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

[Mygogac]

Ok let's see.

1. I disagree. Some things are clearly evil and there should be no doubt about it, like racism. Radovid therefore is evil. If you don't want an evil Radovid, don't make him a racist, you can't make a racist look good. Evil is perfectly easy to define.

2. I disagree. I stated in another comment how I don't like the way things are in this game because I can't choose a path easy. Made a thread so I can decide which ending to choose, which still wasn't what I'd like. It's pretty annoying.

3. Maybe, but I really didn't care about politics, more about how politics will affect the characters I like, Geralt, Ciri etc. That was why I gave much thought about who'd win, not because I care about the future of the Empire.

4. I agree, that's how it starts. Less and less they're like "take that and be happy even that is there".

Hear me out CDPR. Don't make the same mistake others made. This is not about "porn", porn can be opened in another window in seconds. I'll give an example that has nowhere near your graphics or scenes, but it makes a game unique.

Baldur's Gate 2. The romance in that game makes the game so much better. It's something to look forward to, gives depth, I am not good with words so I can't explain it that good. It gives colour and warmth. There are no sex scenes, there are no sound effects of sexual nature. There are no naked bodies, all you see are pixels and an avatar and hear the voice.

Yet compare that with Pillars of eternity, a game that was supposed to be like BG2 but the developers decided to leave out "lesser things" like romance. The game is dull compared to BG2, colourless. The world feels smaller, rpg element so much weaker, the world is less "realistic", more hack and slash than anything, uninteresting characters...

Great games became great because of ALL of their content, it's the whole package. Witcher is great also because of the variety of romantic options and adult content, there is no reason you take that off the game to make it a hack and slash, there is no reason to reduce it to a minimum, you should develop it and make it so good others would want to copy you. Set a standard, make it yours.

It's like taking something out of Witcher 3 in Witcher 4, like saying no option to choose over Yeneffer or Triss. In Witcher 4 you have 1 option, and that is an uninteresting colourless character. Hey, it's Witcher 4, a Witcher game still right? Better graphics too, wow...NO! It's a downgrade, and that's how it starts and then we have to wait for another small company with ambition that will create a masterpiece without discounts in depth.

Then there is the success of Witcher 3, and the now rich devs be like "pfft, who cares, just make more money and let another generation of developers and another company take over, time to enjoy our retirement".

Don't take things away, add things. Develop things. Set a standard. Don't be like other companies like Obsidian that took great things away from BG2 and made a "successor" that is plain. Granted, maybe they didn't have the means, small company, and maybe you didn't either, but now you do.

And not only in future Witcher games, but Cyberpunk 2077.

 

[saladin1701]

While it's quite true there are no real challenges in terms of riddles in Wild Hunt, or HoS, I do query whether accusing the Design Team of intentionally envisioning their players as idiots is a civil or productive means of couching the criticism. Promoting the presumption that the Team thought, 'Ha, players are complete fools: We should make this game a lot easier.' unfairly casts them as insensitive and rather blunt. It isn't a very kind assumption to make, as it insults not only the developers, but also many players. I personally agree that the REDs could have created much more challenging puzzles, selectively limited the use of witcher senses, and offered many more opportunities to make more complex choices than simply selecting the 'right' dialogue option. No doubt it was necessary to make the game accessible in order to reach their stated goal of a wider audience, however, this doesn't prove they viewed that audience as a crowd of incompetent halfwits. After all, not everyone actually enjoys puzzles and riddles, and some people strongly dislike them. Does this make them stupid? No. It merely means they have different preferences.

As should, by now, be abundantly obvious from the continued comments on these forums, it's frankly impossible to make a perfect entertainment, which will entirely satisfy and please everyone on all points. What one person considers a triviality, or tediously boring, another player may find to be brilliant or deeply engrossing. At best, one can only attempt to please a large number of people on a majority of points, but never all, and it is not always possible to develop all points equally. As players who enjoy puzzles, it is unfair to always presume that others want, or would even appreciate, precisely what we want. While it is unfortunate that this particular aspect of the game did not receive extensive development, I believe it is inappropriate and disrespectful to assume the REDs consciously considered their audience to be less intelligent, or incapable of independent thought, by necessity of this failing.

Is there not a case to be made that says if you're going to do something, do it right? Not everyone likes puzzles, but if you're going to put puzzles in, surely they should be worthy of the name? Taking the middle ground of putting puzzles in but ludicrously easy not only doesn't please everyone but risks pleasing no one.

