The concept of choice in Wither 3 *SPOILERS*

[Hatubi]

The concept of choice in Wither 3 *SPOILERS*

Having finished The Witcher 3 a few days ago, I find myself still perplexed regarding the game's take on the subject of giving the player the ability to make meaningful choices. Would love to hear other people's thoughts on the matter.

Giving the player a choice is usually thought of as not just letting you pick between two or more options, but enabling you to go the way you want to go and have control over what happens. For example, you are presented with a choice between A and B, and if you prefer A to B, you pick A and the game goes A's direction, thus giving you not only choice, but also control.

While The Witcher 3 certainly lets the player make decisions that ultimately decide the fate of the world and the main characters, it often does a poor job (intentionally, i assume) in giving the player control. That is because at times, you can make a choice but have no clue what it is you are actually choosing, and at other times, you are completely unaware that you are making a fatal choice.

Best examples are the romance choices and the Ciri lives or dies choices.
With the romance, you can tell Triss you love her before actually meeting Yennefer, not realizing you are in fact "locking" her. You then fall in love with Yennefer, tell her you love her also and wait for the option to tell Triss that you are sorry, but Yen is the one. But nope, once you tell Triss you love her, you made a huge irreversible story choice, though you were probably not aware you were doing it. Why not let the player make a conscious choice between his love subjects?

It is perhaps even worse with Ciri. Take the snowball fight for instance. The choice you actually make is between saying "You don't have to be good at everything" and "I know what will cheer you up". You have no idea you are choosing between snowball fight and drinking, and you certainly have no clue that you just killed or saved Ciri. You have choice, but no control. So is the choice meaningful?

I still think it was a great game, and I didn't mind that much not knowing what my choices are about. I'm also entirely for choices that have unexpected consequences. However, perhaps that is because I chose "well". I hated Yen so I broke her heart after telling Triss I love her, and I made most of the good Ciri choices, so I was happy. But if I had ended up with a lonely Geralt and a dead Ciri because of choices i had no idea I was making, I think I would be pretty upset.

What do you think?

 

[UndiscoveredAdv]

It is perhaps even worse with Ciri. Take the snowball fight for instance. The choice you actually make is between saying "You don't have to be good at everything" and "I know what will cheer you up". You have no idea you are choosing between snowball fight and drinking, and you certainly have no clue that you just killed or saved Ciri. You have choice, but no control. So is the choice meaningful?

In that particular case I think that CDPR could have added the subsequent action in brackets, say [Throw a snowball]. That way the player is a little more informed of the decision they are making. I do like how those choices with Ciri work into the ending though, because it's often the seemingly little decisions that can have the biggest impact, and generally you can't see the far reaching consequences straight away.

 

[moonknightgog]

Giving the player a choice is usually thought of as not just letting you pick between two or more options, but enabling you to go the way you want to go and have control over what happens. For example, you are presented with a choice between A and B, and if you prefer A to B, you pick A and the game goes A's direction, thus giving you not only choice, but also control.

While The Witcher 3 certainly lets the player make decisions that ultimately decide the fate of the world and the main characters, it often does a poor job (intentionally, i assume) in giving the player control. That is because at times, you can make a choice but have no clue what it is you are actually choosing, and at other times, you are completely unaware that you are making a fatal choice.

That is exactly the point beyond the choice concept.
You have few information about the outcome of a choice you make, and you have to make that choice based on what you feel at that moment.
If you know exactly what that choice lead...well, it's not a choice anymore.

 

[wright1978]

I have to say i like the Ciri choices in the game. I don't think the player should always have control or immediate visibility of consequences.

As for the women well i strongly think that both women should have been at Kaer Morhen from the start. Maybe ideally it would have been better to have moved Triss sex scene to here allowing anyone crazy enough to declare their love for both women a last ditch chance to get out of one of the relationships.

 

[Vargeras]

What do you think?

I do agree, that sometimes it feels the game doesn't move in the direction I wanted, but that's mainly gameplay reasons, since there is only one way to play the story. Sure dialogues may change, but you will still have the same quests. It would be impossible to change the entire game everytime you make a decision, so I think that's fine.

