Analysis: With Witcher 3 CDPR no longer treat the players like adults [SPOILERS]

[Simultas]

Nudity or sex doesn't make something mature and saying that it does comes across as immature.

Have you actually read the original post? Seems like you didn't. Here's what's written there:

First, I would like to remind readers that mature content doesn't mean boobs and violence. Mature means that it's deep and addressed to people who can understand responsibility and consequences of their actions, who can see what's laying below the surface.

Nobody was asking for more nudity but for maturity of such representation. Nudity can be shown mature or immature way. In TW3 it is done as for teenagers and presence or absence of full frontal nudity has nothing to do with it. Besides, most of the maturity issues are not about nudity at all. Out of the whole post, you pick up only a nudity part, and start attacking people for pointing out that nudity part was not good by twisting the meaning of what was said. Is it the only topic that interests you?

 

[Gadarr]

Nudity or sex doesn't make something mature

No, it doesn't. But at least for me it's not about nudity or sex per se. I would be perfectly fine if nudity were avoided in such a way as to make sense and be consistent with the narrative. For example, if a game includes "sex", I see no problem with a fade to black screen or something like it. It's not as if there aren't any alternatives that leave things open to your imagination - which is perfectly fine.

I do, however, have issues with anything that makes me second-guess the motives of the developers. It breaks immersion. Many games are flawed in that respect and TW3 actually does a good job avoiding this kind of stuff, for the most part. It includes children for instance and doesn't shy away from showing that they're not immune to the shitty world that is portrayed. That's rather unusual as far as video games go.

On the other hand, there's really no denying that (some) nude scenes in the game come across as somewhat, well, awkward. The scene in the sauna has been mentioned multiple times. Another one is the scene with Keira and Geralt wearing their underwear when it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, given the situation. It makes me frown, blink and wonder what went on in the devs mind. Same thing with DA:O back in the day, when Morrigan chose to unearth the bra of her grandmother, nicely brown and woolen, for the sole purpose of having sex. And so on.
Similiarily, I'd be put off if a game chooses to show someone being burnt to death only to have pink unicorns blocking the view of the victim itself. That's not mature, that's just silly.

So, either don't include scenes that beg for nudity or sex at all, or if you decide to do it, do it right. Don't show if you're not willing to. You know, like in all those movies where women pull their blankets around their bodies when they're sitting up after having sex. Nobody does this. It's just bleh, and not because I so desperately want to stare at some bare skin. ;-)

 

[Death132]

Besides, most of the maturity issues are not about nudity at all. Out of the whole post, you pick up only a nudity part, and start attacking people for pointing out that nudity part was not good by twisting the meaning of what was said. Is it the only topic that interests you?

"Out of the whole post, you pick up only a nudity part, and start attacking people for pointing out that nudity part was not good by twisting the meaning of what was said. Is it the only topic that interests you?

No. I genuinely find everything about the OP to be ridiculous and am not going to type an essay to point out every flaw as it's a waste of my time. Plus others have already addressed many of the other problems with OPs logic so I don't need to repeat them. I'll give you these though.

The concept of evil isn't immature. Not everything is in a complex grey area with logical and deep motives. Evil exists and there are very many Black and White cases in the world without any rhyme or reason to what they do. Some people are just simply ****** up yet OP doesn't seem to be aware of this. There can't be any people in the world who are simply just bad right?

OP going on about Whoreson Junior being a fake evil shows a complete negligence to the real world. There are sick and psychotic people out there.

"His counterpart, Emhyr, is clearly a lesser evil from the first look. Why? Look at him. Emhyr isn't handsome (because he's also evil) but not as ugly as Radovid. And his daughter Ciri, who doesn't even resemble her father, is super pretty, because she's super good. You see, kiddies, good is always good-looking. You cannot kill Emhyr a la Letho killed Demavend in TW2 because he is lesser evil, therefore, there's no option to kill him on the ship, when you have a perfect opportunity to do so."

