The Witch Is Dead: Witcher 3 Multiplayer Off The Table

Player one: Geralt, player two: his horse. Greatest co-op mode of all time.

Once upon a time, CD Projekt studio manager Adam Badowski announced that he was strongly mulling the possibility of giving Geralt’s one-man show a multiplayer makeover. That was, of course, met with the gnashing of teeth and braying of donkeys, as very few people have picked up The Witcher and said, “Gee, I sure would love to see this sprawling story chopped up into a series of generic deathmatch modes.” And even fewer donkeys. Fortunately, when I spoke with CDP during GDC, it sounded like they were having some very strong second thoughts. And now, sure enough, The Witcher 3‘s proposed multiplayer mode is no more.

“Yes, I can confirm this,” marketing head Michal Platkow-Gilewski said to Eurogamer. He then went on to explain:

“There’s no place for multiplayer in so strongly a story-driven game as The Witcher 3. We want to focus on the single-player experience, delivering more than 100 hours of truly immersive gameplay.”

“Geralt can be only one…”

Which is extremely good news, not because I don’t think a properly fleshed out (no, not like that) spin on Witcher multiplayer could be great, but because CDP’s hands already seem quite full crafting an open world that’s 30 times the size of Witcher 2. That’s an absurdly tall order in and of itself, and it’s good to hear that the Polish role-playing powerhouse isn’t cutting any corners or shaving any unkempt weariness beards.

The Witcher 3 will be out next year. Are you ready to get witchy with it? (I’m pretty sure that’s the only witch pun no one’s used in relation to this series yet. Sorry. I had no other choice.)


  1. ZIGS says:

    I’m ok with this

    • Cinek says:

      I’m more than OK with that. Development time can be put in excellent singleplayer instead of wasting it on multi.

      • VengefulGiblets says:

        I wish that we had a “thumbs up” button to take the place of “me too” posts, but we don’t. So yeah, me too. Ditto. ‘An all that.

      • skalpadda says:

        Yes, this. Very much this, and I wish more studios would focus all their efforts on the core of their game rather than cramming in extra bits because they think gamers “expect it” or because they think it’s “cool”.

        • laodongkuaile says:

          Putting multiplayer in a single player story driven series fits my definition of shoveling.

    • finbikkifin says:

      I’m OK with this, and I applaud them for considering it. I’m sure there’s design space for a Witcher game with multiplayer, even with a strong solitaire mode, and I’d love to see it, but right now I’m just glad they seem to have made a decision based on what’s best for the game, not MULTIPLAYER ALL THE MONEYS DLC SOCIAL or fan reactions based on the horrible messes other companies have made by doing the same thing.

      Hooray for devs that consider things.

      (witcher 4 will have massively multiplayer rts gameplay, you heard it here first. build and manage towns and villages which procedurally generate side-hunts for other players in the action rpg portion. it will still be better than sim city.)

    • Carbonated Dan says:

      are y’all hermit crabs the ones responsible for encouraging Cyberpunk 2077 to be single-player only? If so, could you please explain why a gaming system exclusively about human interaction will be reduced to dialogue trees?

  2. Stochastic says:

    Having player 1 control Geralt and player 2 control his steed would actually be a pretty hilarious co-op mode. Or better yet, there could be a QWOP-like mode where four players would each control one of the horse’s legs.

    • Fred S. says:

      I want to play that game. :)

    • ukpanik says:

      I would like to play as his hair.

    • guygodbois00 says:

      Pretty much how we played Terminator Future Shock on Amiga way back.

    • LionsPhil says:

      I’m surprised there are so few team multiplayer games in which you can play as inept horses.

      Just think what it would do for Mount & Blade!

      • SwENSkE says:

        I so totally want to play a horse.

        I would totally go out of my way to annoy the one sitting on my back. Like just standing there eating grass and add some juicy spices or a nice flower now and then.

    • Christo4 says:

      Maybe there should just be a game where you play as a horse in fantasy land?

