Choices seem... easy? (Spoilers)

[Slevin424]

Choices seem... easy? (Spoilers)

By all means if you see this differently I'd like to hear your opinion on this but...

I can't help but feel as if some of the choices in Witcher 3 feel too obvious. One thing I've always given credit for in Witcher series is the choices do not follow the obvious Paragon-Renegade/Lightside-Darkside/Good-Evil/Good Karma-Bad Karma or whatever else I'd see in games. The choices didn't always have clear answers and you may end up making decisions that you feel were the right ones but have them turn out to have dire consequences.

For example the King of Skellige seems way too obvious. You meet Cerys and her quest for the crown shows her intelligence by tricking the Hym (Geralt has never seen anyone trick a Hym) and caring as she's also doing this to save someone else. When you meet Hjalmar you'll see someone who doesn't even care that all his men are dead, he actually says it's a good thing cause it makes for a better story. He also votes to leave a man behind and only shows some sadness when a very close friend of his dies... his men? Bah who cares, but his friend? Oh.... so sad. Then of course how they treat the attack with the bears, Cerys opts to find clues and find out who's responsible then behead them. Hjalmar just decides... behead everyone. As you can see this choice has an obvious "Good choice" and "Bad choice"

Then we get to the romance, which we don't need to. People on this forum have clearly shown, in many many many threads, how they think the romance choice is stacked against Triss. The game tries to really force you with Yen, if you go with Triss it's not even like "Geralt attempts a relationship but they've just grown too apart" hell that would make a great story. But they give you the romance and then say goodbye to Triss for the rest of the game.

The rest of the choices are typically "save this person?" Or going along the lines of complete douchebaggery. I miss choosing something in Witcher 2 without really thinking it through, then getting my negligent ass handed to me for doing so. Or having to really pause the game just to think for a choice and have it eat at the back of my head hoping I made the right one. I never got that in Witcher 3.

PS> Yes I didn't mention Bloody Baron because that is an example of a good story with some really tough choices. I absolutely loved the Baron story and all the quest with it, I just want more situations like the Baron's quest.

PPS> I'm not going to mention the rest of the choices in this first post just so I don't ruin it for someone who ignored the title. But beware below, end game spoilers might be down there

PPPS> Do not take this as an insult towards the game. I love this game regardless of my nitpicking. I just felt like nitpicking.

 

[sarkocreme]

I agree with you. The choices didn't feel as difficult as previous games. The only major choice I really remembered debating on was the evil tree spirit. If I wasn't so attached to Roche maybe Dijkstra vs. Roche would've been tougher. Honestly, the Triss torture scene was probably the worst for me. But it ends up with no real impact if I recall.

There were some smaller quests that were also gray too. There's one in Skellige with pirates who raid this one temple and a priestess curses this guy. It turns out some guy living in the town was in on it so you could turn him in or not. He seems reasonably well respected now and helps you if you promise not to turn him in. But those don't really have a lasting impact on me like the major choices.

 

[Redemyr]

I did get that impression sometimes, the baron one is pretty easy too in hindsight.

There are many though where it's not about the consequences but the actions themselves.

The one about Triss torture comes to mind, the mission with Lambert, Wild Heart, even the one with the medicine early on and then you the the field hospital the blacks made.

Regarding the romance, it's a mixed bag. C&C are, how to put this, interesting if you can't make up your mind. And as for the individual lines, it's more about quality (very good) vs quantity/consistency.

 

[Slevin424]

I agree with you. The choices didn't feel as difficult as previous games. The only major choice I really remembered debating on was the evil tree spirit. If I wasn't so attached to Roche maybe Dijkstra vs. Roche would've been tougher. Honestly, the Triss torture scene was probably the worst for me. But it ends up with no real impact if I recall.

There were some smaller quests that were also gray too. There's one in Skellige with pirates who raid this one temple and a priestess curses this guy. It turns out some guy living in the town was in on it so you could turn him in or not. He seems reasonably well respected now and helps you if you promise not to turn him in. But those don't really have a lasting impact on me like the major choices.

Yeah, I noticed that too. A lot of the choices don't seem to have an impact afterwards. By the way, I consider the tree spirit and crones to be part of the Baron quest. I spent a lot of time making that choice. But afterwards I ended up causing him to hang himself, so I thought maybe if there's any good to come of this the peasants might have better lives now. But I never saw how his town ends up after he dies so... yeah. If anything the only impact will be; who shows up to help fight with you at the end.