"Ugly guy is bad, less ugly guy is less bad, cute girl is good". How can you not read this and think it's completely childish? It's pea brain logic. OP also tries to enforce that Whoreson is the ugliest out of the mob leaders which is why you can kill him. Well some would argue that Dijkstra is uglier ...BUT WAIT, you can kill Dijkstra too so OP must be onto something!!! But wait Eskel and Lambert are ugly but they're not evil....

Also, why would Geralt even think to kill an emperor on his own ship filled with his own soldiers watching you amidst dozens of other ships surrounding you? Yeah great way to commit suicide. Plus Geralt has no motive to kill him anyway. Seems like OP is grasping straws with this lesser evil thing...

The lack of politics has nothing to do with maturity. Geralt hates politics and only dabbled with them so much in Witcher 2 because he was forced to. Witcher 3 is more of a personal journey for Geralt. He's not doing things for anyone else or for the world. He's not held down by a king or by a false King Slaying reputation that plagues him. He is doing something for himself and for those he cares about. As much as I loved it in WItcher 2, politics don't belong in the WItcher 3.

 

[Shavod]

Wow, I mean wow. OP post is one of the most condescending and insulting things I ever read on this forum. The fact it got so many RED points from the people mindlessly jumping on this bandwagon is what really fills me with sadness. I had quite a lot of faith in this forum that was damaged by constant downgrade discussions, but I never expected this is going to be a moment when it will suffer the most. I'm not even angry, just dissapointed.

While some arguments may have a merit, like a small impact of the choices from The Witcher 2, lack of focus on Wild Hunt and simplified political plot, I would never say it's because they tried to appeal to the teenage demographic, some people in this thread even started to blame the consoles for that (which doesn't surprise me), not realising how ridiculous they sound. Technical limitations, I can understand, but blaming them for your personal gripes with a storytelling is just incomprehensible. The rest however is nothing more then a bunch of exaggerated delusions.

Example of such exaggeration is this whole issue that OP has with "good/pretty" and "evil/ugly" thing. He just nitpicked a few different characters as an example, while ignoring all the others that doesn't fit in his narrative. I mean just look at Uma, a nasty piece of work he is, right? His choices are also questionable. Radovid looks tired, and for a good reason, but is he ugly? Some people complained about how his face looks like in The Witcher 3, but they said the same about Roche and I don't think anyone would call him evil, just because, in their opinion, he become a little less pleasant to look at. Emhyr is an old man, so of course he's not going to be the most handsome person in the world, but again, calling him ugly? Come on!

Now since we have this bullshit out of the way, let's talk a bit about evil characters of The Witcher Saga. Tell me, how complex were the motivations of characters like Vilgefortz, Bonhart, Salamandra, Rience, Schirru, Loredo, Azar Javed and so on? They were mad scientists whose only goal was power, ruthless bandits and psychos for hire. Aside of that, there wasn't that much to them. Now go and say that The Witcher Saga is aimed at teenage demographic, because most villains in it are pretty simplistic, we'll see how little will be left of you on this forum. Hell, Wild Hunt has a motivation and actually a bit more complex then what we had in the books, but of course CDPR definitely should put more focus on that.

Let's come back to the Radovid for a while, I found it extremely ironic how OP sarcastically claimed that he expected an evil laugh from him, forgetting that this is exactly what he did during the first conversation with him in the games. I also have to mention that he secretly supported Order of The Flaming Rose, known for it's widespread persecution of mages and nonhumans, at some point planned to use Salamandra as a political leverage and enjoyed watching Geralt violently dispatching it's goons. In the second game there were even more scenes showing his twisted nature, like blinding Philippa for showing him a disrespect and let the mages be slaughtered at Loc Muinne, despite knowing that only Lodge had anything to do with regicides, unless Triss publicly reveals that. Also him being responsible for the witch hunts, a history of mental diseases in his family and being a sadistic prick, even by other kings standards, was already established in the final book. I have to add that I found extremely ironic that OP is praising de Aldersberg, a racist, genocidal maniac, portrayal, claiming that he is a very complex character, while complaining about Radovid, another racist, genocidal maniac, portrayal, claiming that he is simply evil, despite the fact he has much better and more complex reasons for hating mages, then de Aldersberg has for hating nonhumans.

