So why do you even write here? What's your motivation? All you say here is that you think you're smarter than everyone else in a true Sokratian way while you miss that you just take part in the same discussion, the discussion which you declare pointless here.
My motivation is of no consequence to the discussion. I've never said I was smarter. In fact I've said that each of our feelings are of equal weight. As for the point it's simple. You and others claim the choices are invalid, abstract etc. I am simply refuting these definitions about the choices.
They did mislead me because they didn't deliver on their core promises. They didn't deliver on core elements of the type of game they wanted to make. You don't seem to see that. Ok. But I do. Maybe because I have just different priorities in gaming? Maybe because I play a game like Witcher 3 for reasons that a more or less different to yours?
Expectations are personal taste and therefore you are entitled to believe that. And words are misleading and mean different things to different people, especially since they are hardly ever quantified. I may say that the game will provide tons of enjoyment but what does that even mean? Nothing. it's never quantified. So since CDPR never really quantified what they were delivering you are entitled to feel it never reached your definition. But that does not mean they didn't reach their definition.
I've pointed out in great detail why the situations with Ciri are no choices here
I know you have. I just have a different definition of choice and consequence. I'm much more literal in the definition. A choice is the offer to pick between two or more options. Since I'm literal when you can pick snowball or drink that by definition is a choice. And the literal definition of consequence is simply that making a choice and picking an option will result in some action or reward. Clearly that also happened in the game. Drinking means dead Ciri snowball means life. I really due understand that you wanted a deeper level and meaning here. You wanted some level of complexity that went way beyond what they gave to you. It's fine to want this. It's fine not to like what they did. But you can't claim that there was no choice or consequence. Clearly there was. You even admit it.
I'm a very literal type of person. Words need to have meanings. You can't bandy about absolutes like none, never always, or use some adjectives like profound without being called on them.
But ok, I'll try it one more time. A choice in RPGs (and general in game design) is a situation in which you don't just decide based on logic and calculations. A choice is ambiguous, it doesn't feature a clear right or wrong that can be assumed before the situation itself.
That is your definition of choice. It describes what you want to see. You would have been correct if you said something like:
"The choices in the game were not complex enough for my taste. i would have preferred to take into consideration ...."
Instead you say there are no choices. There are no choices in how you define the word choice but not in how every dictionary would define that word. I'll repeat it again. You have the right not to like things to wish they were different or if other things happened. But the game was developed with logic written by CDPR. taht logic gave you a choice. That logic dictated the outcome.
And contrary to what you claim all choices are based on some calculation. The human brain works this way. Even when the question is extremely complex the brain will evaluate all options based on the input available and arrive at the decision. A choice does not have to be ambiguous. No definition claims this. And since your brain ultimately decides it is therefore resolved by logic and calculations within your brain. This is just how human nature works.
instead of using your own terminology for criticizing my points.
I don't use my terminology. I use your exact words and then apply the standard definition of those words.
Of course you compared a video game to a book but anyway.
Really? Even after I explained that I compared a REACTION to a book and game. That is not comparing the game or book. It was comparing the reaction of a person. You claim I don't read what you write. In fact I'm trying to be meticulous in getting exactly what you wrote. This example shows you did the opposite.
What do you want to prove? That everything I say here is pointless because it's "just" my personal taste, my personal disliking? Is it that? Or what is it? I really want to know because that pretty much determines if I'm willing to discuss with you here any further (or if my time is too precious for that, sorry)...
No i'm saying that your taste is 100% valid. I might disagree with some parts but I would never say that mine was better or yours was better. We can go on and on about if we felt that Triss was sexy or not. If Geralt should pick Yen or Triss. And each viewpoint would be valid. But I'm taking exception to what you claim are facts. Saying there are no choices, no consequences that no choices happen in the last third of the game. I'm also saying that CDPR has every right to tie their endings to what choices they feel are right.
There is a fine but very distinct line here. We must accept the results. BTW acceptance (for others reading this) does not equate to liking it.
Let me use one last example to show how and why we differ. You said that picking the snowball fight was not the right choice. I took exception to that because of the definition of the word "right". Exclude all emotion for a second. Right and correct simply imply that it was the proper choice to get the desired result. if you took a test and the question was "what is 2 times 2". Now the test had an error where choice A (4) would be marked as wrong while choice B (5) is marked as correct. In the context of the test the right answer (to get credit) is B. You and I can naturally complain that this is an error. But we could not say that according to the test the correct answer was B.
Now to get to Ciri lives the correct answer in the game is snowball fight. I really hope you agree with me so far at least. You would be right to say that you think drinking should be the right answer but, and this is important, instead you claim there is no right answer.
We can get into a deep discussion on if snowball is better than drinking. That is valid. But two facts remain. There was a right/correct choice, and CDPR picked snowball.
He likes his strawmen, I'll give him that.
Let's just look at this randomly picked response from him:
"Since many people got it "right" that means they did provide enough clues to solve their puzzle. Not to mention that if you did pick the wrong choice you see it immediately in Ciri's reaction. It was no problem just reloading and picking the other one"
My oh my. A strawman (nobody ever claimed it was impossible to guess them), + a quantitative fallacy (many people) + a misdirection fallacy (dur, the point is not about being able to "correct" whatevyou afterwards or whenever).
This in a context of game mechanics trumping narrative choices/storyline, causation over consistency.
Blergh
Sorry but no, please look up the definition of strawman. I'll break it down for you.
My comment "Since people got it right that means they did provide enough clues to solve their puzzle". This is a statement of fact. To believe they didn't provide enough clues means the ones that got it right were just lucky. In fact you do use the word "guess" so you make the assumption that the reason people got it right was due to a guess, AKA luck. It is you that is making a comment without any support. Where is the proof that people just guessed right? I on the other hand point to pre and post evidence that shows clues were offered in the game. And there are plenty of comments by others that state they relied upon these clues. This comment was in direct response to other comments that the choices were abstract, and not clear.
"Not to mention that if you did pick the wrong choice you see it immediately in Ciri's reaction." Once again a simple statement of fact. The game provided a visual clue on if you pleased Ciri with you choice. Are you refuting this? How is this a fallacy?
"It was no problem just reloading and picking the other one". You take it out of context by not associating it to the comment that we had to live with our choices. We don't. Some people play that way others don't.
You then make the error saying that "many people" is a quantitative fallacy. A quantitative fallacy is relying on a set of values simply because other values can't be measured and then applying that as support for the argument. It is also known as the McNamara fallacy from the Vietnam War. But it never applies here. the use of many people was in support that enough clues were provided to allow those people to pick the right choice. The opposite side to this argument is that these people did not rely on the clues to get the right choice. I did not associate "many people" to anything but it supporting the fact that clues existed to allow people to make the right choice. No fallacy at all.
And then finally you say there was a misdirection fallacy. Again you make the mistake by trying to tie the reloading process to the clarity of the choice. In fact my point was the complete opposite. By saying that you can reload that means if the choice is unclear you are given further evidence as to it's validity and then have the option to correct this. So in order to get the right ending the game provided a secondary option to correct any mistakes you might have made.
I've always put all of my answers int eh context that the game is a puzzle. I have defined the parameters of the game and choices in this very context. You on the other hand chose to ignore this context and then take my responses out of that definition. My answers are not even close to a fallacy when applied within the definition I've given.
