After reading the article, I have some points that I agree and disagree with. The story and structure of a game does enhance a players experience being involved in a world that is novel to someone. A lot of successful adventure games, had major success with this model. Although, I had to disagree with the point that inscribed narratives has to be apart of the game experience. There lots of games out there that have little to no story before playing the game. I watched a youtube video where, the youtuber analyzes the game Mega Man X for the snes. This game is regarded as a classic for gamers. The first level has no story or tutorial, all you do is run, jump, and shoot. The inscribed narrative mentions the climax of the story, but instead it should measure the response of the player’s “climax” (dirty innuendo). Just because the story’s climax is happening, the same reaction won’t always be the same with the player.
When I played Witcher 3, I found the beginning to be boring. I could be at a biased point of view since I was pretty tired at the time playing it. Nonetheless, the game started out too slow. The premise was that I am a bad ass warrior who lost his girlfriend. There was a short tutorial on how to do certain moves, but the action or the story seemed like an elongated experience. When I watch a movie, I don’t want something telling me what to look at while I am watching, I want to dive right into it, and get to the juicy action. Witcher could barrow the beginning of Mega Man X, and give the player all the powers to experience first only to have it taken away from you so you can keep playing and get back to the sweet sweet action. Witcher 3 probably had other titles that came before it, so I would assume the majority of the players played Witcher 1 and 2. The players would feel bored if they are relearning what they already know.