Difficulty of the choices is always a matter of perspective, but I think we can agree that most choices in the previous game were also pretty clear and only some of them made you think about it. In the third game there is still a plenty of choices that make you think before you do anything and they do not chastize you for any of it, sometimes even playing with your expectations. The fact that you don't get any experience for refusing in having a hand in killing Radovid makes perfect sense, as you don't do anything, so why you should get anything for simply refusing to do a quest? Complaining for a sake of complaning. Using it as a argument that the game was made for teenagers is just insulting.

And now the lowest of the low, the nudity issue A. K. A scraping the bottom of the barrel. OK, complaining about mordern looking underwear and Ciri being in sauna with the fresh wounds I would see as a annoying nitpicking, but nothing too bad, if not for OP screaming every time "OMG!!!! TEEN DEMOGRAPHIC!!!1111 TEEN DEMOGRAPHIC!!!!!111111" with every small incosistency he didn't like. Yeah, let's ignore full blown nudity in the sex scenes, let's ignore that both male and female are wearing underwear in the sauna and making only female completely naked would still looked weird, let's ignore that they were reusing the same sex scenes in the previous game as well, let's ignore there is more non sexual nudity in the game then in the previous ones, let's ignore their story related reasons for making Geralt less sexually active, which they stated at the beginning of 2013, let's ignore we have the similar amount of sexual encounters like in The Witcher 2. When we ignore all of that, I can agree with OP point, but seeing how I focus just on a facts, I can't do it.

I already gave this whole condescending, insulting and downright childish "analysis" more attention then it even deserve, but I have one final point to make. I have something to ask all of the people outraged by The Witcher 3 being made for teenage demographic and becoming typical AAA mainstream title, I want you to point me one, JUST ONE AAA mainstream game aimed at teenagers which depicted something like Bloody Baron plotline with a heavy themes like domestic violence and abortion in such a mature and smart way like The Witcher 3 did. I will give myself an answer, no, of course you can't. Well, people like OP already ignored this much, so why I should expect they will give attention to the complex and adult themes of The Witcher 3, AS WELL AS pointing out some things that in their opinion didn't really work out. But no, it would harm our narrative and would require putting more thoughts and effort into it, so instead let's call the entire game childish and let's apply reversed fanatical SJW logic, as it has a greater appeal for the masses.

Well done, people. I never expected that you make this forum less pleasant place for a witcher fan then NeoGAF and reddit, but you actually did it. Thank you so much for your dedication!

 

[krakuus]

Wild Hunt in not evil in their world, and YES they actually have a pretty good reason for what they do and NO not all decissions you make in real life are between bad and bad.

By the way, God?... why don't you treat your children as adults anymore, creating Hilter as bad and ugly guy was so cliche

As I still agree with some of original post statements I rate this topic as another one for pointless bitching. The world we live in more resembles the world of Witcher 3 then the wishful world of yours based on decisions where you can either kill cat or dog, choose yourself what's LESS EVIL

I won't comment about nudity content cus it's just freaking dumb, expecialy Ciri and sauna part, it's a game but you seems to forgot it.

 

[mekros]

The concept of evil isn't immature. Not everything is in a complex grey area with logical and deep motives.

Don't said that! if you don't blindly jump on the politically correct, relativistic bandwagon, you are an immature person.
Kind of ironic...

 

[cyberpunkforever]

i agree, if all this issues can be fixed in an EE, that would be perfect

 

[Willowhugger]

As I say to all my students at university.

"MORAL RELATIVISM DOESN'T MEAN THAT MORALITY DOESN'T EXIST. IT MEANS THAT YOU TRY TO UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION."

Ugh.

