CD Projekt RED want The Witcher 3 "to be better" than Dragon Age and Skyrim
Posted: 12.02.2013 12:56 by Simon Priest Comments: 19
It may sound obvious but Michal Nowakowski of CD Projekt RED makes it clear anyway; they want The Witcher 3 to be of "at least similar quality, if not better" than RPG rivals Dragon Age and Elder Scrolls.

The business development VP argues that marketing can only achieve so much, and that a 'strong partnership' is needed to carry it the rest of the way. Can The Witcher 3 match Skyrim's acclaim?

Does it really need to match Skyrim in accolades? The Witcher series is highly regarded among RPG circles for its gritter and unabashed maturity in themes and characters.

"There’s a certain amount of things which you can do with PR", said Nowakowski in an interview, "but there are limits to that. Without solid support and a solid budget – which we believe we can secure with the right partnership – it’s really difficult to achieve numbers like some of our competition… Dragon Age, the Skyrim franchise and whatnot.”

“Are we that much behind them in terms of the quality of the games? Of course we’ve got a lot to learn. We do know that, but I really do think that we can deliver a game of at least similar quality, if not better of course."

“Our target is to be better, always. We always had ambitions to be at the top level in terms of quality of build, but also to be independent. That’s very important for us.” The Witcher 3 has been announced as an open world affair with monster slaying back on the agenda as a major focus. This is said to be Geralt's last as CD Projekt conclude the trilogy.
Source: VG247
Game advertisements by <a href="" target="_blank">Game Advertising Online</a> require iframes.


By nocutius (SI Elite) on Feb 12, 2013
And they can accomplish that since neither of those two series is perfect.
Actually I really hope they can pull it off and knock the other two into the ground a bit so they're forced to improve even if they themselves were satisfied with the way they're now.
By SirRoderick (SI Elite) on Feb 12, 2013
Yes please! :D

It's certainly a top competitor to pull it off ^_^
By Vukodav (SI Newbie) on Feb 12, 2013
Well, I would like to see it better than Witcher 1 and 2... Both Witcher games were better than Skyrim and DragoAge, so no point in going back. :)
By Cendrian (I just got here) on Feb 12, 2013
Good luck with that. I'm hundreds of hours into Skyrim and have no desire to 'stop'. The original DA was spectacular and long, the second was garbage. The Witcher I enjoyed, but got bored half way through the first to the point where I struggled to continue, the second was the same. Everything was tedious, with lots of 'travel to the other side of the world and back again, repeat' faff. I'm excited to see how TW3 pans out, I just hope its not more of the same. And PR? Screw PR, you don't need PR if the product is actually good, rather than 'marketed' as good.
By FoolWolf (SI Elite) on Feb 12, 2013
Well, I think that they can do it. But hopefully they make them better and not more "appealing tot he large crowd" which generally means making a bland game that sells more on the history of other good previous games.

To beat Dragon Age is setting the bar low IMHO, to beat Elder Scrolls is way tougher, but feasible.
By SirRoderick (SI Elite) on Feb 12, 2013
To beat Dragon Age ORIGINS is a decent target, that was a solid, enjoyable game. At the time it was definitely above the norm for RPGs.

The second one is balls, no contest.
By herodotus (SI Herodotus) on Feb 12, 2013
Where do I sign up, MeLud?
Honestly, I think they can do it given their track record so far. Having such a goal assures the game will at least equal "DAO", but with new and improved visuals, combat mechanics and improved....everything, then it will probably exceed expectations.

If not, they are in for a right old bollicking:)
By SirRoderick (SI Elite) on Feb 12, 2013
I am expecting something with more choice and openness than Witcher 2 with at least equal quality in other areas.
By herodotus (SI Herodotus) on Feb 13, 2013
Depends. If BioWare wanted to get much bigger in the console market, and I believe they did, they needed someone like EA and they still would have generated console-friendly games. I'd say they would be basically where they are now.
Perhaps the old BioWare Heads didn't approve of that direction, and left in protest. Can't fight progress(?) though.
By FoolWolf (SI Elite) on Feb 14, 2013
I think that when you decide that when all the nerds and die-hards love us - we want the rest of the world to love as as well - you are on a road of som many compromises that while the big consumer groups simply consumes many of the specific groups you started to design for will just tire and look for new games.
It's a bit like music, you start out as a small garage band with a die hard crewd. You spread and become the spearhead of a small subgenre with really die-hard fans and then you all of a sudden wants to be Justin Bieber or some other mega Pop-star loved by the biggest target group - but hated by more or less everyone else. You sell big - and you sell out bigger... Or something.
By nocutius (SI Elite) on Feb 14, 2013
*cough* metallica *cough*
By FoolWolf (SI Elite) on Feb 14, 2013
Well, yeah, Metallica did a huge dip, but still - they somehow survived and went back a bit with Death Magnetic, still they were accused of selling out thrash from Master of Puppets and forward by the thrash crowd and Metallica had already stated that they didn't considered themselves a thrash bad at that time. Black Album and the loaded reloaded and the latest garbage with Lou Reed however justifies everything bad ;)

Still, muscicans are more artists that way, same with authors. You mostly don't listen in advance to them and you don't entice people that much, or well you didn't, with extras and trying to milk it. You don't see artists saying that hey - download the keyboard to these two songs for 2.99!
Or why not pay us for a seasons pass and you will enjoy the game with drums, cowbells, and finally we will add Xylofon and triangle to all tracks....
By nocutius (SI Elite) on Feb 14, 2013
Nah, I'm a fan of Metallica :).

I even liked Load and Reload, not metal anymore but still good rock music.
St. Anger was just, ugh... Lulu? Oh God, no!

But they are basically considered a poster boy for sellouts, even if that reputation is a bit unfair. That whole Napster fiasco didn't help either.

Anyway, my bad for going off topic, it's just that Metallica seemed to be a perfect real-world example to compliment your theoretical one :)
By FoolWolf (SI Elite) on Feb 14, 2013
Granted - Justin Bieber isn't a sell-out - he was sold long before he hit through. He feels like a solid product of perfection - if you are his managers ;)
By SirRoderick (SI Elite) on Feb 14, 2013
Like a boy band basically

I for one don't really care as to the commercial status of a product, as long as I enjoy playing it/listening to it.
By herodotus (SI Herodotus) on Feb 14, 2013
Yes it is.
However Metallica sucks arse. If you want to hear a real Heavy Metal band, one that was at the start of things when Van Halen, Kiss, and Aerosmith were just kicking off into big successes, try the British group "UFO". Hunt their album down, then tell that isn't the hardest 'Metal' you ever heard.

'Metallica' - what a joke. Then again, I can't stand 'Heavy Metal'. It's just Hard Rock taken one step too far, in the wrong direction.

Anyway, carry on troops.
By FoolWolf (SI Elite) on Feb 17, 2013
Er - well I don't bash UFO or anything, but just the quick UFO search at YouTube yielded some nice songs - but I wouldn't say it got much in actual Hardest Metal on the thrash guys...

While I like both Heavy Metal and Thrash, as well as rock, and well most stiles - I do like Metallica - but I also think that a lot of what they done isn't on top of things - unless the garbage bin is what you aimed for... (Lulu - here's looking at you...).