that I personally consider them as a must read (preferably before playing the games).
Additionally, Regis saving Geralt in the last minute is a thing that's very much like him. He was always quite theatrical, up to being downright somewhat of a egocentric smartass.
And finally, something totally unrelated: Just Axii those guys with shields.
And really, really finally. You say: "This is the end of the story, I can go start working on the sidequests." I think for W3 this is just a downright wrong way to approach the game. I always include all the sidequests in my main-playthrough and typically have all these done before finishing the mainplot. In fact there are always instances in which Sidequests will no longer be available after reaching a certain point in the mainquest. To me, the last quest of the main plot should always be the final part of the game.
I also never have the urge to rush through the main plot, as I not in all my years of gaming found a game that immersed me that much, that I couldn't look behind the facade of it being just a game. Of course the developers wouldn't stop you from exploring and doing sidequests als long as you like, before continuing with the main story and thus Sidequest are for me always a priority over the main plot. Especially W3 makes this very easy for the player, though. Just play the quests in the order of their level-requirements. That's what I did in my four playthroughs and I never stepped away from that concept.
Talking about that, I also never really had the feeling that the plot was done, before it really was. The objectives are pretty clear and in a straight way forward that never had me left, thinking that it was concluded, before it was.
Find the beast -> find out why he is killing -> find the blackmailer/lover -> Detlaff rages because of the betrayel -> solve the problem between Syana and Detlaff -> End of Plot. To me it could not stop anywhere earlier than there.
Wow. Now that was a wall of text...
*I really totally disagree with B&W missing a main villain.*
Same. I feel like the reviewer either doesn't understand what the Witcher series conveys thematically or he's blaming an apple for not being an orange.
I loved the Witcher 3's narrative and presentation of characters, however i agree with the Wild Hunt critique. For book readers who already know about the Aen Elle, Eredin & the white frost, it's easier to understand what's happening in the 3rd game. I feel like they wanted to minimise screen time for Eredin and the Wild Hunt to make them more mysterious and spooky. I wish (perhaps in the part of the game where you travel to Aen Elle world with Avallach) they showed the Wild Hunt from a different perspective like Sapkowski did. I also wish they touched upon Lara Dorren a bit more so people understand why Ciri's Elder Blood is so important.
A wall of text. But a welcome one!
This is the playstyle I always adopt for storygames with the RPG element, because most times, the side quests can tie in with the story and offers you different routes for the ending. Having me go home to Yen meeting me there and have the rest of their days living peacefully and at rest drinking wine.
It felt right to put down the controller then, as I didn’t have to do any sidequests/contracts or treasure hunts. The perfect ending.
My next playthrough, I’m gonna incorporate HoS with Wild Hunt and see how it goes
You complain about the fact that CPR used the same "Contract introduction" as Hearts of Stone or being repetitive, yet when they try to create a new villain instead of some evil supernatural creature, you complain. This is a great game with great in depth dlc. Great value for some crowns. I really don't think it deserves the critique, when there are other game companies selling a half finished game and dlc being way to expensive. All I'm saying is, give critique where it is actually needed. Games are getting more vague and more expensive, Witcher 3 is in my opinion a beam of light in a dark time for video games. But let's agree to disagree, still a great in depth video, I'll leave a like.
Although I don't agree with a lot of Lukie's critiques on B&W, this ends up being his opinion and it is his channel after all.
There's room for every type of criticism, even if 99% of people don't think that is necessarily true. We are a complex species with a lot of differences between us.
I think that B&W's plot is really good and unexpected. It's not same old same old, nor is it the typical "THIS GUY IS THE EVIL GUY", much like HoS's plot. But if Lukie feels like it wasn't great, then that's his opinion.
I mean, there are people that didn't enjoy TLOU even though I absolutely loved it (2nd favorite game, right after TW3).
why not explain why you liked it instead of telling him that he shouldnt have made the critique?
Julius .Drejer Everything should be critique, especialy art and video games... without critique art would not advance and stay the same, same with video games.
Tyson W hearts of stone sucks. Dark souls the ringed city is better than that crap.
Pretty angsty. I give it a 7/10 on the "im a frumpy little bitch" meter. Also Blood and Wine is the highest rated product on all of Steam with the expansion pass being the second highest rated so im goin out on a limb here to say its probably not just the "but(t) hurt fanboys of the bitcher 3" who are saying its good.