 

[Riven-Twain]

Is there not a case to be made that says if you're going to do something, do it right? Not everyone likes puzzles, but if you're going to put puzzles in, surely they should be worthy of the name? Taking the middle ground of putting puzzles in but ludicrously easy not only doesn't please everyone but risks pleasing no one.

There is indeed a case to be made. I won't deny that. Likewise, I agree they did a rather poor job in this aspect of the game's design. The reasons why they did so, however, remain speculation on our part, since we don't know all the factors and decisions that shaped the final product. I won't defend them for ultimately following the 'middle ground' approach, however, I don't think it's because they viewed the players as children or fools.

 

[cyberpunkforever]

i agree that would have been good that the wild hunt had more "time" and development, but i do not think that a game needs to be dull, dark or gritty to be "adult" nor it needs to have difficult puzzles or riddles

 

[KingHochmeister]

I disagree. Some things are clearly evil and there should be no doubt about it, like racism. Radovid therefore is evil. If you don't want an evil Radovid, don't make him a racist, you can't make a racist look good. Evil is perfectly easy to define.

Racism doesn't always make a man or woman entirely evil, look at Jacques de Aldersbourg in the first Witcher game, he was racist against elves (for good reason as he may have been hunted by the Aen Elle during his life), but he wasn't completely evil, his intentions were purely classified as "good", while Radovid seemed like an evil cartoon villain, he is the only character in the game that clearly seemed completely evil in a Witcher game, where the supposed grey morality should be more prevalent, even Eredin had "noble" reasons to conquer the world of the Witcher with his cartoonish one-liners.

I disagree. I stated in another comment how I don't like the way things are in this game because I can't choose a path easy. Made a thread so I can decide which ending to choose, which still wasn't what I'd like. It's pretty annoying.

Ambiguity is what made the Witcher RPG series unique and different in the first place, sure, Witcher 3 still had some of that aspect, thank the gods, but it was reduced from the amount the previous two games had, which is not a good thing.

Baldur's Gate 2. The romance in that game makes the game so much better. It's something to look forward to, gives depth, I am not good with words so I can't explain it that good. It gives colour and warmth. There are no sex scenes, there are no sound effects of sexual nature. There are no naked bodies, all you see are pixels and an avatar and hear the voice.

Yet compare that with Pillars of eternity, a game that was supposed to be like BG2 but the developers decided to leave out "lesser things" like romance. The game is dull compared to BG2, colourless. The world feels smaller, rpg element so much weaker, the world is less "realistic", more hack and slash than anything, uninteresting characters...

Great games became great because of ALL of their content, it's the whole package. Witcher is great also because of the variety of romantic options and adult content, there is no reason you take that off the game to make it a hack and slash, there is no reason to reduce it to a minimum, you should develop it and make it so good others would want to copy you. Set a standard, make it yours.

Romance alone doesn't make an RPG, there are plenty of "anime" games out there that are purely focused on romance, doesn't make them more compelling than RPGs like Pillars of Eternity, one would argue the aspect of having another romance option in Witcher 3 limited the potential of the main story of Witcher 3 in some aspects, which I agree with, CDPR originally planned to focus on the "family" of Geralt (him, Yennefer and Ciri) and Yennefer would trap Geralt in an island later on in the story because of something related to Ciri's future, would have made the main story better in my opinion having that aspect than just having a "waifu" (as the internet puts it) selection, though the previous games did have that.

 

[saladin1701]

There is indeed a case to be made. I won't deny that. Likewise, I agree they did a rather poor job in this aspect of the game's design. The reasons why they did so, however, remain speculation on our part, since we don't know all the factors and decisions that shaped the final product. I won't defend them for ultimately following the 'middle ground' approach, however, I don't think it's because they viewed the players as children or fools.

True, I completely agree. It would be the height of commercially stupidity to actively treat customers like morons, nor is it helpful to suggest such. The game has various issues but all can be attributed to mistakes, not conspiracies.

 

[sv3672]

Is there not a case to be made that says if you're going to do something, do it right? Not everyone likes puzzles, but if you're going to put puzzles in, surely they should be worthy of the name? Taking the middle ground of putting puzzles in but ludicrously easy not only doesn't please everyone but risks pleasing no one.