It's why I want so smack so many idiots who spout Nietzsche without realizing that he was saying that creating your own morality means you have to be MORE moral, not less.

Let's come back to the Radovid for a while, I found it extremely ironic how OP sarcastically claimed that he expected an evil laugh from him, forgetting that this is exactly what he did during the first conversation with him in the games. I also have to mention that he secretly supported Order of The Flaming Rose, known for it's widespread persecution of mages and nonhumans, at some point planned to use Salamandra as a political leverage and enjoyed watching Geralt violently dispatching it's goons. In the second game there were even more scenes showing his twisted nature, like blinding Philippa for showing him a disrespect and let the mages be slaughtered at Loc Muinne, despite knowing that only Lodge had anything to do with regicides, unless Triss publicly reveals that. Also him being responsible for the witch hunts, a history of mental diseases in his family and being a sadistic prick, even by other kings standards, was already established in the final book. I have to add that I found extremely ironic that OP is praising de Aldersberg, a racist, genocidal maniac, portrayal, claiming that he is a very complex character, while complaining about Radovid, another racist, genocidal maniac, portrayal, claiming that he is simply evil, despite the fact he has much better and more complex reasons for hating mages, then de Aldersberg has for hating nonhumans.

Nitpick time: The Order of the Flaming Rose was never prejudiced against mages. Jacques Ailsberg was an open mage and one that used his powers publicly.

It was only anti-nonhuman because he needed scapegoats and hated the elves because of his childhood as Alvin and being taken hostage by the Scoia'tael.

Also, Ailsberg could speak in coherent sentences and explain his motivations.

 

[Hurbster]

I dunno, I felt that there were plenty of hard moral choices in the game. As an adult the game felt pretty suited to my age.

 

[Septerra_Core]

3. Third most annoying downgrade is primitive politics.

This is what hurts me on the storyline. I mean, they had said that politics in The Witcher 2 distracted the players from the real purpose of a Witcher which is killing monsters.
But seriously, chopping that hard the politics in Witcher 3, why? You have infinite quests about killing all kind of ridiculously easy to kill monsters, even on harderst mode. So why this? I don't understand. You had the experience of creating one masterpiece of lore, The witcher 2, and you could only came up with this as main story for the last Witcher game?

 

[Linkenski]

I think instead of saying that "CDPR doesn't treat me like an adult" flip it around and say "CDPR wasn't as smart with this one" because that's what this is about. I think Marcin and co are good writers... but it really shows the biggest influences on Witcher 2's story was missing here. Usually the worse writers are, the more they lack subtlety and oversight and the criticism you mention, OP, like "no longer grey choices" is a result of this, and not a deliberate "they made it simpler because they are condescending".

They most likely did their best, but they needed Sebastian Stepien and the rest to give people the real Witcher 3 every fan of Witcher 2 would have wanted.

 

[CostinRaz]

I think Marcin and co are good writers

Marcin ain't a writer, and none of the principal writers of TW1 or TW2 wrote TW3 besides Sebastian earlier on, which is very likely why Velen's main quest is the highest point of the damned story.

A junior writing team being given such a big project results in a B rated game.

 

[Maerd]

Wow, I mean wow. OP post is one of the most condescending and insulting things I ever read on this forum. The fact it got so many RED points from the people mindlessly jumping on this bandwagon is what really fills me with sadness.

Nah, that would be your rant. You just insulted quite large number of people calling them mindless for not sharing your opinion.

You see, I'm a Witcher fan since the last century and we aren't in a totalitarian religious sect of the witcher games fans where telling anything critical about the game is a blasphemy. I can and will criticize my favorite game (TW3) because I want it to be better and I wish it to be perfect. I can also criticize the saga books since there are inconsistencies but I still value them as one of the best fantasy books I've read. If the only thing CDPR will hear will be praising comments they will never know where they need to improve. Just the shear amount of support the concerns received shows that my concerns are not just "nitpicking", as you called it, but other people also find them relevant.