My favourite memory of previous year was playing W3: Blood and Wine.
I just find it like a piece of art
There is almost never ever a clear cut villain in the Witcher. That's been a BIG PLUS for MANY fans. It gives it a realistic, grounded, and mysterious vibe to the conflicts you face in the game.
what is really suprising to me is that you dont play this game as a witcher rather as a speedrun guy
Dude, but that coincidence with Regis was for people who know story about Regis and Geralt from books.
Agree. I had a wide open smile when he was introduced to the expansion 'cus I read all witcher books.
The two knights who bring Geralt the contract aren't exactly "strangers".
In the book series, Geralt has already been to Toussaint once and both of those knights, Peyrac-Peyran and the other one whose name I don't recall, are at least acquaintances of him.
Which is why he recognizes them as such in the game.
Palmerin du lac, I think?
I was thinking Milton
How it a coincidence if Regis himself says that he was with Laf in the town? He had no idea what Laf was has getting into at the time, so he was doing his own investigation job, that lead with the encounter with Geralt. I known that it a freaking 30h DLC, but Regis say this right in the beginning it not that hard to miss.
Keyser94 this was his weakest analysis so far. Damn shame. He didn’t like the style of the narrative, so it seemed like he was ready to dislike it. Hearts of Stone had such an emotional story, it probably overshadowed this experience for him. I think most players would agree that Blood and Wine might not have as much of an emotional punch, but it is worth equal value, when you consider everything else BW brought to the table.
The emotional punch was the enounter with Regis for me. The good old friend from the books.
I got the "bad" ending but I was fully content and satisfied with my choices. Really liked the strike contrast between Touissant when we had arrived and Touissant after the bad ending. I rather liked how it also implied that there are no happy endings unlike in the fairy tales, of which the expansion pack was very evidently a well-done satire. It ultimately turned out to be a bitter-sweet ending with a final farewell to Geralt living happily ever after with Yennefer which ironically depicts a cliched fairy tale ending.
This. I feel none of the endings is truly good, even the "good" one is not really that. They are all pretty grim and which is the best is up to the player.
Letting a sociopathic serial killer rule the country, while condemning your best friend to pretty much a certain death does not sound like a good ending to me. Anna and Syanna are far worse than Dettlaff and unlike them, he actually has a chance to start a new life and be better
Regarding the introduction of Regis; you need to read the books to understand why he went back to Toussaint. Geralt and company stayed there for a bit and Regis actually had a romance with a succubus. After the incident with Vilgefortz, he regenerated and returned to Toussaint, which was the only place out of all their travels together where they actually had a good time and got to relax a bit. In the books they even describe how Toussaint is like a fairy-tale land and lulls your senses, alluring you, they stayed much longer there than any other place. To me, it makes sense that Regis would return there after analysing all his other options.
I thought Blood and Wine was the best DLC for the Witcher 3 and imo the best DLC I have played for any game. I loved the story and thing that after the Witcher main storyline setting, which is very much a gritty and grim fantasy world, going to Toussaint which is almost like a high or epic fantasy setting, yet still have Geralt be his grumpy self is a great twist on an otherwise very serious fantasy story.
Are you kidding me bro .... Witcher is all about morality in life and with every quest it tells you that the world is not black and white ... there is always some black in white and white in black .... life isn't about clear cut heroes and clear cut villain .... the complexity of these characters is what makes Witcher the best game ever made
Did you realize, as you were writing this up, that this would be your worst piece of analytical exposition you ever produced?
After watching all of your Witcher 3 critique videos, I find myself disagreeing with this one the most. With the B&W expansion, exploration alongside the myriad of side quests are the best aspects it has to offer. The new areas added by the game are stunning, and made me want to explore every inch of it. The Land of Fables in particular is a segment of the DLC that I believe is crucial to this. By going to this vibrant land of fables, you get to see some unbelievable visuals alongside hearing the motivations of Syanna. Hearing Syanna's motivations make the story far more compelling and adds ample depth to her and some of the other characters, like the Duchess. In my opinion, it is best to approach B&W without a sense of urgency, even if you want to roleplay as Geralt. It makes for a far better experience when you complete the main and side quests at the appropriate levels, instead of solely focusing on the main quest. The main quest doesn't feel as dragged out then, as you have a nice break in between major story segments. I would also like to say that B&W has by far the best side quests out of any of the three major plotlines in the Witcher, with Toussaint's altogether new and robust culture being a delight to play through after the base game and HoS. I do agree that the characters introduced in HoS are more interesting, but I prefer B&W due to it's superior gameplay, better side quests and even some strong character development, with characters like Syanna, Regis and Anna Henrietta. Overall though, this video is your opinion and I find that you've presented it in a well organised fashion, leading to an enjoyable watch.