I can't agree with your examples though. The Game tells you very clearly that your relationship with Triss has ended, and that Yen is now the (old) new thing. Sure you can be undecided at that point, but your choice is still absolutely clear. You don't use the words "I love you" lighty. This is actually even more true if you know Geralt from the books.

And the Ciri decision: There are 2 "Points" here: her training with Avallac'h that doesn't go well and the fact that she is still mourning for Vesemir.
Now you can either try to help her in her mourning process by cheering her up or you can completely ignore this, and focus only on her training failure, saying she doesn't need to be perfect.
The decision is a bit subtle here, sure, but still clear, if you are paying some attention.

 

[onionshavelayers]

I loved how W2 did choice and consequence. You go with Iorveth, you accept the consequence of this action when the guards attack you in Loc Muinne. You understand why they attack you even if you didn't expected this exact thing to happen to you when you made that decision.

As for W3, you try to keep Ciri safe by not letting her be a strong independent woman and making stupid decisions like going to fight Imlirith and the crones, and she dies while fighting the white frost???? Too much is left to the imagination in this case. So Ciri is not inspired to come back alive because Geralt was trying to be a protective parent (with GOOD reason)???

 

[Krull32]

Choices in the witcher 3 are not important....
And a few of them make no sense....
Kill radovid Yes / No ? No one cares....it's never happened...

You can be a first class asshole the whole time, but as long you are fine to ciri you get a good ending...
You can be the hero of the world but if you aren't nice to ciri you will get a bad end...

Well, not the best system.
The Witcher 2 made this better.

 

[Hatubi]

That is exactly the point beyond the choice concept.
You have few information about the outcome of a choice you make, and you have to make that choice based on what you feel at that moment.
If you know exactly what that choice lead...well, it's not a choice anymore.

Why not? I still choose between a couple of options, I just have a pretty good idea what my choices would lead to.
Take the Dijkstra / Roche choice for example. It was not without its flaws, but I knew that if I chose Roche, Nilfgaard would take over, and if I chose Dijkstra, Roche and Ves would die, Dijkstra would take over and would probably be able to stand up to weakened Emhyr. I knew what my choices were and it was up to me to decide which was more preferable to me.

I'm not saying all choices should be like this. On the other hand, when a game lets you choose, yet often the consequences of your choices differ significantly from what you had in mind when you made your choice, it can be irritating and discouraging. Maybe I'm just a control freak

 

[inanimate_object]

Why not? I still choose between a couple of options, I just have a pretty good idea what my choices would lead to.
Take the Dijkstra / Roche choice for example. It was not without its flaws, but I knew that if I chose Roche, Nilfgaard would take over, and if I chose Dijkstra, Roche and Ves would die, Dijkstra would take over and would probably be able to stand up to weakened Emhyr. I knew what my choices were and it was up to me to decide which was more preferable to me.

I'm not saying all choices should be like this. On the other hand, when a game lets you choose, yet often the consequences of your choices differ significantly from what you had in mind when you made your choice, it can be irritating and discouraging. Maybe I'm just a control freak

The choice is already made for you if you know the outcome of each choice. The action ceases to be player choice and becomes little more than a sneak-peak of the plot. True choice as it is done in this game simulates the reality of not knowing what will come to pass in either choice. You don't choose the outcome, you choose actions that determine the outcome - even if the determinations are presently unclear to you.

 

[riotamus]

Yeah, a 'true' choice is a choice unburdened by any deliberation (or when pros and cons are exactly balanced - as in Buridan's ass case). That said, occasionally having 'fake' choices, where you actually know the consequences, could have been nice as well. One particular example where I felt robbed of it was when Geralt refused to accept Nilfgardian help against TWH just because a Nilfgardian general would command it. I understand that Geralt had reservations about bringing Ciri back to the emperor (something I wasn't able to control either), but it's clear that a squad of lvl 26 NG dudes is a way better aid than, for instance, a crappy underleveled steel sword with a freeze ability. Ciri was the emperor's daughter and a potential successor, so he couldn't have possibly forced her to do anything against her will, so if Geralt had truly cared about her safety, the emperor would have been the obvious choice.

 

[CTPhipps]

Ken Levine HATES choice in video games. It's why he made Bioshock: Infinite.