Now to some of your points that are not correct:

Example of such exaggeration is this whole issue that OP has with "good/pretty" and "evil/ugly" thing. He just nitpicked a few different characters as an example, while ignoring all the others that doesn't fit in his narrative.

I was waiting for you to provide an example of not good-looking and good characters and you come up only with Uma. First of all it cannot be the valid example because Uma in the ugly form doesn't speak and then the curse is lifted. Most fairy tales follow the rules of beautiful/handsome main characters who are good and ugly evil characters but curses, which turn a some non-evil character into an ugly creature, are allowed.

Concerning Radovid vs Emhyr... Who's better looking? I would argue that most people will pick Emhyr. Who's the lesser evil: Radovid or Emhyr? ... I hope you've got the idea.

Tell me, how complex were the motivations of characters like Vilgefortz, Bonhart, Salamandra, Rience, Schirru, Loredo, Azar Javed and so on?

Let's skip the book only characters because they were not made by CDPR but the books were not as shallow as TW3 towards its main villains.

Loredo's writing in TW2 was outstanding, you can see and understand his motivations, beliefs, traits, habits, you can even learn a back story of his mother. You could talk to him quite a lot. He was not a one-dimensional character.

Azar Javed while not as fleshed out as Loredo, you still see he's not just stupid evil. You can also talk to him in when he's pretending to be a detective and by doing this you know that he's smart and cunning. Therefore, he's not one-dimensional either.

And then we have Radovid in TW3, who starts his talk with telling how he kill people to reach his goals, then he tells Geralt how he torture and kill people when he gives a quest, then later he orders to kill Geralt... and if not (meaning that you didn't participate in his assassination) you're told that he massacred thousands of people at the end of the game. And he has no other shown traits besides desire to murder... ah, we're told that he's brilliant tactician. Sorry, but I ain't going to believe it. To lead and inspire people or an army you need to have a charisma. He's shown as a lunatic, which is absolutely the opposite of having charisma. The soldiers would desert such commander if it were for real.

Another inconsistency is that Philippa was his and his father's adviser. Mental problems don't appear out of nowhere they are always inborn. It can be that some events can intensify mild symptoms and make them severe but those symptoms are always present. Philippa is one of the smartest people alive in the witcher's world and she was making sure that the right rulers are selected to the thrones of the North. If she had a suspicion of Radovid's possibility to go nuts then Radovid would have been strangled in the childhood by Philippa for sure.

OP sarcastically claimed that he expected an evil laugh from him, forgetting that this is exactly what he did during the first conversation with him in the games.

False, that first laughter was quite genuine and understandable. It's like you personally are picking up the phone without knowing who's on the other side and telling to the president of Poland that you're going to find him and beat him up. Imagine the reaction of your president.

I also have to mention that he secretly supported Order of The Flaming Rose, known for it's widespread persecution of mages and nonhumans

The order did NOT prosecute mages. It's leader was a mage in TW1. Azar Javed, also a mage, worked for them.

. In the second game there were even more scenes showing his twisted nature, like blinding Philippa for showing him a disrespect

That was not for disrespect. She killed his father and were involved in a plot with her Lodge to select kings... every normal ruler would have executed her for such deeds. Torture in medieval times was not something unusual. If you remember in the very beginning of TW2 Roche tortured some priest to death to get the information about the secret passage.

let the mages be slaughtered at Loc Muinne

That was not Radovid's order, listen again how it is explained.

In the third game there is still a plenty of choices that make you think before you do anything and they do not chastize you for any of it, sometimes even playing with your expectations.

You didn't bring the examples. To validate you point name at least 5 of those "plenty" of the hard choices, which were NOT already mentioned by me as the good examples of lesser evil choices.

The fact that you don't get any experience for refusing in having a hand in killing Radovid makes perfect sense, as you don't do anything, so why you should get anything for simply refusing to do a quest?