holy shit I just realized that the first fight in BaW is introduced by a knight attacking a windmill as practice and than being attacked by a giant. could this be a reference to Don Quixote? the guy was fighting windmills thinking they were giants.
No, the knight was already fighting the giant.
Of course there is a lot of references to the don Quixote - for example Dulcyneas windmills :)
I absolutely loved Regis. He was one of my favourite character in the books. Although I imagined him different in looks but his dialogues were in pair with his personality in the books.
I thought the voice acting for Regis was way too over the top. Started to annoy me after a while.
@@rubberchicken1717 I played the game in Polish and his voice is amazing.
The moment when Lady of the Lake gives you Aerondight is, and the Dusk in Northern Kingdoms starts to play sends me shivers down my spin. Goddamn this DLC is so nostalgic!
Why I didnt have that kind of trouble dealing with monsters in Toussaint? Blood and bones difficulty on my NG
In NG+/DM, yes, Toussaint may give a very hard time if you keep fighting monsters with your health indicator staying in red.
Get your health indicator a mixture of red and green, dude. Fight like a real witcher.
They don't need to worry about that on story only difficulty
When i saw you still using enhanced Swallow i should have expected this
I know right
This guy makes me MAD! On one hand he wants a mature, tasteful game handling real world themes on the other hand he wants an overarching, clear cut villain. Another pretentious, bratty reviewer detected.
That's exactly the same feeling I got after watching these critiques. Such a shame.
For speaking so much on lazy writing and about the “narrative,” it really does seem hypocritical. It seems less that he wants an objectively better product, and more like he wants something that suits his subjective tastes better. Unfortunately, the job of a critic or reviewer is to learn about proper narrative structure, etc. and try to stay objective as possible. Because, after all, their criticisms are for public consumption.
Catman. That's fine as long as the reviewer is consistent. This dude wants a mature, nuanced story, but in fact, he just wants a "Big Bad," which is more akin to stories like Super Mario. On another note, critics have a responsibility to be less subjective than the casual viewer because they are making decisions that affect others.
That's why when it comes to art evaluation, people need to learn the craft that goes into whatever art there. This applies to literally every kind of art, whether it's painting, culinary, or narrative design. There are techniques that painters, chefs, and writers employ. And critics must be as objective as possible. Casual fans, eaters, viewers, etc. trust critics and their tastes. Sure it's subjective to a degree. But the amalgamation of solid techniques produce good product/art. An easy analogy that you can refer to is a person's subjective preference for big macs over a filet mignon. It doesn't take much objective skill or technique to create a big mac, but it takes years of skill and careful practice to cook a proper filet mignon. At the end of the day, a critic has to have reasonable qualms in their critiques.
I think you're misunderstanding me. There is no way way to remove subjectivity completely from anything that's art-related. I think a critic should have the capacity to say something like, "this wasn't for me, but I can respect it for what it is." An example could be, "I'm not a fan of super hero movies, but I can't deny that Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight is a good movie." A proper critic, or any student of art should be able to recognize the craftsmanship that went into a piece, and respect it, even if he/she isn't the target demographic. And it's even more complicated for a video game, because the "craftsmanship" going into it is so complex, encompassing, sound design, level design, character design, narrative design, etc. The best critics are familiar with what goes into building each of those facets. That's what separate proper critics from the average joe, who just says things like, "I didn't like it, so it wasn't good."
Tina Fey said it best, “It is an impressively arrogant move to conclude that just because you don’t like something, it is empirically not good."
I completely agree with the concluding thoughts of the critique. Blood and Wine was never meant to be as narratively complex and memorable as Hearts of Stone. Its main draw was exploration and new gameplay changes. Like you, I personally enjoyed HoS more than this since I played the Witcher mostly for the narrative, but I can absolutely see why people may prefer B&W. Still this excellent expansion is far better than many base games nowadays and is well worth the 20 dollar price.