 

[mbaker51591]

Ken Levine HATES choice in video games. It's why he made Bioshock: Infinite.

Really?? That's why there is no choice in the game! That's why i hated that game and felt another FPS games. The story is not really good for me and yes still unpredictable. The time paradox thing killed the story for me. Also still cannot understand the ending of the game. I am not really good w/ time paradox story. Also the environment doesn't felt unique and special compared to the prequel. The sky hook thing is boring. Also there is no sense of urgency to care w/ Elizabeth for me. Like hell ai totally ignore her from the game.

Bioshock 1 is really good due it introduce me and totally immerse me w/ the environment feeling living under the sea and the story is quite unpredictable and totally immerse me that i am some like in the movie of Bourne identity.

 

[CTPhipps]

Yeah, Ken Levine was forced to put in the "Kill or Save Little Sisters" choice in Bioshock 1 and he's hated the concept ever since. He wrote a big long essay about how choice in video games was illusionary anyway and wrecks storytelling.

So he made a game about where choice is a complete illusion because every choice made is just part of a larger universe which merges back into the original "true" one.

There was a cool quote, "A lot of people ask me what the meaning of the Choice between the Bird and the Cage was. My answer? There is no meaning and that's the meaning. It's a completely arbitrary and pointless choice which has no real effect on events like all video game choices."

 

[Dude27]

Everything is fine as it is.
Too obvious things make games boring. You cant always predict what would happen, even if you think something good will happen. That is reflected in all Witcher series PERFECTLY
Just use deduction and think a bit before making choices.
Concerning Ciri - it is up to you as her dad to understand her and treat her appropriately. She has quite a character ( which is frequently mentioned)
For example: Either you think a bit and use your imagination and start playing snowballs with her, or you just act rashly and go booze with her - because that's what Geralt does when he feels bad (so you think that would also be good for Ciri, but it isn't).

The only choice that was strange - going to the meeting of the Lodge with Ciri or let her alone.
But hey, other 4 choices were quite understandable, and in order to get good ending you need to get 3 out of 5 "good" choices.

 

[Songborn]

I am not bothered by choices that have unforseen consequences like some of the Ciri choices or the Radovid choices, but I was annoyed when the game made it clear that I didn't even have the illusion of choice in some matters.

One particular example where I felt robbed of it was when Geralt refused to accept Nilfgardian help against TWH just because a Nilfgardian general would command it.

This one little scene was the one that broke my immersion the most, interestingly enough. I mean, I was pretty annoyed when I couldn't tell any of the ladies that I needed some time to get my head around this whole mess before either breaking up or binding myself with them. However this was really the moment that bothered me, especially since it does not really feel justified at that moment in time. You can invite pretty much everyone and their grandmother to Kaer Morhen, but Geralt draws the line at Morvran Voorhis for some reason? Why? He would have been happy to take the banner without Voorhis, so it can't be that he is worried about Nilfgaardians coming to Kaer Morhen or trying to abduct Ciri. I also don't really believe that it is a personal problem as Geralt's conversations with Voorhis have always been at least friendly with some good-natured jabs from Geralt and Voorhis being rather nice about them. I would have liked to agree to take him and his banner: Voorhis seemed to have a good enough mind for strategy that he wouldn't be underfoot and I would have liked to have him around. Him and his trained military professionals.
The whole thing would have bothered me less if Geralt would have decided against taking him because of some clear reason (maybe before they depart Voorhis says something that makes Geralt send him back because he distrusts him)

 

[Charcharo]

Ken Levine HATES choice in video games. It's why he made Bioshock: Infinite.

*grumbles*

Too bad that was the biggest disappointment i've had in 2013...
Metro Last Light reclaimed the year... but damn... Infinite was bad for me.

 

[mbaker51591]

*grumbles*

Too bad that was the biggest disappointment i've had in 2013...
Metro Last Light reclaimed the year... but damn... Infinite was bad for me.

Agreed Metro franchise is really quite epic if they could make a huge scale map and open world gameplay fallout franchise will be put a shame. Metro franchise totally gives me a vibes of post apocalyptic world. Like hell the currency in that game are bullets.