      • finbikkifin says:

        Shadow of the Colossus 2. You have to ferry your poor doomed hero around so he can fight colossi, despite him not being able to read a map. Oh god, he’s holding his sword up again, why does he think the sun’s reflection is going to help him navigate… and sigh, whinny, it’s another colossus where I have to run around avoiding the bugger and picking my lord and sodding master up when he whistles.

  3. aliksy says:

    I’m okay with this.

    But at the same time, a big game like Skyrim with well done co-op (and maybe, maybe DarkSouls style invasions) could be pretty neat.

    • Consumatopia says:

      Yeah, “open-world co-op RPG” seems like a big, obvious vacancy in available games on the market. There’s room to make money here. But Witcher probably isn’t the game to do it.

      • YogSo says:

        “open-world co-op RPG”

        Larian’s Divinity: Original Sin says hi (ohh, and it seems they managed to get the final $1,000,000 stretch goal too!)

        • MentatYP says:

          Did they? Adding up Kickstarter and Paypal it looks like they were “just” a few thousand short.

  4. Feferuco says:

    Wish you guys would drop the hate on multiplayer, it is a knee jerk reaction that’s hardly ever justified.

    It is a totally optional mode (except for you ME3) and it is fun for people who like it. Many great games had MP, some of them sequels that improved on the original, think Half Life 2, Portal 2, Red Dead Redemption, Uncharted 2.

    Lastly, for all we know if a game gets MP it could very well mean it got extra funds just for that, funds that wouldn’t otherwise be put on the project, so it isn’t like “oh, but if it didn’t have MP it could be even better”. After all, MP makes money.

    So really, it doesn’t get in anybody’s way (except for you ME3).

    • x1501 says:

      The only type of multiplayer I can tolerate (and actually welcome) in games like this is a simple campaign co-op mode where you can go through the entire singleplayer storyline with a family member or a trusty sidekick. Wasting time and resources on anything more than that (including such gimmicky things like separate co-op modes and pointless co-op mechanics) usually just leads to cannibalization and quality/quantity decline of the singleplayer experience.

      • Feferuco says:

        But it doesn’t.

        • x1501 says:

          Of course it does. ME3 had, what, 5 or 6 separate DLC packs for its dime-a-dozen take on the horde mode? That’s a lot of resources that could have been applied toward the singleplayer portion of the game instead.

          • SwENSkE says:

            Maybe they could’ve even come up with different colors but green, red and blue.

          • Warskull says:

            In ME3’s case, while the initial multiplayer development would take away from the single player, the DLCs probably added to single player. ME3 multiplayer actually made money for them.

            However in most cases it is money and development time that could be put into single player.

          • Feferuco says:

            All of that DLC was free but also could be purchased. Every time they add DLC, they make people want to spend money on MP. Like I said, for all we know, MP just means the game gets injected with more money JUST to create it.

            Also, ME3 had a lot of single player DLC, far as I know, longer campaigns than what other games had, and campaigns that were all well received. Also, disregarding story, the gameplay itself of ME3 is better. You have more variety in everything, there’s more content and I thought it was better balanced. No amount of extra effort could have saved the ending though.

            So, as I said, it doesn’t make the game worse. At least not when it comes to gameplay.

          • Deadly Sinner says:

            Wait, what? The resources that were spent on ME3 AFTER the game came out would have been better spent on the game that already came out? That makes no sense. Unless you think that the multiplayer DLC was somehow preventing them from making a bunch of free singleplayer DLC, in which case you are being very foolish. They wouldn’t be making money off of the single player DLC, and unlike weapons and maps, voice acting and animation is expensive to produce.