Yes, it might not have been necessary to dumb down the puzzles/riddles that much (to the "press button to win" level) if they were included in the first place. It is not like some moderately challenging puzzles that the average player can solve with some thinking would have prevented the game from selling.

 

[Sam2305]

It's not a matter about the puzzles (which is, indeed. something that could have been done better), it's about the entire of story. It lacks of a complexity that TW2 had. In every aspect.

 

[saladin1701]

It's not a matter about the puzzles (which is, indeed. something that could have been done better), it's about the entire of story. It lacks of a complexity that TW2 had. In every aspect.

I wouldn't say it's the entire story, Sam. There are many great pieces of writing in the game, and by and large the premise of the game isn't bad for a fantasy game (with a touch of sci-fi thrown in). Nor would I say it necessarily lacks the complexity of TW2, rather it's more a personal story of Geralt, his family and his changing view on life. Its constant theme of the end of an era is quite appropriate given that this is the final Witcher game we'll see for some time.

The problem is inconsistency. You have fantastic writing surrounding his relationship with Ciri yet criminally under developed relationship between Geralt, Ciri and Eredin. You have an organically evolving romance with Yen but a mini-game-for-sex with Triss. You have the beautifully multi-layered Bloody Baron and the bizarrely one dimensional Radovid. If we're to complain about the rough, we must also acknowledge the smooth, because to do otherwise is to do CDPR a disservice.

 

[sv3672]

The problem is inconsistency. You have fantastic writing surrounding his relationship with Ciri yet criminally under developed relationship between Geralt, Ciri and Eredin. You have an organically evolving romance with Yen but a mini-game-for-sex with Triss. You have the beautifully multi-layered Bloody Baron and the bizarrely one dimensional Radovid. If we're to complain about the rough, we must also acknowledge the smooth, because to do otherwise is to do CDPR a disservice.

Some of these issues may be more relevant in this thread, the game just does not have the same quality of content in the later acts.

 

[Mygogac]

Racism doesn't always make a man or woman entirely evil, look at Jacques de Aldersbourg in the first Witcher game, he was racist against elves (for good reason as he may have been hunted by the Aen Elle during his life), but he wasn't completely evil, his intentions were purely classified as "good", while Radovid seemed like an evil cartoon villain, he is the only character in the game that clearly seemed completely evil in a Witcher game, where the supposed grey morality should be more prevalent, even Eredin had "noble" reasons to conquer the world of the Witcher with his cartoonish one-liners.

I disagree, they are evil no matter how "noble" the reason. So long as the race is sentient(?) there is no race to be against, only individuals. There is no inherently evil race. Eredin was a genocidal maniac, I don't care if his world is dying. Even if they claim in game something is justified or define another moral code, for us that have our own and can see evil for what it is, it will be evil.

Ambiguity is what made the Witcher RPG series unique and different in the first place, sure, Witcher 3 still had some of that aspect, thank the gods, but it was reduced from the amount the previous two games had, which is not a good thing.

Yeah ok, I too said they shouldn't take away from what made the original games great.

Romance alone doesn't make an RPG

Never said it did, it's the whole package. Skyrim has wives, yet I consider the game to have no romance. Fallout 4 has no romance.

What you say is true if you just want to tell a story. I want to make the story and even if not, to be a realistic world with great character interactions. And for an rpg to be realistic it has to have the options. Not a "rest in an inn" and get a one liner and a rested bonus option, but like BG2 to progress together, to talk with each other randomly with many options, to meet more and have them talk with each other and fight with each other and affect the ending and the have scenes depending the group etc! It's great to look forward to these interactions, PoE completely failed on that regard, their characters were so uninteresting and empty compared to BG2 I just restarted with my own group of custom built characters. How can you claim to be a successor and fail in what made BG2 so great. That's what I don't want to see happen to new Witcher games.

 

[KingHochmeister]

I disagree, they are evil no matter how "noble" the reason. So long as the race is sentient(?) there is no race to be against, only individuals. There is no inherently evil race. Eredin was a genocidal maniac, I don't care if his world is dying. Even if they claim in game something is justified or define another moral code, for us that have our own and can see evil for what it is, it will be evil.

They still had a very good reason to conquer the Witcher world after all, Radovid only had the stress of one war and the ever increasing fear of being back-stabbed turn him into a completely despicable character, there is nothing that can redeem him as a character, in a series full of grey characters and an emphasis on "grey morality" and "moral relativity", where "evil" characters can have "good" intentions and can do "good" things, he sticks out on the far far extreme side of the "evil" ones in the Witcher 3, jarring as hell.