Do you you know the concept of the "nudge"? It's used in advertizement when there is a set up for you to buy a certain product but you're not told to buy it directly, instead you are given the special exposure to the product that makes you to buy it with higher probability. For example, all yogurts have no discounts but one brand has a 10% off, most people likely to buy that one even if the actual price on other brands is actually lower. That's what CDPR did with Radovid's assassination quest with both XP and making him an abhorrent character instead of the discount.

I have something to ask all of the people outraged by The Witcher 3 being made for teenage demographic

I guess, the question is not for me because I like TW3 a lot, it's my favorite game despite being for teenage demographic. I'm disappointed to certain extent but not outraged. If I were outraged I wouldn't have wrote my original post at all and even wouldn't have bought the game (I waited the impressions from trusted people first) because who cares about bad games.

Bloody Baron plotline with a heavy themes like domestic violence and abortion in such a mature and smart way like The Witcher 3 did

This is a very good quest line but, in my opinion, Bloody Baron is a whitewashed character because he pretty much gives up on all his bad traits and becomes all good a peachy by the end. A bit of a fairy tale, to be honest, but no complaints.

 

[vitriks]

It's not about treating adult audience lightly, it's more about spending time on developing things OP stated. It's holy battle between quality and quantity. You can't do both to the max at the same time.

About the evil. They could make flashback when Gerald rides with black hunt and we would see Eredin from different angle. Like this "This world is already messed up, we giving them a favor, ending their suffering. Same goes to Radovid.

About choices I must to admit sometimes the game trying too hard by overdoing the consequences. Sometimes result is out of this universe.

Politics are boring unless they filed with dirty intrigue. Not really missing the lack of it.

Nudity is kinda controversy topic. Even if you trying to show art it doesn't mean people won't fap on it. Could have done better if they spend on it more then 10 hours. (actual statement)

 

[Shavod]

Nah, that would be your rant. You just insulted quite large number of people calling them mindless for not sharing your opinion.

You see, I'm a Witcher fan since the last century and we aren't in a totalitarian religious sect of the witcher games fans where telling anything critical about the game is a blasphemy. I can and will criticize my favorite game (TW3) because I want it to be better and I wish it to be perfect. I can also criticize the saga books since there are inconsistencies but I still value them as one of the best fantasy books I've read. If the only thing CDPR will hear will be praising comments they will never know where they need to improve. Just the shear amount of support the concerns received shows that my concerns are not just "nitpicking", as you called it, but other people also find them relevant.

If you read my rant carefully you can notice that I'm not against criticising the game, just the condescending manner you do it. With every small inconsistence you scream that it proofs that the game was made for teenage demographic, no matter how ridiculous it sounds, and with that obnoxious "EVILLLL", it really doesn't make you ironically look like a mature person. If you made a simple analysis of the things you didn't like and needs to be improved, instead of insulting it is as a game made for teenagers (which in my honest opinion is a total bullshit), I wouldn't have any problem with it, really. But when I see such a poorly written, insulting and clickbaity piece of work getting applauded, it just makes me really sad.

I know you love this game, but don't you think if you just dropped the things that I mentioned above, it wouldn't make for a less obnoxious and more pleasant article for RED's to read? When you mix some legit points with a childish outrage and minor, ridiculous complaints like in the case of the nudity, I think it's going to be hard for them to take you seriously.

I was waiting for you to provide an example of not good-looking and good characters and you come up only with Uma. First of all it cannot be the valid example because Uma in the ugly form doesn't speak and then the curse is lifted. Most fairy tales follow the rules of beautiful/handsome main characters who are good and ugly evil characters but curses, which turn a some non-evil character into an ugly creature, are allowed.

Concerning Radovid vs Emhyr... Who's better looking? I would argue that most people will pick Emhyr. Who's the lesser evil: Radovid or Emhyr? ... I hope you've got the idea.