          • x1501 says:

            Clearly, I was talking about post-release ME3 DLC development and using it as an example. If they hadn’t spent a crapload of time and manpower on creating, testing, and balancing those innumerable multiplayer arenas, they would have undoubtedly released their singleplayer Leviathan DLC a hell of a lot faster than the end of August, five months after the game’s release. In contrast, ME2 was released at the end of January, and five months later, it already had 4-5 pieces of additional singleplayer content, not including a whole bunch of armor and weapon packs. ME3 had 9 pieces of SP DLC (4 of them skins and weapons) and 9 pieces of MP DLC. ME2 had 15 pieces of SP DLC (7 skins and weapons) and 0 pieces of MP DLC. Do the math.

            Diverting finite development resources into from-scratch creation of multiplayer takes time and manpower that can otherwise be put into improving singleplayer aspects of the game. But at least in case of most basic networking support and campaign co-op with few major changes, the waste is comparatively low and can be justified. But implementing an entirely separate arena mode that has nothing to do with the tone, pace, and quality of the SP campaign and releasing content for that mode on a monthly basis? Not only it takes significantly more time and resources than that, but it also brings absolutely nothing to those who just want to play the game for its immense world, compelling story, and meaningful progression. How hard is it to understand, really?

        • Ender7 says:

          Even developers will tell you that Time, Money, and resources have been taken away from singleplayer to focus on multiplayer. Even if they had separate teams,that still costs more money AND both groups have to work together. Which means a large delay, not to mention the singleplayer will HAVE to be designed around multiplayer. That means things that cannot work in multiplayer will get the chopping block. Sorry, I have seen so many games butchered and turned to shit because publishers put multiplayer in it. When I see developers/publishers talk about multiplayer in a game that is traditionally singleplayer, that sends all sorts of warning bells off. It is just not worth it.

          • Feferuco says:

            Care to mention a few though?

            Because, from what I see it, that’s not the case. I see, in fact, the multiplayer portion losing features. They adapt the single player to the multiplayer, not the other way around.

            Also remember that MP is an extra draw for people to buy the game, sometimes for more than one people to buy, and a lot of games try to monetize on MP, which means more money. As I said earlier, for all we know the project got extra money specifically for the MP, money that would not be there otherwise.

            But we can’t know for sure. What we can know is that games like Half Life 2, Portal 2, Uncharted 2, Uncharted 3, Dead Rising 2, Metal Gear Solid 4, Lost Planet 2, Mass Effect 3, Saints Row The Third… were all games that managed to expand as a sequel and had multiplayer. I could throw Red Dead Redemption in there too, if we are to say it is really a sequel of Red Dead Revolver.

            Even if you don’t like the games I mentioned there for one reason or another, the fact that they expanded, some radically like Uncharted 2, goes to show the game didn’t get worse. Truth is, most of the times it is the MP that doesn’t get proper care and comes out worse than it could be.

            So there’s plenty of evidence that games turn out just fine with multiplayer. There are examples people mention like Bioshock 2 or Resident Evil 5. But Bioshock 2 wasn’t developed by Irrational and RE5 was an attempt to recreate the entire game, so it was more than some tacked on MP removing resources.

        • MattM says:

          I just finished Dead Space 2. The campaign wasn’t bad, but everything good about it was taken from the first game. It really seems like all of the thought and creative energy went into the new multiplayer at the expense of the singleplayer.

    • Hauskamies says:

      I’m pretty sure CDPR is funding the game themselves. MP would mean less money and effort on SP.

      • Feferuco says:

        Yes, this is a case where it makes sense to cut it out. I’m not complaining about lack of MP on Witcher 3. I was just talking about the general dislike for it, that’s unjustified.

    • iridescence says:

      I doubt it would get extra funds. More likely, it would cut into the game’s budget and take resources away from the SP campaign, I don’t hate MP in all games but it has no place in The Witcher which is the story of one guy. I’d hate to see Geralt fighting clones of himself or his skills rebalanced for PVP. Thank you CDProjekt for listening to your customers on this. This is why this is one of the few companies I’ll buy day 1 releases from.

      • Zenicetus says:

        Yeah, that’s the problem right there — it would be “Geralt fighting Geralt clones” (or Letho, which is the same thing), because he’s the only fully realized class with a skill tree in the game.

