We Talk About The Witcher 3's Sex, Hair And Open World

I got to play the first few hours of The Witcher 3, and so did Kotaku UK's own ruthless god-commander, Keza MacDonald. Per UN mandate, this meant we were required to talk about it. Watch the video to hear our thoughts on open-world stuff, combat, the series' progress in portraying sex, and more.

For those who don't have time to listen to me wax poetic about the swooshiness of Geralt's ponytail for ten minutes, here's the gist: Keza and I both dug the new open-world stuff, even if I did find it a bit worrisomely reminiscent of other variations on the theme (Skyrim, Dragon Age, etc). Keza found combat to be much improved -- some of the best swordicuffs she's encountered in ages, even -- but I didn't quite agree on that. Combat's way better than it was in Witcher 2, for sure, but timing is still clunky and Witcher signs feel awkward to select and use.

We were in pretty raucous agreement about The Witcher 3's morality (or lack thereof), though. One early side-quest choice, as recounted by Keza, led to a really unexpected outcome -- one that turned our perceptions of "the good choice" and "the evil choice" on their heads. We also agreed that the series has come a long way in how it approaches sex -- from the first Witcher's embarassingly juvenile collectible "sex cards" to some genuinely human moments in The Witcher 2 and now, The Witcher 3. The line between a mature approach to sex and a pointlessly gratuitous one, however, is thin, and The Witcher is a series that's been known to stumble back and forth across it. It will certainly be... something to see where The Witcher 3 lands.

Check out the video for more, in addition to some very pretty footage.


Comments

    This game does look amazing, but I've never been able to click with the first game (unfortunately), and I feel as though I would need to play through the previous two games in order to fully enjoy and appreciate this third installment. Maybe I'm wrong about this? I've never given the Witcher 2 a try, so maybe I could start there instead? Or maybe it's just a case where if I didn't like the first game, then perhaps I would be wasting my time trying to enjoy subsequent titles? It always bugs me when there is a game or two in a series which seems to throw out all the rest in terms of quality, mechanics, and overall enjoyment ... but I guess that is just a natural by-product of progression - learning and refining as you move forward (although sometimes it can be a case of 'getting worse as you go along' as a franchise gets milked to death).

      The second game is very different from the first game. I'd say read the story of the first game online, then play the second.

        Thanks for the suggestion, Dire Wolf :)

          Another vote for that. I played something like 30 hours of Witcher and although I liked the story, the game was so clunky and the missions so full of running back and forth between places across multiple maps that I was not having fun at all. I watched a summary of the rest online and started The Witcher 2 last week. It's still quirky, but at least the menus aren't terrible and the combat feels a lot more like I'm playing the game and not rolling dice.

Join the discussion!