 

[carlos2033]

Reasons of State quest, go kill crazy Radovid and don`t abandon your frends easy choice, even endings show nilfgard as best option its like picking paragon vs renegade options in this quest.

 

[MrWoozy]

Well, you do realize that not EVERY quest can have this grey shade do you? And i'm actually grateful for that.
I had a ton of tough choices there. Can u imagine what kind of a shitstorm there would be if they would give every choice this bitter aftertaste?
They had to balance it somehow, although i dont see the Hjalmar and Cerys as an easy choice. True, Cerys in my opinion would be the better Queen, but have u seen the people there? Obsessed with honor and fighting? I had to wrap my head arround that, feared they would gut her someday because she's too peaceful and am pretty releaved that they didn't,
And about the Yennefer thing. They've just followed the plot. After all, Yen is kind of a Mom for Ciri or at least she feels that way. It's simply dictated by the books.
Triss's maybe more like sister to her, what makes that romance a little weird come to think of it. Not to mention that Triss tried to exploit Geralts Amnesia and betrayed a friend of her by doin it.

 

[helios396]

I won't say that the choices are clear cut as Paragon-Renegade in Mass Effect, but it did feel like the consequences to each choice could be easily foreseen.

For example the Cerys-Hjalmar choice, we can easily imagine what would happen if we choose one over the other. In comparison, choices in Witcher 2 felt "not as easy" since it's hard to perceive the consequences, like when we're to choose whether to save Triss or Philippa in Act 3. Although in the end it didn't matter much (sadly), there were many things to consider at the time the player was about to make the choice. We got so many additional context and informations about the situation and the characters involved which made the choice seemed difficult. Many of the choices Witcher 3 didn't have that, I think. The choices in the Baron questline were more difficult exactly because it's hard to perceive what will happen and the information we got from the well-written characters in that questline only made it even more so.

Meanwhile, choices like in the Radovid assassination quest were simply unbalanced. On the one side there were 3 characters you've known from the previous games and a quick end to the war while on the other side there's only one character you've just met in Witcher 3 (excluding the books) and more prolonged war. I almost feel bad for killing Dijkstra after what he did for Triss and the mages, but putting him against Roche, Ves and Thaler? It didn't take a second for me to choose.

 

[Slevin424]

Well, you do realize that not EVERY quest can have this grey shade do you? And i'm actually grateful for that.
I had a ton of tough choices there. Can u imagine what kind of a shitstorm there would be if they would give every choice this bitter aftertaste?
They had to balance it somehow, although i dont see the Hjalmar and Cerys as an easy choice. True, Cerys in my opinion would be the better Queen, but have u seen the people there? Obsessed with honor and fighting? I had to wrap my head arround that, feared they would gut her someday because she's too peaceful and am pretty releaved that they didn't,
And about the Yennefer thing. They've just followed the plot. After all, Yen is kind of a Mom for Ciri or at least she feels that way. It's simply dictated by the books.
Triss's maybe more like sister to her, what makes that romance a little weird come to think of it. Not to mention that Triss tried to exploit Geralts Amnesia and betrayed a friend of her by doin it.

But I can only really think of one moment where I had to actually analyse the choices and situation. I'm not saying every choice should be like that but if you remember Witcher 2 major plot quest had choices to make. I'd say half of them were typical choices you'd make based on what kind of playthrough you're doing. Yet the other half involved a lot of thought and knowledge be put towards it. I've read all the books in Witcher 3 and I feel as if I didn't have to, those books in Witcher 2 would provide you with extra information you wouldn't have known without reading them which helps you make choice. Witcher 3 it feels more like reading lore rather than learning of your situations.

For two games now we've been programmed to never overlook details when making decisions in Witcher. They not only set the game up to be analyzed but it would reward you for doing so. You make a choice you think is right, but end up finding out someone wasn't trust worthy and your choice may have had a bad outcome but that's the choice you made and from any mistakes you made you'll learn for future endeavors. It's one of RPG's greatest aspect. Now we're over analyzing details of a story that seems to be way too concrete. I enjoyed breaking down information and being all Sherlock Holmes with my choices. It's fun. Witcher 3 choices doesn't really warrant that level of questioning. It feels as if Witcher 2 gave you scenarios in which you would have to judge, investigate and conclude your thoughts. There was no clear divide on such choices. Witcher 3 they do the judging for you, the investigation is just "follow the yellow brick Witcher Sense road" to your next point in the story where the game tells you the black and white of the scenario then asks you to pick.