        His companions (Triss, Zoltan, Dandelion) usually appear only at intervals in these games, so they’re not good candidates for co-op campaign play. And it would take a huge effort to create equivalent skill trees for those characters.

        It’s a one-character story driven game; the worst candidate for multiplayer. At least Mass Effect had different player classes.

    • SkittleDiddler says:


      Fuck that. It’s a cancer concept brought over from Console Land, and it ultimately does nothing but eat into development time and budget.

      • Feferuco says:

        A lot of classic PC games, specifically FPS and RTS games, had multiplayer.

        • SkittleDiddler says:

          We’re not discussing those games though. We’re talking about the more recent trend of shoehorning over-budgeted multiplayer sections into games that don’t need them.

          • Feferuco says:

            You brought up console land though, was just trying to remind you that it isn’t some console trend.

            It’s a cancer concept brought over from Console Land, and it ultimately does nothing but eat into development time and budget.

            It is something that actually made a lot of old PC games big. Also, the way it is used today, it turns extra profit so far all we know the game gets an extra budget.

            Would you say Half Life didn’t need multiplayer? It resulted in some great mods. Anyway if you think it ruins games, I discussed that on my original post and in many other replies here. We have plenty of examples where the game actually ended up pretty good.

            Most we can get from this is that some devs can handle doing it while others can’t. This is actually true for any game, with multiplayer or not. Some devs do their job better.

          • SkittleDiddler says:

            The current trend of publishers insisting on including multiplayer with all of their singleplayer releases is absolutely a modern phenomenon, and it came directly from the console side of the industry where gullible consumers eat that kind of gimmicky shit up.

            We’re not talking about games like Half-Life 2, which came from an era when multiplayer was considered a meaningful part of the overall experience. Nowadays multiplayer is carelessly tacked on as a marketing afterthought, with little to no attempt at cohesion or quality. We’re talking about MP in modern games like Uncharted, Tomb Raider, Mass Effect, and Spec Ops: The Line — games that are not substantially improved, and are oftentimes hindered, by the presence of a mutitplayer component.

          • Feferuco says:

            Again, there are less games with multiplayer now than there were a few years ago. And then you just say that for some reason games having multiplayer now is bad but in the past it wasn’t, even though Half Life 2 deathmatch was easily as lazy as any other modern deathmatch. Why isn’t multiplayer no longer “considered a meaningful part of the overall experience”? You are applying double standards for no reasons. It is what I said, knee jerk reactions. And no, games don’t generally turn out worse because of MP.

    • bleeters says:

      Because, personally, multiplayer at present seems to be synonymous with chasing that illusive ‘wider audience appeal’. Which, at present, seems to also be synonymous with ‘jettisoning mechanics like they’re dead weight to make room for more action sequences’. I don’t especially begrudge multiplayer in of itself, but it makes me mildly concerned whenever it’s brought up for a franchise that previously never had it.

      Or maybe Bioware have just given me the wrong impression over the last few years regarding what ‘wider appeal’ in an RPG title means, and/or I’m a big grumpy bum.

      (Not that I’d say any of this applies to CDProjeckt, ‘course. Those are just my feels in general.)

      • Feferuco says:

        I feel people dislike MP because they associate with CoD and that to bros and that to everything that’s wrong with games. Then the knee jerk reaction comes from that.

        Aside from that, it is usually the MP that really lets me push the game, to explore whatever depth it has. At least that was the case for Mass Effect 3, Uncharted 2, Metal Gear Solid 4. There’s only so much you can do on the single player. The MP in ME3 allowed me to try a lot of different builds, and it gives you a reason to try to do more than shoot everything.

        Single player modes hardly ever are as challenging as the multiplayer and they are never as chaotic. The chaos of multiplayer opens up a lot of gameplay opportunities.

    • fish99 says:

      It’s not hating multiplayer to say it shouldn’t be shoveled into every single player game in a vain attempt to get a few extra sales at the cost of the core game.

      • Feferuco says:

        There are less games with MP now than before. It isn’t getting shoveled anywhere, and to my experience it only resulted in an enjoyable game mode.

        • fish99 says:

          Putting multiplayer in a single player story driven series fits my definition of shoveling.

          • Feferuco says:

            So was the MP in Starcraft or Warcraft shoveled?

          • fish99 says:

            Starcraft and Warcraft have always had multiplayer. The first Command & Conquer had multiplayer as well. To find a era when RTS didn’t have multiplayer you have to go all the way back to Dune 2 on the amiga, before the internet.

            Btw if we’re talking about co-op in Witcher 3, maybe I could see that being good, but some sort of deathmatch mode just doesn’t belong IMO.

    • Ringwraith says:

      I find ME3’s multiplayer unfairly bashed on, as it’s actually a fairly solid system, provided you don’t care about having to make do with you get given (though I am the kind of person who will quickly tire of using the most min/maxed combination for “optimal” play), it was stupidly shoehorned into being needed for the actual game itself, but then ended up reverting that later anyway (not that it made much difference anyway, the whole system it tied into felt very sloppy and rushed).
      It certainly wasn’t a tacked-on multiplayer system just because they “have to have multiplayer”. Some real thought and effort went into it.

  5. Lobotomist says:

    Good riddance

  6. noodlecake says:

    I’m happy with that. Wasn’t fussed about multiplayer personally. I’m slightly skeptical of the open world, to be honest. Open world doesn’t always make for a better game. It might do though. We’ll have to wait and see.

    • Lobotomist says:

      Depends what is implemented.

      I must say I always missed the actual monster hunting part of the witcher. Especially as it was planned in original game.

    • Zenicetus says:

      I don’t think it needs to be completely open world, but CD Projekt does need to get better at hiding the world barriers and gently guiding the player through the storyline.

      The invisible walls were very obvious in the first game, like those fences you couldn’t hop over next to the roads. The second game wasn’t quite as bad, but there were still some annoying areas, like outside the army camp where you’d hit invisible walls that wouldn’t let you cross a small stream. Or the restricted pathways in the forest outside Flotsam.

      If they can just make it a little less obvious, and still make sure the player doesn’t miss critical plot areas, it will be an improvement and feel more open. Fallout: New Vegas was pretty good in that regard. Witcher 3 could use some of those tricks, like having monsters that are too tough at the lower levels to block off certain pathways, instead of using invisible walls.

      • SkittleDiddler says:

        Well said. Witcher 3 needs to be an open-world version of Witcher 3, not Witcher 1 and 2.

  7. Dowr says:

    Here is an example of good development practice:
    CDP “Would you guys like multiplayer?”
    Everyone else “Fuck no – never suggest that”
    CDP “Okay, no multiplayer”.

    Good developer.

    • ZIGS says:

      They’re also getting rid of quick-time events, something that everyone else keeps on using, even though 98% of gamers despise it

      • Megakoresh says:

        That’s because CDPR>Everyone else

      • Ender7 says:

        Because every developer wants to create a “cinematic” movie experiences and dumb down gameplay for idiots who cannot learn a little strategy.

      • Vandelay says:

        It is great that they are ditching QTEs (as well as the multiplayer,) but it boggles my mind why they thought it would be a good fit to begin with. They should have realised that it was wrong before The Witcher 2 even came out.

        I personally don’t have a problem with QTEs done right (I enjoyed Fahrenheit, for example, which is just one big QTE,) but epic sprawling RPG will never be the right place for it.

        • strangeloup says:

          The QTE’s in Witcher 2 are also still bugged to fuck for quite a number of people, myself included. I couldn’t get past the tutorial because of it — until I plugged in a 360 controller — and their support refused to acknowledge that it was even a bug, when “reproducible problem with software that is not due to the user which impedes progress” seems like a pretty good definition of a bug to me.

          When it decided it wanted to download the entire 20-odd gig of the game again for no apparent reason, I said fuck it and picked up a cheap copy of the 360 port. It doesn’t look as shiny but at least I can bloody play it.