Kind of sad that a DLC is better than all the CODs after Mw2 (Or any Cod for at matter)
deathstroke5700 or you could wait like I did and get everything for $30
Or you could wait even longer like I did and get everything for 15 dollars.
No, of course not. Regis one oft the most memorable symphatic character in books and in this DLC is of course absolutely not memorable
"He who sups with the devil should have a long spoon". Most likely O' Dimm's reason for his fascination with spoons.
Regis has this thing, appearing out of nowhere and saving everyone. He always does it in the books, so i think its acceptable in this case. He is basically a super Vampire and can do whatever he wants.
Even then, regis was already living in toussant and already sensed something was off with dettlaff so it's still not a coincidence if he actually payed attention
Well, I disagree on the critique, especially about Regis. I think you didn't really made your homework, introduction of his charater is rather winking at people who read the book, than lazy writing. Liked the video though, it's nice you showed how Gaunter O'Dim was brought up.
On the topic of urgency/immersion my impression was that Blood and Wine was intended to be played after the main story as it is meant to be the farewell for Geralt. It's communicated pretty clearly through it tone and themes of putting the past to rest and in conversations with whoever visits at the end.
worst analysis of the game so far. thumbs down
Blood And Wine keeps telling you again and again that the world is no fairy tale (and satirized in the shrek-like "land of a 100 fables" quest). That's why I liked that they avoided the typical good vs. evil story line and showed a much more nuanced and complex situation in the end. It's entirely in tone with that narrative theme for me.
This DLC was honestly my favorite part of the Witcher 3 (aside from great story moments in the main game) I loved the new characters, especially Regis, and the land of Toussant was such a refreshing change of pace from the horrors and poverty of Velen and the coldness of Skellige (even though I love all of these places too). I also loved that the player was given a choice about who they felt was the "villain". It was a very tough choice for me and made me want to try all the options.
uuuh look. back then we got 30 hours for 30 bucks. today we get shattered space, 30 bucks for what? 8 hours max for all main and sidequests
A great video, I just really think it's too short. 1 hour and 19 minutes for Hearts of Stone but only 35 minutes for Blood and Wine, which adds at least 20 more hours of gameplay? It really felt that you glossed over or didn't even mention any of the side quests that Blood and Wine has to offer. What about Equine Phantoms? The Lebioda Statue? The Grandmaster set Quests? The Hanse bases? Contracts? Like I said, it's a great video but it honestly doesn't do the DLC any justice as a review or as a critique.
30h?? Im already 50h in and didnt even scratch the main story line of b&w
While I agree that having a "sense of urgency" behind a main story can feel pretty stupid, such as apparently urgently tracking Ciri, but having time to stop and do side quests, play gwent etc. I also think it's stupud to say that being truly immersed in a game means you have to rush through the main storyline as quickly as possible because that's what Geralt would do. I'm amazed you said in another review that your first playthrough of Witcher 3 was rushed and you regret the fact you missed a lot of quests because you were so focused on the main mission to rescue Ciri, but then you say you did EXACTLY the same thing for this expansion and rushed through, missing most the side quests. Can you seriously not suspend your belief enough to sit back and enjoy everything the game has to offer. Yes, the developers should really find storylines that don't pressure players to rush the main content, but also players should have enough sense to realise it's just an overarching plot to drive the narrative and they can take their time to enjoy the game because the main quest isn't going anywhere.
Ugh. All the people in this comment section going on about how the books had no true villains and conveniently forgetting about Bonhart, Vilgefortz and the literal DOZENS of rapacious thugs who are clearly depicted as villains astound me. Yes, The Witcher is a gray world, with some characters who aren't as bad or good as they seemed. But there are absolutely villains who absolutely deserve to be stopped. Just because someone has reasons for what they do doesn't mean they're justified, you sophomore ethics students. I pray that none of these geniuses are actually involved in anything morally important.
Kinda weird that you didn't even mention the best thing in this expansion: the fairy tale world.
Also kinda unprofessional to admit that you ignored the new gameplay features (supermutagens), as they are a lot of fun and allow many different ways to have a great time in this game.
Also, I understand that it's a matter of preference, but I have to say I'm surprised that you didn't like the fact that there was no clear villain. It's such a simple and uninteresting structure when there is (worst thing about core game are the boring and undeveloped antagonists from Wild Hunt).