Yeah ok, I too said they shouldn't take away from what made the original games great.

From what I understood you wanted the game to be more "clear" for the path you wanted to take, the good or evil path, while the destination of those paths can be defined as "good" or "bad" the journey should never be clear, when it is a Witcher game and you want to take it seriously.

But yes, I do find the ways the endings are influenced to be really weird, so if you meant that then I agree.

Never said it did, it's the whole package. Skyrim has wives, yet I consider the game to have no romance. Fallout 4 has no romance.

What you say is true if you just want to tell a story. I want to make the story and even if not, to be a realistic world with great character interactions. And for an rpg to be realistic it has to have the options. Not a "rest in an inn" and get a one liner and a rested bonus option, but like BG2 to progress together, to talk with each other randomly with many options, to meet more and have them talk with each other and fight with each other and affect the ending and the have scenes depending the group etc! It's great to look forward to these interactions, PoE completely failed on that regard, their characters were so uninteresting and empty compared to BG2 I just restarted with my own group of custom built characters. How can you claim to be a successor and fail in what made BG2 so great. That's what I don't want to see happen to new Witcher games.

I see your point, I believe "Romance" options can add a lot to characterization, however, if they are not well-implemented they can take away from the things that do matter (like in the more recent Bioware games) then it will be a net-negative addition and frankly a waste of time, but I haven't finished Pillars of Eternity yet, so I will reserve judgement on the characters until I do.

 

[saladin1701]

I disagree, they are evil no matter how "noble" the reason. So long as the race is sentient(?) there is no race to be against, only individuals. There is no inherently evil race. Eredin was a genocidal maniac, I don't care if his world is dying. Even if they claim in game something is justified or define another moral code, for us that have our own and can see evil for what it is, it will be evil. .

You're missing his point. The Witcher games have always treated morality in shades of grey. The characters have always been multi-layered (take the Baron as an example) yet Radovid is as black and white as you're going to get. Eredin was only presented as evil because he lacks even the most basic of characterization, so little in fact it's a wonder they even bothered to hire an actor for him. Had he been properly fleshed out he too would have been shades of grey because whilst he's evil from your point of view, he's a hero to his people if he saves them from the imminent white frost. It's how they've always presented characters - one man's villain is another man's hero. Pretty much how real life works.

 

[sv3672]

True, I completely agree. It would be the height of commercially stupidity to actively treat customers like morons, nor is it helpful to suggest such.

Well, isn't that what marketing is often largely about ? And, unfortunately, it is an approach that seems to be commercially successful in fact.

The problem is inconsistency. You have fantastic writing surrounding his relationship with Ciri yet criminally under developed relationship between Geralt, Ciri and Eredin. You have an organically evolving romance with Yen but a mini-game-for-sex with Triss. You have the beautifully multi-layered Bloody Baron and the bizarrely one dimensional Radovid. If we're to complain about the rough, we must also acknowledge the smooth, because to do otherwise is to do CDPR a disservice.

Indeed. It seems much of the resources were put into Geralt's relationship with Ciri and Yennefer, and some of the stories related to other characters (like the baron), mainly in the first half of the game, are also well made. But take those away, and the rest is not so good. The inconsistency has probably more than one reason, partly resources, partly the subject of this discussion, and sometimes just bad writing.

Never said it did, it's the whole package. Skyrim has wives, yet I consider the game to have no romance. Fallout 4 has no romance.

Actually, it has, or at least it is advertised as such (disclaimer: I have not played it yet, so I cannot comment on how bad it is).

 

[saladin1701]

Well, isn't that what marketing is often largely about ? And, unfortunately, it is an approach that seems to be commercially successful in fact.

Pre-release of Dragon Age Inquisition, Bioware lied through their teeth over game content and, more specifically, PC development. That is not something CDPR did pre-release of The Witcher 3. Yes there are problems with the game but they never lied to us as far as I can remember.

Indeed. It seems much of the resources were put into Geralt's relationship with Ciri and Yennefer, and some of the stories related to other characters (like the baron), mainly in the first half of the game, are also well made. But take those away, and the rest is not so good. The inconsistency has probably more than one reason, partly resources, partly the subject of this discussion, and sometimes just bad writing.