  8. Paul says:

    I hope CDP stays singleplayer only forever. I hate it when my favourite devs spend money and time on MP, which I never ever play.

  9. Warskull says:

    Much better to do one thing really well than attempting to implement a half baked multiplayer. It just ends up making your game look bad. How many people played Bioshock 2 multiplayer? The inverse is also true, trying to force a bad single player into your multiplayer game makes it look bad.

  10. somnolentsurfer says:

    I wan’t that bothered by this story, then I read the alt text, and my indifference turned to crushing disappointment. They should totally make that game.

  11. Necron99 says:

    Thank goodness!! I’m really getting sick of every single RPG/MMO having some form of PvP added to the game. I hate the very idea of “class balance” which is all PvP ever forces. Wizards should get to one shot multiple things, Warriors should have to hack things several times and Rogues should one shot backstab any single target. They should NEVER be equals.

  12. DigitalSignalX says:

    Great decision. BF3 could have been a much better optimised MP experience imho if the economic and physical resources / disc space for SP had been built around a MP only title. Inversely for ME3, ASSCreed’s etc.

    CDP knows what its fans want: a lavishly rendered branching SP narrative centered around Geralt.

  13. craigdolphin says:

    Having just played the second branch of the Witcher 2 storyline (played through the first some time back) I am beyond excited about TW3.

    CDPR are, IMO, everything that a western rpg game developer should be. They put their paying fans first when it comes to DRM. They have the technical ability to make one of the best looking RPG engines of the generation (only Skyrim can compare IMO). The storyline and characters of their games are fantastic. They aren’t afraid of nudity. And the combat in TW2 was improved massively over the Witcher 1.

    I only wish they would make party-based RPG’s instead (or as well) so I can finally put the slowly decaying corpse of Bioware out of mind once and for all.

    Nonetheless, CDPR are awesome and I really hope they go from strength to strength. I will be buying their Cyberpunk game when it releases, too, even though I really don’t have much interest in the cyberpunk setting itself. I have no doubt that they’ll still make an interesting and immersive game with a great story regardless of the setting.

    • Cinek says:

      “And the combat in TW2 was improved massively over the Witcher 1” – W1 didn’t have combat. It was endless QTE sequence where you just spent time praying it would be finally over. (other than that: W1 was a great game)
      W2 isn’t perfect either – combat reminds me more of console action games than anything else, but it’s definitely way better than the sin they committed in W1.

      • kud13 says:

        W1 had combat. the only way to enjoy it was to chug a Blizzard potion, though.

        • Vorphalack says:

          I might be the only person in history who thought the W1 combat was alright. I wont ever say it was good because it took quite a while for it to unlock the options to really make it tactical. Once you had most of the signs leveled up and a decent number of attack sequences learned (including the power up attacks) it wasn’t awful anymore. You could be clever with dodging, power up attacks and sign usage to wreck fights that would destroy you if you just attacked through everything head on.

          • Sardukar says:

            You are not the only one! I liked Witcher 1 combat as well. I felt a lot more entertained using it than I did in W2, which was really a dodge-roll simulator. Blah.

            You did have to level a bit, though and that was a mistake as it turned a lot of people off pretty quick.

  14. Iskariot says:

    I am very, very happy with this.

  15. Henson says:

    While this is probably good news, I can’t help but think that a two-player co-op Witcher game could be pretty damn fun. Two witchers roaming the land and hunting monsters – the combat dynamics could make up for Witcher 2’s ‘surround Geralt’ problems, having one player bail the other out and such. And for large bosses, two players could really mix things up – although, I suppose that could be easily exploitable as well…

  16. jon_hill987 says:

    One can only hope we hear the same news of Batman: Arkham Origins before release.

  17. wodin says:

    Excellent news.

    Do those Multiplayer gamers have enough to get on with??