MrKosobi I don’t mean to insult your taste because the fairy tale world is awesome, but I think the true ending of the game is the version that Gerald goes to confront the vampire lord. I know that leads to a bad outcome but it just felt so fitting to the Witcher story. Idk what it is, but after that horrific outcome I felt that was a good time geralt could spend time reflecting on his life and career and what’s important to him, he loses, big time, but finally gets to exit the story (and maybe his career) on his own terms. The momentum he’s been riding the whole series finally dies down right at the perfect time.
I was hoping that Dandelion could tag along for Geralt's trip back to Toussaint. It would have been a great way to reunite the hansa since Regis was there. Was also hoping for some super awkward moments between Dandelion and Anna Henrietta, but alas. I'm sure most people who haven't read the books aren't interested in seeing Dandelion any more than is necessary.
The "pace" depends on how you play, actually. ;)
I think my issue with teh story is that they it is unfocused: they tried to tell the story of the dark side of Toussant hiding under the shiny veneer of chivalry and also cram in their own commentary on "The Lesser Evil" story from the books substituting Syanna for Renfri. The introduction of Syanna shifts the focus and muddles the themes not to mention a lot of the possible tonal dissonance available in all of the endings.
After watching your three critiques, I'm ready to offer my own on the videos themselves. As someone who is a huge fan of the Witcher (games and books), I was hoping to learn something new from these critiques and find something I may have missed. Sadly they just boiled down to you telling me things I already knew, and things that simply weren't true. Obviously these kinds of videos are very opinion based so, I took them with a grain of salt but, man oh man did the lack of research shine through. From what I gathered, this video in particular took you around a week to make and for an expansion of this size and caliber, even that is rushing it. The gameplay alone should have taken you that long, let alone the extensive extra research you needed on top of that.
You also brought up so many pointless and unwarranted complaints, and contradicted yourself so many times that I found myself wanting to pull my hair out over and over. To add to that, it didn't feel like you meant it either. It sounded as if half the complaints you brought up were pulled right out of your ass just so you wouldn't be called "fanboy". Of course, that's just me assuming so, if you truly stand by these opinions then more power to you. To me they didn't feel justified or like they had any evidence behind them though. Also, a very small nitpick but, what the hell is up with you and these pronunciations? For instance, "Gunter" or "Dett-laugh". I could understand if you had some crazy accent but, you're from the US and it feels like you either didn't play the game or you're just trying to be unnecessarily fancy.
Do yourself a favor and fix this video, or it will forever be an unwanted stain on your channel. Anyways, this is quite possibly the last you'll see of me so, good luck in the future.
Toxic fanboy. Remove your criticism or else 😂
@@jordangill1900 man really thought he did something replying to a 2 year old.
see you on a million subs special cause your content is outstanding. not many people are so eloquent while talking about games. Im a big fan!
I wonder where they will take the witcher next, obviously it won't happen for a while, since there working on cyberpunk 2077. But I hope this isn't the last we see of geralt, awesome video
They said that they maybe will do a witcher 4, but never with geralt.
what? they are working on a new witcher game called cyberpunk 2077.. its the same universe, not affected by the conjunction of the spheres
I remember them saying that Geralt's story is over but the world is still "ripe" for storytelling
I'm hoping that Ciri will eventually get her own game
I agree, Ciri as a mature adult would be pretty cool
You can one shot kill Golyat by shooting him in the eye with your crossbow. You will get a "David and Goliath" achievement if you do this.
What a harsh review of the #1 best DLC of all time.
