This is true. The question is worded subjectively.
IMO, The Witcher 3's C&Cs are definitely better than average. Are they as good as I would've liked in an ideal scenario tho? Nah.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
IMO, The Witcher 3's C&Cs are definitely better than average. Are they as good as I would've liked in an ideal scenario tho? Nah.
Witcher 2 had better choices in a way that if you take one path, there is so much content you never get to see because of the decision you made.
In Witcher 3, it feels much more linear with slight variations here and there. You can miss a quest or two because of a decision you made, but in no way can the amount of missed content during your first play through be compared to the two path solution in Witcher 2.
But I understand the approach because it's a much bigger game and everything.
In Witcher 3, it feels much more linear with slight variations here and there. You can miss a quest or two because of a decision you made, but in no way can the amount of missed content during your first play through be compared to the two path solution in Witcher 2.
But I understand the approach because it's a much bigger game and everything.
Short answer: yes.
As stated above, everybody's got his idea on this. For me, I consider a C&C system good when the game makes me care about the choice I make. If there is varying content depending on the choice, TW2 style (which is present in TW3 as well anyway, as quests do branch out), all the better, but not a necessary requirement. What matters to me is how I feel about the result of my decision and what it would mean for the characters' fates (otherwise no point in having choices and consequences in the first place). What I look for in many RPGs but so many fail to provide, while TW always managed to give me.
The series as a whole has always done this well, and TW3 better than the previous games when it comes to what I said earlier.
As examples, the spirit tree quest made me involved in the fucked up life in Velen, and I did care about deciding which one in my opinion was the lesser evil between the spirit and the Crones, based on investigation (context WAS there, but it was easy to miss), reading books and exploring. That quest fucked with me so hard.
The mice tower, another one that gripped me, I ended up freeing the Pesta and then I realized that if I had analyzed the clues better and explored other dialogue options, I could have prevented that. At a price. Felt bad about that too.
The King of Skellige, it was smart from the devs to make you go through individual quests with Hjalmar and Cerys before letting you make the quest that would decide who would be to rule. That way, I felt more connected to the characters and I could "bond" with them, making my decision all the more meaningful for me, the player.
And many others. Bottom line is, TW3's narrative succeeded in making me care about the characters enough to feel for them and motivating me to make what I thought was the best decision for their fate. This level of investment, I had never experienced in any other game, so props to CDPR for that.
As stated above, everybody's got his idea on this. For me, I consider a C&C system good when the game makes me care about the choice I make. If there is varying content depending on the choice, TW2 style (which is present in TW3 as well anyway, as quests do branch out), all the better, but not a necessary requirement. What matters to me is how I feel about the result of my decision and what it would mean for the characters' fates (otherwise no point in having choices and consequences in the first place). What I look for in many RPGs but so many fail to provide, while TW always managed to give me.
The series as a whole has always done this well, and TW3 better than the previous games when it comes to what I said earlier.
As examples, the spirit tree quest made me involved in the fucked up life in Velen, and I did care about deciding which one in my opinion was the lesser evil between the spirit and the Crones, based on investigation (context WAS there, but it was easy to miss), reading books and exploring. That quest fucked with me so hard.
The mice tower, another one that gripped me, I ended up freeing the Pesta and then I realized that if I had analyzed the clues better and explored other dialogue options, I could have prevented that. At a price. Felt bad about that too.
The King of Skellige, it was smart from the devs to make you go through individual quests with Hjalmar and Cerys before letting you make the quest that would decide who would be to rule. That way, I felt more connected to the characters and I could "bond" with them, making my decision all the more meaningful for me, the player.
And many others. Bottom line is, TW3's narrative succeeded in making me care about the characters enough to feel for them and motivating me to make what I thought was the best decision for their fate. This level of investment, I had never experienced in any other game, so props to CDPR for that.
Last edited:
The mice tower, another one that gripped me, I ended up freeing the Pesta and then I realized that if I had analyzed the clues better and explored other dialogue options, I could have prevented that. At a price. Felt bad about that too.
There's some interesting background info on Annabelle's father, the Lord of Velen before the invasion, if you decide to kill the botchling instead of removing the curse. The Pellar tells you a lot of stuff about him that pretty much comes down to "He was worse than the Baron/Nilfgaardians".
Of course, this is before the Baron disappears/dies, so he may not feel the same away about it later.
I'm not sure how many of you would have caught that one, as I think most people try to remove the curse. I only got the dialogue on a later playthrough - he tells you about it as you're heading to the place where the botchling blood is to be used.
I'm not sure if Svanridge is good or bad and I'm not debating that point. I just wasn't even aware of it being possible and that is a good thing for me. Wow, skipping a quest has a real consequence.
But here's an interesting question. Let's say you pick the Svanridge non-choice line. And Ciri becomes Empress. What happens then? It that still a good ending? My point here is the choice of being good or bad must take into consideration the other outcomes. Svanridge might be good if the north loses. But is it still good if Radovid wins?
But here's an interesting question. Let's say you pick the Svanridge non-choice line. And Ciri becomes Empress. What happens then? It that still a good ending? My point here is the choice of being good or bad must take into consideration the other outcomes. Svanridge might be good if the north loses. But is it still good if Radovid wins?
There's some interesting background info on Annabelle's father, the Lord of Velen before the invasion, if you decide to kill the botchling instead of removing the curse. The Pellar tells you a lot of stuff about him that pretty much comes down to "He was worse than the Baron/Nilfgaardians".
Ah I forgot that, yeah.
There's some interesting background info on Annabelle's father, the Lord of Velen before the invasion, if you decide to kill the botchling instead of removing the curse. The Pellar tells you a lot of stuff about him that pretty much comes down to "He was worse than the Baron/Nilfgaardians".
Of course, this is before the Baron disappears/dies, so he may not feel the same away about it later.
I'm not sure how many of you would have caught that one, as I think most people try to remove the curse. I only got the dialogue on a later playthrough - he tells you about it as you're heading to the place where the botchling blood is to be used.
That is cool to know. I'm one of the ones who had always tried to cure it, so would never have found that. I do really like that about this game, I'll have to do a replay making the choices I wouldn't normally just to uncover all the stuff I'm missing
That is cool to know. I'm one of the ones who had always tried to cure it, so would never have found that. I do really like that about this game, I'll have to do a replay making the choices I wouldn't normally just to uncover all the stuff I'm missing
If you do decide to do a replay, the one thing I'm not sure of is whether or not this influences the dialogue with Annabelle, so it might be interesting to get to this point before doing the Annabelle quest. I'd already done it, so I don't know if it does or not. But the info from the Pellar casts doubt on whether or not she's telling the truth about them NOT having a hoard of food at the tower. (Not that this justifies the villagers' actions towards her, but it does maybe justify them deciding to attack the tower in the first place).
Who would choose on their 1st playthrough Hjalmar instead of Cerys? He has many flaws and weaknesses and on the other hand, Cerys is presented as a possible new perfect leader of the Skellige islands.. pretty easy, straightforward choice in my opinion
Not everyone prefers the easy, straightforward choices, but I must admit that the game is rather biased towards Cerys. I guess for new players Svanrige is also a common "choice", simply because they might not complete King's Gambit as they are more interested in the main story. Radovid may often end up ruling the North for the same reason.