  18. derbefrier says:

    I understand the hate for bad multiplayer, like half assed PvP and stupid horde mode crap but just hating any form of multiplayer is ridiculous. I mean I have been waiting forever to see a big open world RPG sandbox with sort of a freeplay co-op mode that i can run around with a few friends killing shit and having fun but noooooooooooooooo all the antisocial gamers keep ruining any opportunity for that to happen. I haven’t been a huge fan of the witcher series since the combat is so terrible but if this had a co-op mode like I mentioned above would have pre ordered this, now I’ll think i’ll pass.

    • MattM says:

      The MMO genre seems to be catering to all the people who want co-op rpgs.

      • Beemann says:

        The problem I find is that MMOs are still focused on the same skill-bar+tab-targeting combat and lots of grind. There’s definitely a few that try to break away from the standard MMORPG combat, but they also tend to heap the grind on anyway, and quite often the new combat system is still pretty sub-par (especially if it’s an MMOFPS/TPS)

        I don’t mind a bit of leveling up here and there, but the push to get to level 80 has never been a defining feature of RPGs in my mind, and it’s even worse when I can’t at least enjoy the combat

  19. kud13 says:


  20. fupjack says:

    You know what multiplayer would be neat? Not multiple Geralts, but a RTS game where you get to play the kings/queens/whatevers in the Witcherverse, and fight battles and so on. Sorta like a game of Risk.

    Geralt could be a NPC at that point, that affects battle and scenario outcomes.

  21. HisDivineOrder says:

    Good news. I wish publishers in general would get that some games need multiplayer and some do not.

  22. mildante says:

    I want 2-4 player coop open-world RPG.

  23. Michael Fogg says:

    I don’t mind multi is gone, but another thing about this worries me a bit: the story driven nature of the game. Actually my preferred type of game is mechanics/systems driven, with as much player freedom and world reactivity as possible. A story focused gameplay amost invariably comes across as too restraining and leads to railroading the player through the game as a mere spectator, instead of actor in the drama.

  24. Shooop says:

    How would have multiplayer even operate in the The Witcher’s world?

    There isn’t an army of faceless clones who fighting each other in any of the games we’ve played. The closest we get to that is the prologue to the second game, but Geralt doesn’t jump into the fray, he only has a few minor skirmishes because it’s the very end of the war and King Foltest who’s he’s escorting doesn’t get his hands dirty at all.

    What did they even have in mind for it?

  25. Crosmando says:

    I think multiplayer in itself is just symptomatic of developers trying to pander to the low IQ, mouthbreathing “bro gamers” demographic, rather than the core audience.

    I don’t have a problem with multiplayer in itself, as long as they keep it in CoD/TF2 and the rest and keep their noses out of single-player games.

    • QualityJeverage says:

      Well that’s a pretty toxic attitude to have…

      I’ve no interest in multiplayer either, but I don’t have any illusions that I’m somehow the purer, more worthy “core” audience. Come on now.

  26. b0rsuk says:

    I understand their decision, I wouldn’t be bothered either way because I’m not a fan of the writer and cinemaRPGs. But Geralt in the books had a companion, a (male) bard called Jaskier (Buttercup). He was a typical “funny” sideckick for a grim character, like Morte.

    • finbikkifin says:

      Dandelion’s in the games, they just changed his name in the English translation.

  27. RagePoon says:


  28. Snubbz says:

    I was kinda interested in how it would look, but okay with it.

  29. Radaway says:

    And Witcher 3’s ending will be based on a final choice, leading to three epilogues.

    YESSIR! link to

  30. DanMan says:

    Multiplayer DLC! j/k

    I agree that there can only be one Geralt. But he wouldn’t have to be part of it necessarily.

  31. lordbain says:

    Here is another one I’ll have to pass on… No multi, no play

  32. m3talmechanic says:

    But can I have co-op. Every game should have at least two player co-op. I don’t care if it makes since for the story. I would rather play through it with a friend. Experiencing things alone as not as fun to me as sharing those Oh shit moments with a buddy!