better late than never i would like to point out a few things. just for the sake of information. 1) milton and palermin are no strangers to geralt, they are comrades from his former adventure in toussaint. 2) nothing regis ever does is a coincidence. not even becoming friends with a witcher like back in the books. that is who regis is and how he makes his life in geralts world liveable. 3) on gaunter o'dim: it's funny that everyone is theorising about what he is, when he clearly is a crossroads demon. every culture has one, just by different names. and as the witcher is heavily rooted in eastern european lore, it seems they call him master mirror. but when you look back at HoS you should clearly see the pattern, the actual deal between geralt and gaunter was made at the crossroads, not on the ship. and that is their pattern, they reel you in by tending to your needs until they get you to form the contract. and then, well say goodbye to your soul in most cases. plus, not even gaunter is a real villain, he is a demon. a different beeing from another realm or dimension or whatever which has probably not the same moral or ethnical standards as geralts world. they even have none. so is gaunter realy the big bad evil or is he just acting according to what he is and where he comes from. 4) the world of the witcher always was a world of thousands shades of grey, never of black and white. characters are never just one dimensional, they're complex, as it should be. you called certain things lazy writing, i would call creating archetypes lazy writing. and funnily you pointed it out so well in you're core game critique, that the witcher doesn't try to woo you with a big plot twist, but rather a well told story. the story is pretty straigth forward. you actualy can guess the ending at the begining. and now in B&W you complain about exactly that. like in the core game, it is not about the goal, not about the endgame, it is about the journey that you take there. 5) i don't know why people would think to rush the main quest, that there is this urgency. in the books, his travels and his searches or tasks often take weeks and months. and now cause it's a game we need to deal with it within a week or even days? realy? 6) you forgott the most important thing, this is (hopefully someday was supposed to be) the end of the witcher series, so imagine how you would feel parting with a companion of 15 years. you would try to drag it out as long as you could. and the fairy tale happy ending for geralt, well, i honestly think, after what he's been through in his quite long life......he very much deserves it.
i could actualy point out even more, but then this already very lengthy text would be 5 times the size. i apologize for bad grammar or spelling, english is not my mother tongue. :)
but to leave on a positve note, i like how you sturcture your videos and try to follow a clear thread. which is more than most youtubers do, most of them just rant around randomly. so i realy enjoyed that and the fact that you always pointed out, that this is your opinion. which i hopefully still respected with my little text here. ;)
I watch this video a very long time after the release. I finished Wild Hunt after it's release and did not touched the DLC after that. Just went back to game because I'm reading the books and it drove me into buying season pass.
As I'm playing in Death March, it took me around 14h to complete Heart of Stone's main quest (including 1h30 on Iris' Nightmare which in a sense became mine too ^^). Heart of Stone looks like one of the novel, it's short, focused, and you (Geralt) have to make decisive choices. But I found it to be to focused and too short, with some parts that can be very challenging with no chance to save or to leave and come back for a long time (that moment in painted world...).
Blood & Wine is more like a part of the base game. A full new region with it's monsters, npc, political intrigues, folklore... You explain that quite well. BUT, I totally disagree about the secondary quests that can be locked away if you run too fast into the game. First, if you arrive in Toussaint around level 38 in Death March you will feel the need to level up and get a better gear before going into the main quest. In addition, the mutation system is really an addition because it gives some mechanics a better place in fight (mostly signs & alchemy) and allow variety of builds to be viable in DM. If players run through the main quest without looking at the secondaries they will miss things and that's a very good move IMHO, even more because most of them will not know they missed something. It gives the game the need to be played carefully and to make choices OR to come back thanks to NG+.
At the moment I played unitll that moment you're sharing a drink with Regis in the Mere-Lachaise graveyard (shoot out to the devs for the name of the graveyard ^^) and made it to the end of the tournament and the Vivienne's story line. I already encountered A LOT of choices in the quests (main and secondary) which feels like you really are part of the city for time you're in and it already gave me the chance to gather "Aerondight" and the grandmaster's plans for the set I'm playing. Secondary quests are very touching and you can trully reveal the personnality you want Geralt to have (you have the chance to be kind, sarcastic or rough in almost all of them and that's very cool, I don't care if it doesn't affect the end of the DLC, it feels like I can really choose between options that are more than just black or white).
As you say (as in previous videos) that you are playing in the 2nd easiest difficulty (even though you say "the third most difficult"), I find your judgement hard on the mechanics you fell "not necessary" because you can made it to the end of the DLC without them. As I said earlier, mutations are a huge new mechanic, it feels like you really can focus your gameplay like you want, you can alter sword fights if you are a melee only fighter (like you seem to be), or go for a more alchemy oriented fight, or signs, (that Arad mutation looks really cool) or whatever.... Playing in the 2nd easiest difficulty is not hard enough to be able to judge on whether something makes the game too easy or is not mandatory. And anyone who enters Toussaint without being more than level 40 (in DM difficulty) will probably not go through the main quest without feeling the need to upgrade his stuff AND playstyle.
