Does the game promotes imperialism?[spoilers]
The thread is not meant to critise, but rather serve as food for discussion. Judging by the endings, Nilfgaard winning the war is the clear "good" ending. There is peace and prosperity. On the other hand, North winning in both occassions is the far less "good" option. Radovid's regime is full of hate and racism, and Dijkstra's regime is basically a totalitarian state. Industry grows(like it did in Nazi Germany), with great loss of liberty and rulling through fear. I found this strange, especially considering that problems in North started appearing due to Nilfgaards imperialistic politics. So, the answer of peace and prosperity is a great Imperial force conquering the weaker individual states that seem to be incapable of Flourising and developing on their own?
Edit: Before playing the game, after reading the books and playing the previous games, i wanted to oppose Nilfgaard at any cost, but i ended up supporting it. The game did not leave me much choice. I beleive that ending regarding the political situation should have been abit more balanced, or let's say "grey". I personally hate imperialism, but the other option were just plain worse.
The thread is not so much about imperialism. I wanted to be something like "Why is Nilfgaard the clear "good" choice", but i wanted to keep the titles spoiler free.
The thread is not meant to critise, but rather serve as food for discussion. Judging by the endings, Nilfgaard winning the war is the clear "good" ending. There is peace and prosperity. On the other hand, North winning in both occassions is the far less "good" option. Radovid's regime is full of hate and racism, and Dijkstra's regime is basically a totalitarian state. Industry grows(like it did in Nazi Germany), with great loss of liberty and rulling through fear. I found this strange, especially considering that problems in North started appearing due to Nilfgaards imperialistic politics. So, the answer of peace and prosperity is a great Imperial force conquering the weaker individual states that seem to be incapable of Flourising and developing on their own?
Edit: Before playing the game, after reading the books and playing the previous games, i wanted to oppose Nilfgaard at any cost, but i ended up supporting it. The game did not leave me much choice. I beleive that ending regarding the political situation should have been abit more balanced, or let's say "grey". I personally hate imperialism, but the other option were just plain worse.
The thread is not so much about imperialism. I wanted to be something like "Why is Nilfgaard the clear "good" choice", but i wanted to keep the titles spoiler free.
Last edited: