Yaevinn LIKEABLE????? I dunno about that... I'm siding with his crew this time around, even though I personally feel more bonded towards Siegfried (really nice guy, wouldn't mind him as a friend), but this playthrough, siding it differently. Yaevinn I can understand where he is coming from, but man, its more of a professional association for me, can barely stand his superior attitude. We get along, more or less, but LIKEABLE?????Xhan said:
This is kind of what I was touching on in my recent post about Emotional Involvement, but it sounds like you're more interested in the morality aspect of it, whereas I'm after the emotional one. That said: Yes, I care about the choices I make; I've never played a game like Witcher, though. Most of the RPGs I've played have had fairly clear cut choices: The Good answer, the Evil answer, and maybe the Neutral answer. Whereas I look forward to the choices I'll be making in this game, I'm also viewing it with a little trepidation, because I want to see everything it has to offer (and not necessarily replay it). Yeah, I don't want the game to lead me in a way I won't like, but I'll try to do as much actual Role Playing as I can.DrizztDoUrden said:
@ anamacha: I've found The Witcher to be one of the few games where the choices were actually challenging. Most of the videogames I've played, even the great ones, really did not have a serious choice for moral dilemmas: the Evil choices were often almost "token evil option tossed as a bone to the players who just want to kill everything in sight", and nowhere near "serious moral path with its own rewards and challenges"... like the game was rigged in favor of the "Lawful Good Paladin of Eternal Niceness", and if you just were Chaotic Evil, well, you are screwed. The Witcher, on the other hand, throws you in the soup. You feel emotionally connected friendship with a character, but your moral values put you in opposition to him. Now what?You feel a connection to the values of a certain "freedom fighter" organization, but the leader is someone you consider an arrogant %$$%@! jerk and would prefer telling off. But he does speak some uncomfortable truths....Who is truly the monster...and what does it say when all your good intentions end up in disaster?
Typically in games such as these that provide choices regarding morality I'm a sadistic bastard. ]:->I put myself in the position of the character I'm playing, imagine I am actually in the world and actually living the character's life and maing the decisions. So, when it comes to role-playing games I am really role-playing. Call me a nerd. I don't care. 
I found that in most RPG games I have played the moral choice is good (what is deemed as good by groups usually representing social order or a kingdom) and what is bad. You had a main story of conquering the "Evil One" in the game and a bunch of side quests for experience and collecting things. In the Witcher there is a real grey area of what is good and evil. Morality seem to be based upon Geralts own set of rules he has set for himself as a Witcher. You find yourself asking should I have him stick to his set of moral rules or have him bend them a bit and see how it goes. At times you had to bend them. Geralt seem to have struggle with this as well. "I don't kill humans"that rule gets quite the test. All monsters are evil. Another dilema. Are they? And the whole decision in regards to commiting himself to one women.All this I found added an extra flavor to the storyline that was fresh and seldom found in games. I was allowed to get truely emerced in the character and had to think in which direction I wanted to take the story or whos' philosophies did I most agree with. Who fit into some of my own moral beliefs and who didn't. It made me think, not just go from point A to point B and collect a bunch of stuff. What I did and said to people altered the story. So some choices I liked and others went against what I agree with, but it fit into Geralt's character for me. The Witcher did a very good job of addressing the age old struggle of what is good and what is evil (or moral and immoral if you like). Geralt to me felt he was fighting the good fight and defending the innocent and weak and this at times had me stop and think, am I having him be true to this belief do I have him break his said set of morality for the betterment of others? So many choices that made the game very fun and exciting for me.
It's like the Wizard's Second Rule, as stated in a series of books I'm reading: "The greatest harm can arise from the best of intentions." That can apply to a lot of the situations in the game that I've seen thus far.Good food for thought, all of you, especially Starwolf.Starwolf said:
@Xhan: OMG that was funny!!!!! I am so ROFLMAO. ;D ;D ;DAnd yes I will give Yaevinn points for bravery, as any man who will actually dare to tell a woman that something makes her look even an ounce fatter is either very very brave or very very stupid, or has a deathwish.....He doesn't strike me as stupid.On the other hand, maybe its the deathwish.....
Great topic. The choices and their unforseeable consequences is what I love most about this game!I tried to play as I imagined Geralt would act. I hadn't read the last wish at that time so it was solely based on the way he was portraited in the game. It really riled me when Shani suddenly wanted to get engaged, because I thought that Geralt wasn't that kind of type to get very involved. So I reloaded and sent Alvin to Triss only to find out that she wanted to same. In the end I let Geralt write Triss a love letter, but I don't feel this is what he would've done.I'm curious to hear wheather you feel that there are som obvious morally good or evil choices? Personally, I think that most of the choices aren't purely good or evil. But not only that, there is a lot of debate about what our choices may lead to. Choices that seem good may have bad consequences etc. I like this ambiguity. It really singles the game out from most games.
Playing as you feel Geralt would play is a good way of doing it, I think. Still, it's difficult to get inside his head; he's been this way for a very long time, and we've been in his world a rather short time.As to where there are some obvious good or evil choices: I haven't seen any, yet. Most of the choices are morally ambiguous -- meaning that there's no clear good or evil answer. Even in the judgement of Abigail near the end of Act I (which I just got to), there isn't a clear cut choice, other than your siding with the Reverend or with Abigail. It's not like one is "good" and the other "evil," but for me the choice is pretty easy: The Reverend strikes me as a religious zealot, a selfrighteous asshole, whereas Abigail is more "chaotic neutral" in alignment. She just makes the tools like poisons, which are not inherently good or evil -- it is the person who buys them and uses them that puts them to a good or evil use.In contrast to Abigail, the Reverend strikes me as a nasty brand of Lawful Evil.mosberg said:
There you go. The game practically pushes you towards siding with Abigail. While I think "The Witcher" has its share of pretty tough choices, I wouldn't give that one as an example. That's probably the only major choice in the game that actually makes you feel good about selecting one path and bad about selecting the other.Anamacha said:
Yeah, yeah, the age-old argument... And yet she knew about what happened to the girl, and it doesn't take a genius to connect the dots and know what was the intended use of that poison. I think that Abigail's shortcoming is just that - she doesn't care. She makes potions, and she doesn't care what they are used for. Even if she knows that the use isn't going to be good, she will brew the potion and cash in on it anyway. And then she'll say "well, don't blame me, I'm just the toolmaker".Anamacha said:
I don't remember who posted the 4 paths they chose in playing the game 4 times (sorry >_< ), but I recognize the fourth, The Witcher way, as being mine so far To me, choices I make in games matter a great deal. I cannot help but delve into the characters' stories and become personally involved. I wouldn't have it any other way. So I am extra careful when it comes to decisions, especially the ones whose outcome isn't very clear from the start. I've already finished the game once and I have to say that, in the end, I was happy with the decisions made throughout the game. I was neutral in the swamp battle but then sided with the Squirrels, mainly because I viewed them as being similar to Geralt: both outcasts and being pushed aside in a world in which humans became more and more powerful. I tried to save anyone I could, I was happy to see Vincent and Carmen fulfill their love and I tried not to kill humans whenever I could help it (I let the admirer in the tale of the two sisters live: I thought that remorse and being without his beloved is punishment enough). I also chose Shani over Triss.Comments on some decisions/characters:1. Yaevinn: I, too, thought he was arrogant, annoying and a stuck-up bastard at the beginning, in my dealings with him in the swamp. When I sided with the Squirrels, I did so for the reasons above and it hurt me to shun Siegfrid who seemed such a kindred spirit and was listed as "a friend' in his character sheet. However, starting with Chapter 4 I began to see Yaevinn differently. He became more open, friendlier in his own special way and he became a comrade in arms. I viewed our little trip in the sewers, when we killed the Zeugl as being particularly bonding. In the end, he was there for me and helped me even though he didn't have to. He became a better man and a more enjoyable friend. I also felt better about my decision when I met Siegfrid on the burning streets of Vizima: how he was so blinded by his faith in the Order and he couldn't see the wickedness and corruption of his leaders. I was struck by it.2. Abigail: although I know what happens if I choose Abi over the angry mob, I still did it on my second play through. I know I'll get a cutscene later telling me that I didn't actually choose the lesser evil, instead I got involved in the dealings of humans, which are sometimes monsters in disguise. However, I do believe that Geralt believes in defending the weak and bending this particular rule (not getting involved). I don't think he could just walk away. I at least told Abigail, when we parted, that I chose the lesser evil. And when I met her later on, in Murky Waters, it seemed as if her experience in the Outskirts had changed her somehow, for the better.3. Shani over Triss: at the beginning of the game and before I started seeing Shani as a possible love interest for Geralt, I was all for Triss. She was beautiful, strong and seemed to love Geralt for real. However, the events in Vizima changed that. It just seemed that Shani was so much more honest and genuinely in love with Geralt, not for his usefulness but for who he is. She didn't seem interested in power or politics. The conversation Triss had with the other sorceress and her reaction to my giving Alvin to Shani (I tried both ways) in comparison to Shani's reaction were what convinced me to give up on Triss. It just seemed to me like, while she did love Geralt in a way, she would also like to use him as an advantage to advance in the sorcerers and political world. Oh, and he's also a good shag Now that I've restarted the game, I think I'll choose Triss instead, simply because I was reminded of how much Geralt cares about Triss. And I look out for his happiness first and foremost, even though it hurts to give up on Shani I suppose most of you will understand what I mean when I'll say that, throughout this post, I had to correct myself from saying "I" or "me" instead of Geralt, despite being female. And it's also interesting to see how we've all shaped our own little Geralt And since I mentioned this .... when I first started playing, I was a bit bummed that I'd have to play with a male character. I usually choose a female one because I can relate to the game better. However, right now, I wouldn't have it any other way. I've come to care for Geralt, all thanks for the very real and human thoughts and feelings he expresses.