Wait, you really tried to insult the game by comparing it to the fairy tales? Well, here's a news for you, The Witcher Saga is basically a really dark fairy tale, full of fairy tales tropes that it sometimes plays with. Just look at the Grain of Truth short story and compare it to the Uma story. Yes, Nivellen was ugly before he was cursed, but after it was lifted, he looked really handsome. Being a more twisted version of fairy tales is like the main point of the whole story, but sometimes I feel like people are really seeing The Witcher series as a political fiction.

Oh, and about not so pretty more positive (it still hard to call most of them evil or bad, truly) characters, I already gave you another example that you ignored, Vernon Roche and Dijkstra as well. I wouldn't call them a bad guys, but they're definitely not too handsome. We can't also forget about all of the friendly monsters that we meet in the game, as I think they are the best examples. Oh, and we should add how they played with this trope in the Ladies of The Wood quest.

To your question, I would say Radovid, but whatever.

Another inconsistency is that Philippa was his and his father's adviser. Mental problems don't appear out of nowhere they are always inborn. It can be that some events can intensify mild symptoms and make them severe but those symptoms are always present. Philippa is one of the smartest people alive in the witcher's world and she was making sure that the right rulers are selected to the thrones of the North. If she had a suspicion of Radovid's possibility to go nuts then Radovid would have been strangled in the childhood by Philippa for sure.

Yeah, you forgot that all Philippa wanted was power, so she needed someone vulnerable who would be easy to control, so she could rule through him. Killing the only successor of the throne as a child just because he showed some signs of insanity, just like his father and grandfather, would ruin her plans. This is why she treated Radovid the way she did since he was a boy, to dominate him. Of course, she didn't expected that this vulnerable boy will finally show his teeth and turn on her, which cost her banishment and blindness.

False, that first laughter was quite genuine and understandable. It's like you personally are picking up the phone without knowing who's on the other side and telling to the president of Poland that you're going to find him and beat him up. Imagine the reaction of your president.

Well, I'm not sure how it sounds in the other languages, but in polish it sounded pretty evil to me. If president reacted like that to my threats, I would assumed that he's completely nuts.

That was not for disrespect. She killed his father and were involved in a plot with her Lodge to select kings... every normal ruler would have executed her for such deeds. Torture in medieval times was not something unusual. If you remember in the very beginning of TW2 Roche tortured some priest to death to get the information about the secret passage.

Don't teach me about medieval times, my history final exams will proof that I know quite a bit about it. Tortures are obviously understandable, but the way he's approached it makes it kinda disturbing. Yes, he knows what she did, but despite all of it he still offer her a mercy, but only if she show him respect. When she didn't do it, he immediately gouged her eyes. Yes, tortures were everyday occurence for the people like Roche and Dethmold, but they always had a reason for that, they tried to gain important informations. Radovid already knew everything he wanted to know, he didn't need anything from her, yet he gouged her eyes just for his pure satisfaction, then went to the talks complety unaffected by it.

That was not Radovid's order, listen again how it is explained.

Soldier: Your work, my lord.
Radovid: In the beginning, there was a chaos.

Triss testimony was enough to stop this madness, he knew everything what she knew, his one word was enough to keep it civil, yet he decided to allow for the blame to fall on all of the mages, instead on just a Lodge. Sorry, but for me it's not something a reasonable person would do.

You didn't bring the examples. To validate you point name at least 5 of those "plenty" of the hard choices, which were NOT already mentioned by me as the good examples of lesser evil choices.

I have yet to explore the alternatives of all the major choices, so how about a few minor "gray choices" I encountered in the prologue and Velen alone:

1. Bring the man responsible for burning the forge to the blacksmith or take a bribe and let him go. It looks like a very obvious choice, but it's consequences are definitely not so black and white. Doing what you think is right ends up with criminal hanged for his crimes and eventually makes blacksmith the most hated person in the town, ruining his business. The alternative is letting criminal go away and a chance that he may do it again.

2. Helping the girl by giving her a swallow. This is something the game encourages you to do, but it all can result in something horrible. You can let the girl die in peaceful death or let her live as a complete mess of human being.