Honestly, isn't it more rewarding when you've made the right choice after carefully thinking it through?

(PS Triss willingly hands herself over to Witch Hunters to be tortured in order to help Geralt... even if you've been extremely mean to her and made it clear you didn't love her anymore she still willingly endure the torture to help... that's not someone I'd think is using anyone)

 

[Jou05]

I agree many choices were also quite lame and artificial

Especially the ones that impacted the endings (Geralt anf Ciri's interactions)

TW2 had so many difficult choices one had to make which impacted the endings

TW3 is more Bioware in that regard

 

[darkness58ec]

I thought over Hjalmar, because I thought Cerys might not be useful in the war against Nilfgaard. I also refused to participate in the plot to assassinate Radovid because I thought the North would lose if Radovid was dead.

 

[OutgoingHermit]

Reasons of State quest, go kill crazy Radovid and don`t abandon your frends easy choice, even endings show nilfgard as best option its like picking paragon vs renegade options in this quest.

Actually, Dijkstra ruling the north in competent fashion is the 'best' ending possible from that perspective. The problem is that Geralt has to jump out of character and put witcher neutrality (lol) ahead of his friends to get it. And that ain't happening.

 

[Ishxan]

Wait, so you're saying the right choice is the choice where it's a happy ending? Just because Cerys appears as the "good" candidate doesn't mean that choosing her over Hjalmar was the right choice.

In this instance you, as the player, get to decide who becomes king. Do people, however, consider that their own moral lens is going to dictate what is good or bad? From all your time in Skellige you should've figured out that their culture is different than on the Continent and also your own reference in real life. Perhaps imposing your own moral ideal to shape the future of a people isn't so neat? In the epilogue, if choosing Cerys, the narration ends on a seemingly positive note, however the implication is that her style of rule and governance begins the long transition of Skellige to a completely different type of culture; the real world example would be Vikings -> Modern Scandinavia, where modern Scandinavians are a completely different culture.

So with that in mind we can move on to Hjalmar and what appears to be his callous nature. In a culture where dying in honorable battle is possibly the best outcome of a man's life I find it quite easy to see things from Halmar's perspective. In a culture such as theirs, where battle and violence are common and revered it shouldn't come as a surprise that they have a different outlook. To Hjalmar his men and friends have achieved glorious deaths in battle with a terrifying foe, the type of death every Skelliger looks for and by all accounts even Hjalmar would be pleased with such a death. In addition to Hjalmar you can rescue some of his friends, one in particular being the one you save from being eaten by the trolls. That guy seems more rational than most Skelligers, yet if you engage in some additional conversation with him he will reveal that it's true that Cerys would make a better ruler, however he would still pick her brother because Hjalmar honestly represents the spirit of Skellige (Crach more or less says the same).

So yes, Hjalmar is very irresponsible, rash, and acts before he properly thinks and his "investigation" of the slaughter is weaker than Cerys's, yet despite that when you pick Cerys over Hjalmar you are imposing your own personal moral code whereas you would pick Cerys, I'd wager that Skelligers would overwhelmingly support Hjalmar if left a choice between them.

In conclusion, you perceive it to be an easy choice because one of the choices resonates with your own moral lens and the other does not. However that does not by any means make it the "right" choice. As an addendum I'd like to also say that one of the implications of the epilogue with Cerys is that Skellige becomes an easier target to invade (because now they're soft as ploughin' Continental milkmaids).

 

[jj284b]

yeah, that Djikstra vs Thaler + Roche thing, they could make it differently.. Djikstra for example could let them go, whats the point killing them... it would be much harder choice if there wasnt a death threat to people you know.

 

[Slevin424]

Can't believe I didn't bring this up regarding impact... Witcher 2 had a choice that would determine; who you're with during the war, who you fight against, who your friend might be at the end (Roche/Iorveth), what area will be hostile, what area will be neutral and whether or not the zone in the third act will be neutral or hostile towards you.

One choice would start a snowball effect. And that choice, as well as all the side quest, is what made your story unique. It's not so much a matter of "good dialog options" it's the very element of a good RPG. Roll Playing Game.

