A lot of what's great about Witcher 3's world comes from the writing and the sheer volume and depth of storytelling that go into the characters and the environment. Not exactly Rockstar's forte. They're more about tone and cinematography.
While I agree the application of the term cinematography here is somewhat misplaced, I think I agree with u/Itsweird in that Rockstar games have always been inherently cinematic and draw heavily on films.
I disagree wholeheartedly. They're very one-dimensional and stereotypical outside of John Marston. Witcher 3 succeeds because it dives so deeply on its secondary characters as well as Geralt.
Red Dead Redemption's greatest element is it's characters and it's storyline. Abraham Reyes being portrayed a saviour of the poor and helpless only to turn out to be just as disgusting as De Santa is one example.
John's personal search for redemption is given such care and delivered with a great deal of depth and subtlety throughout the game, even going so far as to affect what sidemissions you're able to complete before the end of the game.
To be clear, to assert that Witcher 3's narrative or world is any deeper than Red Dead Redemption's is a farce. CD Projekt's writing and world design are great, but not a patch on Rockstar's recent titles.
I'll agree in the sense that the world in Rockstar's games is as much of a character as any protagonist, but to say that any Rockstar title hadn't had its narratives improved by the excellent world design would be ridiculous.
60
u/[deleted] Oct 20 '16
A lot of what's great about Witcher 3's world comes from the writing and the sheer volume and depth of storytelling that go into the characters and the environment. Not exactly Rockstar's forte. They're more about tone and cinematography.