3. Killing Baron's man in the Crossroads. You can just walk away which will make some things easier, but you let the innocent people suffer because of it. If you try to help them by killing them, it makes your life harder in the long run and can make peasants look at you like a crazy murderer.

4. When you see peasants trying to hang nilfgaardian soldier, you can stop them by slaughtering them all to save one man who claims that he wants to come back to his family. If you let them hang him, you find a letter confirming his story. If you save him by killing more men, you have tarnished reputation among the common folks, who acts scared and hostile everytime they see you.

5. Allgod turns out to be a fraud that you can kill to free people from his influence, but it turns out that people need someone like him in their lives and they hate you if you do so, but there is a chance now they will be able to feed themselves. You can also just convince him to accept smaller sacrifices, but the people will still live in a lie, giving sacrifices to the false god.

This is a very good quest line but, in my opinion, Bloody Baron is a whitewashed character because he pretty much gives up on all his bad traits and becomes all good a peachy by the end.

I disagree. Yeah, he stops being an abusive husband, but he's still a traitor of his kingdom who makes a deals with Nilfgaard and allow his soldiers do all of the horrible things. He's still far from the good guy, he just becomes a slightly better man.

 

[Willowhugger]

I disagree. Yeah, he stops being an abusive husband, but he's still a traitor of his kingdom who makes a deals with Nilfgaard and allow his soldiers do all of the horrible things. He's still far from the good guy, he just becomes a slightly better man.

Besides, does ANYONE think that he's going to be welcomed by his wife if, miraculously, she regains her sanity?

 

[ThePrody]

I hate the way Radovid is presented , he's a nut that must die if there is any hope of normality in future - very poorly written . They also emphasized that by having him order Geralt's death after leading him to Philippa , just like that - he thinks Geralt pokes his nose to much into his business , pretty lame CDPR , they wanted to make sure that even the most skeptical gamer will make sure he did the right thing ( oh, that fu#$er was about to kill me anyway , good think i set him a trap - LAAAAME ) .
A more interesting way to handle this :
- Radovid being presented as he was before - a sane and calculated monarch , with the witch hunt depicted as a political move but more as a personal vendetta - getting Philippa , all this clouding his judgement in a certain way but not making him a complete nut .
- give the player a tough choice : you can deliver Philippa (for real ) to him in exchange for the end of witch-hunts .
Eredin's behavior or Dijkstra's betrayal of the plotters, after the assassination , are also horribly presented , i can't even bother to analyze them .
I agree with what some people already said here : the game is a big project with a massive investment - in order to be profitable you need to step into mediocrity with many of the story-elements otherwise it will not appeal to the big mass of gamers which are mediocrities themselves . If they wanted to be consistent with what they created so far , the game should have been around the same size of the Witcher 2 , less money invested , less profit but without risking people to tell you that you are whoring , this is a common dilemma in the artistic field - how much are you willing to trash your values in order to get more money .
Overall, the game is good ( considering what games are made today ) , also the good side may be that more people will be intrigued by this universe and maybe will pick up the books or the previous games and (hopefully ) , will get a bit smarter in the process

 

[warbaby2]

Besides, does ANYONE think that he's going to be welcomed by his wife if, miraculously, she regains her sanity?

Highly unlikely... still, they have been in this toxic relationship for quite some time, and without her daughter to support her, she might just as well give in and take him back. I also doubt he can simply stop being abusive... changing a relationship dynamic is HARD, once it has "settled in", and contrary to popular believe, every abusive relationship needs an abuser AND an abused to "work".

 

[shinstyle]

This opus exists because CDPR in all interviews repeated the mantra that they consider their gamers adults. Well, not anymore.

absolutely agree. specially with point 3 and 4

 

[DeGorro82]

OP's state the obvious. Games is good, but mature content are downgraded.
I realize this too after just recently replay and finished TW1 and TW2.
There's less "shades of grey" in Geralt's decision choice, much more black or white.

So, let see what they offer in cyberpunk.