If you’re still sticking around the prologue area, I’m not surprised. It’s the least interesting part of the game. It introduces all the important concepts to the player, but trying to be a completionist there got me bored, too. The game gets much more interesting once you get the main plot rolling.

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion. But, as this is one of my favorite games of all time, specifically because I love the characters and writing. I can maybe understand why the combat might not be someone’s cup of tea (though I love it), but The Witcher 3 has some of the deepest and most narratively…

That’s what I said, it’s a 200+ hour game and this guy hasn’t left the main menu yet.

You haven’t even beaten the Bloody Baron and you’re waxing hyperbolically about the writing being objectively bad.

“It is bad, generic, the writing sucks, the characters are shallow, the combat is mediocre and extremely easy,”

It sounds like you’re an award winning, doctor with a degree in writing who also just happens to be the ultimate gamer in your pastime, haha.

I like to think I’m pretty critical of the media I consume, and…

Bummer you don’t enjoy it. I thought the writing was one of the best in fantasy but to each their own.

When I first started it, I was having doubts too. But I hope you stick with it because it became my favorite game of all time (not that my opinion matters to you). 

Maaaaaaaan do you need to get your opinions check out, the writting sucks? That’s just wrong on any level and I challenge you to find some that has studied writting to agree with you, the combat is only easy if you play on easy you probably played like an hour without paying any attention to anything and went well…

Witcher 2 really turned me away with its tutorial. At first I thought it was great that the game was showing me all the features and what kind of systems it had to offer, but then at the end it’s like “OK great so now you are an expert at all this, right? Here, fight these three guys who will all rush you at once!…

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, wrong as they may be. 

You can plug in a controller to your PC if you prefer to play it with that control scheme. That’s how I played it.

Within the first episode there should be enough clues from dialogue to figure out how everything is playing out and when

Yeah the biggest clue was right in the first episode — the scene with Ciri and her grandmother, talking about “You were my age when you won the battle of Whatshisface.” And then the very next scene is Geralt and Renfri and talking about how her life was stolen from her and she says “Calanthe just won the battle of…

Basically summing up a YouTube video buts fine by me!

I feel like “we gave actors direction” is a pretty, like, standard thing to do on film sets?

Even earlier than that-- Episode 1. Ciri makes reference to her grandmother having fought a battle at her age, later in the episode Renfri mentions that Queen what’s-her-name having just won that battle. Makes it clear that the events with Geralt are happening at least a couple decades before the events happening in…

Exactly. You could discern the three timelines if you were paying attention. There were enough clues and I appreciate a show that doesn’t treat the audience like idiots.

I loved how they revealed it. The painting of the king and his sister when they were children actually being the setup to the reveal of running into those same two children in Yennifer’s ball?  I know your mileage may vary with what subtle things you’ll pick up but I thought it was pretty direct while still being…

However the final product of season one makes me think it should’ve been told linearly with a couple of flashback episodes for Yennefer.

The timeline differential became apparent as early as episode 3. You have to be paying attention, but the King with the Striga Problem gets name-checked in the background of the ball - as a young child. It is clearly meant to be there as a clue, given the quick shift of frame focus and the otherwise toss-away part of…