I agree. It's like the game had two lead writers, one whom left once he'd written the first act. It would explain a great many things.

 

[Sneky]

I agree. It's like the game had two lead writers, one whom left once he'd written the first act. It would explain a great many things.

The game had 6 main writers probably for dialogues and general storyline of the game, 8 additional writers for probably for some minor things, and 16 quest designers for quests design and storyline, u can easilly check this in game credits. Witcher 3 is much longer and overral bigger game than for example Witcher 2, and first CDPR story driven game in open world environment, with so many writers and quests guys. Add to this 2 big delays, obvious problems in production and cut content, so yeah, im not suprised at all that this game in inconsistent.

 

[sv3672]

I think @saladin1701 might have referred to Marcin Blacha becoming the lead writer instead of Sebestian Stepien (lead writer of TW2 and if I recall correctly still involved in the early development of TW3). Although the inconsistent writing could have other reasons as well.

 

[saladin1701]

I think @saladin1701 might have referred to Marcin Blacha becoming the lead writer instead of Sebestian Stepien (lead writer of TW2 and if I recall correctly still involved in the early development of TW3). Although the inconsistent writing could have other reasons as well.

Actually, neither of you understood. I wasn't speaking literally, I was using an analogy. The writing disparity between the first and second halves of the game is so pronounced its as if there were two separate writers (or writing teams) involved. In other words, it's like one author writing the first half of a book and a different author writing the second half of the book. I wasn't suggesting that's literally the case, simply that that's the impression given off because of the remarkable drop off in quality in the second half of the game.

 

[calasade]

You're missing his point. The Witcher games have always treated morality in shades of grey. The characters have always been multi-layered (take the Baron as an example) yet Radovid is as black and white as you're going to get. Eredin was only presented as evil because he lacks even the most basic of characterization, so little in fact it's a wonder they even bothered to hire an actor for him. Had he been properly fleshed out he too would have been shades of grey because whilst he's evil from your point of view, he's a hero to his people if he saves them from the imminent white frost. It's how they've always presented characters - one man's villain is another man's hero. Pretty much how real life works.

I was vastly disappointed with how Radovid turned out. Hell, he was more intriguing in TW 1 despite his non-existent impact and very limited scenes in that game. But I digress. Back to TW 3. I was expecting him to come with complexity, so we as players would have a hard time hating or liking him. In the end, comparing Radovid to the Baron is like looking at one color vs. a rainbow. Ironic when one's a leader of some locals while the other, the stark evil, is a leader of much more. You would think a king to come in shades of grey and capture your interest, which is where Eredin comes in. Has there ever been a less fleshed out opponent? I'm in the quest On Thin Ice and feel no excitement over facing him because I have little comprehension of him beyond his serving as the big baddie. Fact is his death is just a matter-of-fact means of providing safety for Ciri. Because of this a game that exercised its ability to be anti-climatic in the very first act continues in that vein and will end more so in that vein.

So, in a way, I suppose anti-climatic is fitting. At least it's a constant.

The best writing, I think is with scenes involving Ciri and Geralt. Really like that. Only thing I wished they had changed is she referring to him as Geralt. Da (for father) would have been better. She calling him by his name is jarring and hurts immersion. Her using his name is not personal enough for the love they share and their father-daughter relationship. I would have also liked for CDPR to stretch out the relationship choice with Geralt not deciding between Yen and Triss (with better writing and more romantic options for both along the way) right up until the very end in the final battle where he has to save one or the other and in that moment his decision is made. This is supposed to be an end to his saga, so why not do things that help make it the be-all to all endings?

---------- Updated at 08:05 PM ----------

Actually, neither of you understood. I wasn't speaking literally, I was using an analogy. The writing disparity between the first and second halves of the game is so pronounced its as if there were two separate writers (or writing teams) involved. In other words, it's like one author writing the first half of a book and a different author writing the second half of the book. I wasn't suggesting that's literally the case, simply that that's the impression given off because of the remarkable drop off in quality in the second half of the game.