I think I can stop there because the video is almost a year old and you probably won't read it. By the way as you ask it in the video, I prefer Toussaint's encounters with more small bosses scattered throughout the experience. There is also that mechanic of rogues' base (don't know if there is more than one) it feels huge to fight this lots of humans + dogs and killing the big boss to make people come back in the place.
First let me talk about Marlene since you mentioned that quest and the tie with the man of glass, I took my time to restore Corvo Bianco to it's former glory, I took my time with this INCREDIBLE DLC, no not dlc, this is a true Expansion Pack, anyway, when I got to the quest and Geralt was telling B.B. the story, the sword Iris was hanging in the back, as a memento, as the theme started and I saw the blade, I felt a chill on my back, I felt like he was watching me, waiting... that is good story telling, so good it was disturbing! I love this game so much. For story I prefer Hearts of Stone, but for Everything else, Blood and Wine is incredible, so unique and fantastic, and I also love wine.
The witcher 3 is the game of the year 2015, 2016 and it looks like 2017 as well. This is the high water mark of gaming.
The name is Gaunter, not Gunter. And how did you ever think that the story was over before it was over? What could have possibly indicated that to you?
Uma doesn't think he’s ever played Heart of Stone.
Blood and wine is a visual masterpiece of nothing else. Just travelling through toussaint was a pleasure and exploring its beauties was so rewarding
Watching a Luke Stephens review is the equivalent of eating a cardboard box, you're full but the taste afterwards is mere but the taste of bloated nothingness
Seems like you rushed this critique, this expansion is 40 hours long how is it that this video is the same length as your Hearts of Stone critique? It should be an hour long atleast! You missed the fairytale land and so much more!
During my first playthrough I prefered HoS over B&W just like you. But after the second and third playthrough I realized that I'm actually looking forward to getting to Toussaint. The reason is hard to explain but probably has something to do with the huge contrast between Toussaint and the rest of the game. It gives a nice flavour to this expansion and a perfect ending to Geralt's story. It is a must have to everyone. Oh, and Ana Henrietta is just awesome.
Also, please remove that realistic lighting mod that you apparently have installed. Toussaint should be experienced in its original over-the-top and fairy tale-like vibrant colors and lighting.
Witcher 3 with all of its expansions is my favorite game ever.
So I knew that Marlena was cursed by O'Dimm most likely but it just seems out of character for him. He usually doesn't curse people for no reason or out of spite. He always makes it a game or a pact because his main desire is souls. Marlena as a Wight is shown to have extended life, and more importantly her curse can be easily broken so how does O'Dimm plan to claim her soul? She isn't gonna die anytime soon and any compassionate person with rudimentary knowledge of curses can help her.
So why do you think odimm insert the spoon inside the poor lads eyesocket? He could have just made a pact with him then take his soul afterwards because that's clearly what you're hinting at. Just because he takes souls doesnt mean he needs to for every individual he came across with. And you say it was a curse that can easily be lifted yet she'd been a wight for over a hundred years. Easy to talk if you're not living in the universe where geralt lives.
Not knowing who the real villain is, or rather discover that there isn't a true villain is central to the Witcher story and narrative : There are no true Good or Evil, that's why Geralt values his neutrality so much and has such a high sense of nuance.
So I like what they did with Blood and Wine's plot a lot. And with the map design, gameplay, graphics... Overall probably one of the best extention for any game ever.
Regi being there at the start is no coincidence, he was chasing Detlaf. Just to clarify
So when I finished the entirety of the game and it’s expansions, I’ve concluded that the majority of the ‘antagonists’ in the game depends on how your (Geralt’s) view is. Dettlaf is ‘evil’ if you believe him killing humans is evil, and completely ignore his intentions. Syanna is ‘evil’ if your believe in the curse and that she is a monster.
I really wanted to save Dettlaf, but due to me being soft and buying Syanna her ribbon, I saved her, and caused Dettlaf his ultimate demise, and forcing Regis to be shunned by his people.
And I was relieved that Anna and Syanna were able to resolve their dispute, an antagonist redemption arc, however, if she died, and Dettlaf survived, I would’ve been even more happier
Uhh i think you meant people will think syanna is evil because she's a coniving manipulative jealous bitch.
You issue with the urgency is solved with the up-scaling setting.
You could just finish the main story then turn on enemy up-scaling and go through the side quests.
I thought Skyrims main story was poor. I much prefer witcher style of story narrative.