 

[Anwell]

Sacrificing Roche, Ves and Thaler was never an option for me. It says in the journal that Geralt chose not to be neutral by saving them. I dont think I agree with that, after everything Roche has done for my Geralt he considers him a friend. He is no longer neutral, its not about not getting involved in politics, its about saving your friends.

I do agree with the OP for the most part. Cerys was the obvious best choice. Its not as nuanced as previous games. I loved the baron quest line as well, but I am glad not every quest in TW3 is as dark.

 

[carlos2033]

Actually, Dijkstra ruling the north in competent fashion is the 'best' ending possible from that perspective. The problem is that Geralt has to jump out of character and put witcher neutrality (lol) ahead of his friends to get it. And that ain't happening.

Why do you think that from ending perspective Djikstra rule is better, even if we forget that geralt abandon his friends, endings show Djikstra as cynical and ruthless leader, making industralization against will of people and preparing for another war, while endings dont show flaws of Nilfgard victory, just Emhyr killed some conspirators against him ( who cares anyway ).

 

[Slevin424]

Wait, so you're saying the right choice is the choice where it's a happy ending? Just because Cerys appears as the "good" candidate doesn't mean that choosing her over Hjalmar was the right choice.

As far as my choices go, I make them based on "what's best for the people" and Cerys isn't a happy ending but I believe their people will be better off with her in command.

Not a happy ending choice... I hope choices never get that obvious. From what we learned in the Witcher series, everyone trying to find the "good" ending will be given a hard dose of reality. We'd like to think we're working towards a happy ending, but the Witcher series is something I consider to be realistic. There are no happy endings, there's only progress. What you're progressing towards might be different from other people, it may have good times ahead but endings don't come after the Game Over screen. Witcher is a story first, and a game second. Like the ending of Witcher 2 you could try to do everything right but one man's deeds will not weigh heavily against the corruption of civilization. You killed the evil boss at the end but evil as a whole did not die with it. People started burning sorcerers in the middle of the street, races fought against each other within their own cities and the politicians/kings scheming while hiding behind their armies. This is where they show our hero, Geralt. Not standing on the body of the evil boss at the end but running out of city that's consuming itself out of fear. Geralt is a true tragic hero, because he understands this and yet he still continues to try. He knows he stands against a never ending evil.

That's something you can find by just looking at the story in Witcher 2. It says that all without having to actually say it. Much like the choices, they give just enough information for you to put it all together yourself. This is genius game design because it allows players to have their own unique experience. It's not judged based on what the game tells us, it's left open for speculation. And while we could speculate Cerys vs Hjalmar regarding their kingly duties, as far as they were represented in the game there isn't much to speculate. But if you asked me whether I believe Iorveth is a good person and it's the humans who are in the wrong, I can promise you that conversation will be 50X longer than Cerys vs Hjalmar.

 

[OutgoingHermit]

Why do you think that from ending perspective Djikstra rule is better, even if we forget that geralt abandon his friends, endings show Djikstra as cynical and ruthless leader, making industralization against will of people and preparing for another war, while endings dont show flaws of Nilfgard victory, just Emhyr killed some conspirators against him ( who cares anyway ).

The north is screwed. It's just a question of to what degree. With Dijkstra, they retain independence and he's clearly preferable to Radovid.

 

[carlos2033]

The north is screwed. It's just a question of to what degree. With Dijkstra, they retain independence and he's clearly preferable to Radovid.

North fall under Redania or under Nilfgard no freedom for them, even nilfgard ofered better terms to Temeria, yes Djikstra is better than Radovid but why is he better then Nilfgard ( sorry if i misunderstood and you were talking only Radovid vs Djikstra )

 

[Ishxan]

My first play through I picked Cerys, but on my second play through I was actually thinking quite a lot about the choices (also there is a 3rd option, where you don't interfere and Svanrige becomes king). At the climax of the quest I was really torn between Hjalmar (I know how he deals with the massacre beforehand) and Cerys, and I was torn not over who would be the better administrator objectively, but rather torn over my own human nature to want to make the "right" choice (because I felt like she was the best choice in that regard) and appease my consciousness's moral desires (in some regard a selfish thing) and the choice that I felt was wrong but what was most Skelliger would want. Just because I feel that a specific choice is "right" does that mean I can choose a representative that I personally relate more with instead of representative I disagree with but who is the actual representative of his people and culture? At that point the choice was for me as such: my own imperative moral against that of this foreign culture. It is, imo, impossible to weigh such a thing in favor of the former, for me at least, and not feel hypocritical.