Pretty much like M.C. Scott (whose writing I like but cannot love) wrote the first act, E.L. James the second, and Stephenie Meyer the third. In other words from good to ick to ludicrous. There are several moments where glossing over takes place in the third act that makes my jaw drop, mainly with Yen and Ciri. Throughout the game, whenever Geralt roams through Skellige, he's given grief over what Yen did to the garden, yet what Yen did to the garden and what she did to Skjall's corpse were never revealed to Ciri, not even when she and Geralt visit Skjall's grave. Imagine Ciri's reaction given her love for Skellige and appreciation for what Skjall did for her and his people. I wish, too, the grave quest had been larger and revealed Skjall to be the definitive hero he was to the people he saved and damned him for false cowardice. Also in Avallac’h’s lab when Yen lies about experimenting on people, but nothing else is said.

---------- Updated at 08:54 PM ----------

What you say is true if you just want to tell a story. I want to make the story and even if not, to be a realistic world with great character interactions. And for an rpg to be realistic it has to have the options. Not a "rest in an inn" and get a one liner and a rested bonus option, but like BG2 to progress together, to talk with each other randomly with many options, to meet more and have them talk with each other and fight with each other and affect the ending and the have scenes depending the group etc! It's great to look forward to these interactions, PoE completely failed on that regard, their characters were so uninteresting and empty compared to BG2 I just restarted with my own group of custom built characters. How can you claim to be a successor and fail in what made BG2 so great. That's what I don't want to see happen to new Witcher games.

What's it been, sixteen years since BG 2 was released? SIXTEEN years and still, that game outshines games released today in so many facets, the facets are difficult to count. Rather than build in spirt on what BG 2 did and make story-telling and romance options even better, it seems dev companies can only continue to falter and go backwards. Much as I love RedEngine 3 and open-worlds, I would have rather seen money and time and effort go into the writing. You can only look at Skellige and go, "Wow" so many times, you know, but a great story, that's re-playable again and again, That's why I continue to this day to play BG 2. Terrific story with decisions that matter in the short and long terms. Ditto with TW 2, though the romance options sure could have been better there, that's for sure. So, too, could the interaction between Geralt and Triss. What, Geralt can screw a prostitute any time he likes but cannot make love to the woman with whom he's involved but that one time? Makes no damn sense. Can't even instigate a kiss or hug now and again. Same with TW 3, yet I don't mind that as much with TW 3. Not because TW 3 is better but because TW 3 actually made romance mundane and sex scenes uninteresting.

 

[saladin1701]

I was vastly disappointed with how Radovid turned out. Hell, he was more intriguing in TW 1 despite his non-existent impact and very limited scenes in that game. But I digress. Back to TW 3. I was expecting him to come with complexity, so we as players would have a hard time hating or liking him. In the end, comparing Radovid to the Baron is like looking at one color vs. a rainbow. Ironic when one's a leader of some locals while the other, the stark evil, is a leader of much more. You would think a king to come in shades of grey and capture your interest, which is where Eredin comes in. Has there ever been a less fleshed out opponent? I'm in the quest On Thin Ice and feel no excitement over facing him because I have little comprehension of him beyond his serving as the big baddie. Fact is his death is just a matter-of-fact means of providing safety for Ciri. Because of this a game that exercised its ability to be anti-climatic in the very first act continues in that vein and will end more so in that vein.

So, in a way, I suppose anti-climatic is fitting. At least it's a constant.

The best writing, I think is with scenes involving Ciri and Geralt. Really like that. Only thing I wished they had changed is she referring to him as Geralt. Da (for father) would have been better. She calling him by his name is jarring and hurts immersion. Her using his name is not personal enough for the love they share and their father-daughter relationship. I would have also liked for CDPR to stretch out the relationship choice with Geralt not deciding between Yen and Triss (with better writing and more romantic options for both along the way) right up until the very end in the final battle where he has to save one or the other and in that moment his decision is made. This is supposed to be an end to his saga, so why not do things that help make it the be-all to all endings?

You feel nothing when you fight Eredin because it is nothing more than a generic boss fight. You have no more emotional entanglement with Eredin than you do when you fight the Fiend at the end of the Baron's story. Given that he's the game's primary antagonist, it's remarkably poor decision making on Red's part.

The contrast between characters couldn't be greater. The Baron, a secondary character appearing only in the game's first act invests you with more emotion than possibly any other character created in video game history. Here's a guy that likes to get drunk and beat down on his wife and you actually find yourself feeling sorry for him. By all accounts, the guy is a monster, a total prick who should be loathed but the writing is so beautifully crafted that you find yourself seeing things from his perspective and actually wanting to find his wife and daughter just so he has the chance to turn his life around. For me, without any doubt, that storyline is the game's crowning achievement.