************************This is based on a proposed view that Projekt Red has replaced Bethesda and Bioware as the new "Guard".*****************************
Inquiring what the user meant and receiving the clarification I found myself typing and thinking over my response for 6 Hours. For whatever it's worth.
"
Ignore Helms Deep below, my Dexedrine for my ADHD has a habit of leading me into turning a response into a blog. I'll put it where it belongs.
RECAP
Bethesda is in a transitional state that has been flirting with and displaying stagnation through the last of cycle of their main showcased (Developer) IP's (The Elder Scrolls and Fallout) that may have been commercial successes but haven't established an expansion from the "world building" centric model, with decentralised character development. It's thrown into question with the inclusion of voice acting that was established, though it alienates fans of the current character model and worse the inclusion wasn't backed by a substantial centralised story (among a host of other things). It is either failing, or the disconnect between fan expectation and Bethesda's views on what it's games are building towards have become too great, less forgiving, unfit to stand guard.
Bioware another oldie made major waves with classics with Baldur's gate and also with that series displayed early on that it had some interest in connected sequels (as their only sequel was a continuation of the story). This isn't revisited til Mass Effect, but with titles like Jade Empire and KOTOR they explore their capacity to embellish their environments with separate enclosed areas that feature less static and more detailed backgrounds. They began to form their composition of exploring story writing, character development with dialog input from the player acting on behalf of the protagonist cinematically. Which had consequences, but opts for a duality style where all major choices are syphoned into either one attribute or another that acts as a sufficient key to help create a sense of impactful decisions. They're capitol ship was Mass Effect where they returned to the concept of sequel continuation, but mixed with the originally established decision reflecting formula except. Except this formula hampered them, because while they could reflect the character and allowed the player to explore two separate attitudes, it was coloured coded, displayed and tallied reflecting a lack of nuance. Which was glaring to the end of the "Shepard" series as all decisions were thrown out of the window for a built up, twisted exposition that was anything but a contrast to the pacing to everything prior. They established the capacity to handle exposition, could form a meaningful lore, handle a cinematic display to storytelling, develop characters and balanced stop-set tactical use of powers with real time action. They like Bethesda took that structure/formula and then re-used it for a fantasy setting. In the end though they struggled with both gameplay and story consistency which became highlighted in complaints and never fully displayed a open, fully exploitable and rewarding worlds, but instead laid scope with galaxy maps and enclosed planetary areas (again not consistently throughout). what should have been their Witcher 3 was well in range of legitimate criticism in comparison. Though Dragon Age held a bit more graceful in form and storytelling, but ultimately was not a continuation of one single narrative, but world.
So CD Projekt Red arrives in 1994 and due to their location in Poland, which had rampant piracy due to Poland's older laws pertaining to piracy compounded by the inflation and scarcity of available games under the Soviet bloc which only a few years prior promptly fell and dissolved reaches out to Interplay and Bioware for aid and advice. They form a relationship with Bioware who even offering a booth beside their upcoming game The Jade Empire and Bioware even goes on to license the Aurora Engine be a launch pad for Projekt Red's 2007 The Witcher. From Witcher 1 to 3 their quality writing that handled consequences without an arbitrary indications or tallies which did not tell the player they were good or bad, but only the outcome which left the player to be guided by their avatar's response (which Gerald reserved most of the time). They favor a more centralized approach to storytelling where the choices help connect the player to the world, whether a side quest or a main plot point, but Gerald ultimately is defined as their own character. Whereas Shepard was only reserved to Namesake as even the back story was an optional aspect as well as the looks and gender. Their world modeling follows Bioware's as opposed to Bethesda's (which focuses on a single open world) in that they progress from enclosed areas with expositions and embellished backgrounds which generates scope within the desired confines of the developer. They establish their lore for the game, the inspirations and developed their game play around an idea of incorporating a layered approach that meant a series of attacks could be broken, continued or excelled. Pointing and clicking with a bit of a tune up transformed but remained that element of creating a fluid swordplay that required finesse and so made for tense gameplay where both parties are equally deadly to one another and rely on their strengths. Less Henchmen scattered with stacked goons requiring longer "same old" till dead. Each enemy is a problem, each with a separate solution, means one must adapt. The Witcher aspect was not appropriated from the inspired material, but was faithfully established, not just a character that can use powers against an assortment of enemies, each was given a depth.
Witcher 3 was what CD Projekt wanted the witcher to end as. They were consistent and consistency means consumers can comfortably have expectations and not to just refine what they already established Projekt made the effort to expand to differentiate. Witcher 3 was visibly different, mechanics were further defined as opposed to rehauled (and disconnected) and the storytelling was with a direction that arched without hiccups.
I GOT IT.
Bethesda's Elder Scrolls and Fallout series flirts with a completely different model of structuring character development, world development and storytelling. It's heavily decentralised, gives more player freedom to explore and interpret the efforts of the developer (Which would explain why the game lends so well to mods). They can't control the desired experience, only the world and lore they work on and we can see that by how they form foundations (check out these settlements, check out these factions, check out the companions now have a bit more character) but they don't expand to make this settlement system, relationships with companions or factions mean something. They are disconnected in a world where they are all present. Settlements trigger desires for better management (purpose), factions create a desire to influence scenarios meaningfully (purpose), Companions create a desire for .... some messed up mods. It's "One man's junk is another man's treasure", "One man's experience with something unscripted defines the overall experience, but to another it only signals meaningless".
CD Projekt is much more in line with Bioware, but a bit more centralised. Bioware loaned out the physical aspect and backstory to Shepard but the protagonist would be a Shepard. Projekt Red maintains a bit more control over who Gerald is, an already defined character with his own distinct character and personality and backstory. Gerald is less of a variable then whatever a player may make of a protagonist named Shepard.
Log in to comment