I would also like to again signify the reactions of almost all the major NPCs that you interact with on Skellige on the subject of Cerys and Hjalmar. When you listen to the dialogue you keep hearing that Cerys is respected and that people will accept the Jarls' decision. The tone here is that while Cerys is respected it is because of her tremendous achievements and yet you can sense the disappointment because Hjalmar is the type of guy that is respected regardless of accomplishment and position of power; they see Hjalmar as the ideal archetype of who they are as a people (people who are not about peace and stability, but a people who at their core are about brazen attitudes, fearlessness, and war). As the player you are given direct access to interfere and your seemingly easy choice between them actually decides who the Jarls will pick, because your interference decides whether one will succeed or fail (I mean if Cerys was truly worthy of the throne shouldn't she be able to solve her problems by herself, as it would for Hjalmar?). So you end up picking the candidate in a morally foreign culture based entirely on your own moral lens solely because of a degree of parallelism in moral views.

Now whenever I think about the two endings for this specific chapter I find that the Cerys ending is morally pleasing (from my own moral perspecitve) but somewhat sad because I feel that I have initiated the gradual erosion and eventual destruction of a culture that helped make Skellige the unique and memorable place it was. In contrast I find the Hjalmar ending very bittersweet because I have to live with the knowledge that I elected the person whose actions harmed potentially innocent people and whose initial reaction to handling the crisis was at the very polar end of what I would consider rational, yet ultimately it ends with Skellige remaining true to its spirit. Now I'm not saying that preserving tradition is morally superior, but for this specific case I found that picking the choice that at first I thought was the "wrong choice" ended up having the sweeter ending (whereby the Skelliger get a king they not only respect but a king who truly represents them and would follow into any hell). It didn't feel right to me that my own morality would decide the fate of a culture; the people of Skellige could not democratically elect their leader because ultimately it is not the Jarls that decide who becomes their king or queen, but you do, and in the face of that I felt that the sacrifice of my momentary moral imperative to serve the people of Skellige, in such a capacity, was worth it. I based my decision on all the conversations and lore about this subject, and it was clear to me that the Skelliger were not looking for that rational cool headed leader, the people seemed to want Hjalmar because he was irresponsible, because he was quick to temper and act, because he was ready to run into any challenge and fight with bravado, and not because he could solve crimes, mysteries, and mediate diplomacy. They want a leader that will ensure them a glorious death, a portion of their Saga, and a place in their ideal afterlife.

Basically what I'm saying is that you cannot judge the moral complexity of a choice based on your perspective on how difficult it is. When you are faced with choices that are only evil and their long term consequences unforeseeable you are of course morally challenged and it's actually easy to make the player feel morally conflicted; In W2 you are not required to look beyond your own moral lens to find the conflict because every choice, in various degrees, tries to get you to decide which is the least evil. However, one of the major differences between W2 and W3, pertaining this topic, is that in W2 the cultures you encountered were relatively homogeneous, whereas in W3 you have three very distinct cultures (Skellige, Northern Realms, and Nilfgaard). In such a context it becomes very easy for very morally complex situations to become ostensibly simple. All of a sudden these moral situations which yield complicated consequences become very black or white depending on which side of the moral culture you find yourself on.

Most people in our shared culture would agree that imposing your personal moral beliefs on others (see religious dogma) is bad, and yet when you pick Cerys that is exactly what you are doing; your choice explicitly makes one or the other fail, however just because one of them acts in a fashion you think is inappropriate does not mean he is acting immorally when in fact, according to the morals of his foreign culture, he is in someways a paragon of it. When you pick Cerys over Hjalmar you ensure that Hjalmar fails and the Jarls have no choice except to pick Cerys (if you help Hjalmar you find a similar unsigned letter). So really in the end, at least for me, the game shows that when different cultures holding different moral values and virtues meet choices that are in actuality complicated and morally challenging can appear deceivingly simple because it's actually guaranteed that you, as the player, will be standing on a certain axis.

You have your own moral compass and that itself is based on the moral compass of the immediate people around you and then that of your culture; so regardless of how disgusted you might feel at another culture's values you cannot objectively compare completely subjective and abstract expressions of human thought.