In the game Yen makes morally questionable decisions (i.e. stealing from Ermion, destroying the garden, subjecting Uma to the trials) and the player is forced to ultimately support her decisions regardless of what the player actually wants. Now I understand why this may not seem bad in the name of keeping the game linear so it can reach its end. However to Yen's credit(or discredit depending on your opinion) she does not listen to what others have to say, she is strong headed and stubborn. These character traits should have allowed the writers to create choices where the end of the game and end of the quest doesn't get changed. Unless I have not fully understood what you are saying this is what you have been talking about with the ending and strong story arc. I put the example of an alternative way to do the King is Dead-Long Live the King quest with Ermion and the mask as a way to demonstrate that.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean in the highlighted part above. About NPC traits allowing writers to create an outcome that is the same regardless of player choice. I think, in a sense that's exactly why, "Yen will automatically get her way with the mask." It's necessary for that to end that way in order to move the more important arc with Ciri / Avallac'h forward. (Again, not sure I'm understanding correctly.)
Another way to put this would be to think about an individual quest being a miniature and significantly less detailed version of Assassins of Kings. In AoK, the prologue starts the same, then your choices in chapter 1 in Flotsam will change what happens in Chapter 2 on the Pontar, but you still have to lift the curse on the battlefield in chapter 2 regardless of what side you chose and in the end, regardless of the choices you make, you still wind up in Loc Muinne for chapter 3. So a shortened version of this I think should have been employed in some interactions with Yen. My example with Ermion's lab more or less follows this. You start the quest the same, Geralt can choose whether to follow Yen to the lab or not but either way he ends up going with Yen or Ermion. Geralt still has to kill the elemental or Golem and ultimately Geralt goes to the forest and uses the mask with Yen. The player choices I would have preferred aren't the kind of choices that would change how the entire game is played rather little changes to the character of Geralt. Will Geralt listen to Yen even though she is keeping secrets and is asking him to steal from a friend or will he put his foot down and not mistreat his friend in that way.
This part I get, and yes, I'd say you've got it. Either a story branches, and each branch leads to its own ending (again, I'll bring up
Detroit,
Daggerfall, and
Ocarina of Time), or much more commonly, it will branch out only to grow back into the linear "trunk" of the main arc. For numerous reasons, it's far better for the sake of a solid and continuing narrative to do it the latter way.
I've always loved games that branch and never come back, but I don't dislike games that tell a good, linear story. I guess, benign as it may sound, I like whichever style manages to pull off the better story and experience. What I dislike are the games that profess to be one thing but are actually the other. It's what I refer to as a piece that does not have
"a sense of itself". A piece that doesn't realize what it is and deflects itself from its own goals.
Easy, recent example here is Fallout 4. There's no reason that Fallout 4 should not have been a major contender against TW3 and DA: Inquisition. It didn't, because FO4 couldn't decide if it was a linear action / adventure with off-center, open-world, RPG elements...an open-world RPG tied down by a linear story and progression...a survival game with RPG elements and no survival mechanics...or a freeform exploration and crafting game with a "story" tacked on to teach you its mechanics. I don't think it knows. Its individual parts fight against each other, even though it's
trying to do exactly what TW3 or Inquisition
does.
So, I think all 3 games are the same structure. They tell a linear story that branches and returns to the trunk, and ultimately branch out to a few individual fronds at the very end. Games like this are more about the journey, not the destination. Fallout is mired in half-realized elements and mechanics that leave players feeling gypped and jaded while the game shouts, "Go anywhere -- do anything!" as it pushes and shoves the them into their assigned seat on the train. In the end, everything feels pretty plastic and empty. Inquisition delivers a powerful story, setting, and very versatile gameplay, but much of it can look and feel pretty campy and game-y. To me, its execution feels like a made-for-TV series instead of a feature film. Wild Hunt
nails its world, its visuals, its pacing, its mechanics, its dialogue, its tone, its visuals. All parts of it, story included, know exactly what they're driving for and the execution feels natural and effortless. There are few times that I felt something was off-beat or trying too hard. That's what puts it over the top for me.
So, having a story that returns to its trunk is fine as it (like any good narrative) qualifies those things within its own context. It may not be the overall type of game some prefer, but it doesn't mar what the game
is. This is primarily what I look at when judging a piece. On stage or film, we use a
Tone Yes or
Tone No. Tone Yes doesn't mean that everything is perfect, and Tone No doesn't mean that it's absolute trash. Yes simply means that, despite any problems, a scene or moment works, will evoke the desired response from the majority of the audience, and carries an effective energy. Tone No on the other hand means that it may be really good stuff, but something is breaking the suspension of disbelief so readily that it doesn't belong in this piece. Hence, I personally don't like
Pulp Fiction, but that movie has some of the best scenes I've ever seen in my life. I can't stand
Super Mario Bros., but I've used it as an example time and again to teach the foundations of creating an air-tight, visual design. (I'd rather have a tooth pulled than actually watch Pulp Fiction or play Mario, but it doesn't make them any less masterful.)
Now onto the last thing. The game really doesn't address the whole character development part of the love triangle they created...
This I can agree with. I don't necessarily agree that it damages the story, but I can admit that it could have been handled more meaningfully. It does sort of "dodge" the issue, at least to an extent.
Now, I think we've arrived at one of the harsh realities of creative work. It's never done, but it does eventually have to
end. There's always something I wish I could have handled differently, better, etc. There's always some flaw; for me, usually a technical thing about the set or a scene that just didn't come together the way it really needed to. I'll publish something for a client, and a couple of weeks later, the
perfect way of wording something will hit me out of thin air. And...too late. It already
ended.
If the game was more focused on the love triangle, I think we would have seen much more substance in the action. As it stands, there were far more important elements of the plot to focus on. It is not a story about Geralt's love life -- it's a story about Ciri finding her place in "space and time". It's simply told through an anchor character that most people can easily relate to. Very easy to over-stress a side plot and wind up with the dramatic action going wildly off track.
Lastly, time is money. I'm sure that there are a few things that could have been done to polish this part of the game up, but when? How many more times were they going to push it back? Eventually, it has to
end.
I'm very willing to ignore such nuanced flaws (as well as a few bugs and what not) to exist in games if they deliver the rest with such quality. The alternative is to handle things the way that Star Citizen is being handled now. (Don't get me wrong, I love Roberts' games. I grew up playing the Wing Commander and Privateer games as they were released.) When creative teams don't set a goal and deliver it (relatively
) on-time,
it never ends. Part of
producing art is knowing how much a team can actually chew. There comes a time with every large production I've ever directed where I need to tell the cast that we have no more time to spend on that scene. I've told the set crew they're out of time and we'll need to just refocus the lights to hide the unfinished areas. (I've needed to do the same for certain actors at times, too.
) And those flaws will be there in the final production --
gnawing at my brain while I try to just let it go. But Opening Night has to happen. Eventually, the
production needs to
produce a
product. Nothing is ever perfect.