Hearts of Stone story still haunts me, whereas this one I've already almost forgotten.
Although this isn't story focused I have real fond memories of this aswell as the other
Did you have a mod on for the DLC? Your colours look very different than the base game colours.
This isn't a review its just a list of bullshit issues you personally have with the DLC and the game in general. No clear cut villain, that just adds to the story complex and the whole point of it, the feel of urgency in the story, would you rather a story where you didn't care about what happens to the main characters? and i started writing this when you said it drags on at the end. Whether you go unseen elder or the land of fables ending route it is super interesting and fun and im glad it didn't end at the ceremony and you get to drink with regis afterwards it adds a personal touch to the end of the witcher game series...for now.
Loved reading the comments calling you out on your bullshit. You just had a bad experience with this expansion and I won't waste the time to listen to all these half baked conclusions you are putting forward whilst simultaneously trying to imply that there is any objectivity and depth in their formulation. I experienced this expansion in what would be story mode plus a trainer, played it many hours every day until I got it finished, I was completely immersed in the story, but you weren't, so I don't care for this 'critique', likewise, my playthrough of HOS was bad, I did not enjoy it much, but it wasn't the game's fault. I won't list the reasons here but you get the gist, right? ... Cuek
I think not having a clear cut "villain" is actually not a critique, but a plus point. Because that is what the Witcher's about, the idea of lesser and greater evil. And, what if I told you, that the Wild Hunt wasn't wholly evil? They belong to a land where the White Frost has already taken over, and they need Ciri's Elder Blood powers to make a new world for the Aen Elle elves to live in. But then that puts Ciri in danger, and so Geralt and team must protect her.
I love both expansions, but if I had to recommend only one, it would be Blood and Wine. More than anything it's because of the new upgrades that open up. Not only with mutations, but they also have great merchants there where you can get way more money for your stuff, and they offer some good stuff too. Some of the merchants there also provide new quests which can actually give you quite a bit more time of gameplay. And that expansions story was absolutely amazing in my opinion. So I guess we will have to agree to disagree lol.
The story revolves around the Duchy and her sister, with Detlaff and Regis as the side character.
Although i loved toussaint, but i don't think that the story of blood and wine is as intriguing as Hearts of Stone.
The HoS is perfect in its own way, you feel for Olgierd, you feel the pain of Iris, you understand the actions of GoD and then make a decision.
They are both evil in that, Olgierd and GoD but you have to either choose the lesser one or no one.
So, that's why, i think its better
blood and wine is the best expansion for a game of all time imo
Im late on this one but this dlc started the same as hearts of stone? Getting a contract from a STRANGER???? These guys aren't strangers to Geralt they've known him for years and so does the duchess annarietta which is why she hired him to do the job in the first place because shes capable of his abilities they said like a thousand times they've known each other you have no clue what youre talking about what a horrible review
There IS a clear villain in Blood and Wine. Syanna
As someone who already watched 2 previous parts - i should suggest you going through the whole game with polish dub. Trust me, u wont regret this.
+Playmis Thank you so much for this recommendation, I just looked at a video of polish vs english, and I can't believe how epic geralt sounds, it instantly gave the game a different feel. It made him seem more powerful, if that makes sense.
Eng dubbed Geralt sounds like awfully dubbed Nolan's Batman, while polish Geralt sounds like an actual Witcher which is on his path to make money on killing monsters.
why?
Jak mnie wkurwiają takie buraki jak ty, którzy pod każdym, ale to kurwa każdym możliwym filmikem z wiedźmina piszą jaki to polski język nie jest zajebisty. Typie zrozum, że dla nich polski to jakaś bezmyślna paplanina dziwnych wyrazów i nie będą zmieniać języka tylko dlatego, że banda polaczków wypłacze się o tym w komentarzach.
English Geralt is way more realistic to his character, you guys are the type of people who always watch things in their original language because you want to seem like some elitist idea. The english actually puts way more effort on accents and better voice actors. While the polish only puts effort in the main cast.
The music that plays in the scene with O'Dimm and Marlene, is also played in the main game whenever you go to Crookback Bog.
In fact, whenever seriously creepy supernatural shit is going on, that cheerful tune seems to start playing.
Fighting Vampires like Bruxa and Alps were one of my absolute highlights
Luke: Coincidence is lazy writing
Regis: “It is not coincidence I’m here”