To me, choices I make in games matter a great deal. I cannot help but delve into the characters' stories and become personally involved. I wouldn't have it any other way. So I am extra careful when it comes to decisions, especially the ones whose outcome isn't very clear from the start. I've already finished the game once and I have to say that, in the end, I was happy with the decisions made throughout the game. I was neutral in the swamp battle but then sided with the Squirrels, mainly because I viewed them as being similar to Geralt: both outcasts and being pushed aside in a world in which humans became more and more powerful. I tried to save anyone I could, I was happy to see Vincent and Carmen fulfill their love and I tried not to kill humans whenever I could help it (I let the admirer in the tale of the two sisters live: I thought that remorse and being without his beloved is punishment enough). I also chose Shani over Triss.Comments on some decisions/characters:1. Yaevinn: I, too, thought he was arrogant, annoying and a stuck-up bastard at the beginning, in my dealings with him in the swamp. When I sided with the Squirrels, I did so for the reasons above and it hurt me to shun Siegfrid who seemed such a kindred spirit and was listed as "a friend' in his character sheet. However, starting with Chapter 4 I began to see Yaevinn differently. He became more open, friendlier in his own special way and he became a comrade in arms. I viewed our little trip in the sewers, when we killed the Zeugl as being particularly bonding. In the end, he was there for me and helped me even though he didn't have to. He became a better man and a more enjoyable friend. I also felt better about my decision when I met Siegfrid on the burning streets of Vizima: how he was so blinded by his faith in the Order and he couldn't see the wickedness and corruption of his leaders. I was struck by it.2. Abigail: although I know what happens if I choose Abi over the angry mob, I still did it on my second play through. I know I'll get a cutscene later telling me that I didn't actually choose the lesser evil, instead I got involved in the dealings of humans, which are sometimes monsters in disguise. However, I do believe that Geralt believes in defending the weak and bending this particular rule (not getting involved). I don't think he could just walk away. I at least told Abigail, when we parted, that I chose the lesser evil. And when I met her later on, in Murky Waters, it seemed as if her experience in the Outskirts had changed her somehow, for the better.3. Shani over Triss: at the beginning of the game and before I started seeing Shani as a possible love interest for Geralt, I was all for Triss. She was beautiful, strong and seemed to love Geralt for real. However, the events in Vizima changed that. It just seemed that Shani was so much more honest and genuinely in love with Geralt, not for his usefulness but for who he is. She didn't seem interested in power or politics. The conversation Triss had with the other sorceress and her reaction to my giving Alvin to Shani (I tried both ways) in comparison to Shani's reaction were what convinced me to give up on Triss. It just seemed to me like, while she did love Geralt in a way, she would also like to use him as an advantage to advance in the sorcerers and political world. Oh, and he's also a good shag Now that I've restarted the game, I think I'll choose Triss instead, simply because I was reminded of how much Geralt cares about Triss. And I look out for his happiness first and foremost, even though it hurts to give up on Shani I suppose most of you will understand what I mean when I'll say that, throughout this post, I had to correct myself from saying "I" or "me" instead of Geralt, despite being female. And it's also interesting to see how we've all shaped our own little Geralt And since I mentioned this .... when I first started playing, I was a bit bummed that I'd have to play with a male character. I usually choose a female one because I can relate to the game better. However, right now, I wouldn't have it any other way. I've come to care for Geralt, all thanks for the very real and human thoughts and feelings he expresses.I completely relate... I'm female, and all the way through the game, I "am" Geralt, so when I post about my gaming, I also have to keep correcting myself on the "I" instead of "Geralt". I think when you get deeply into roleplaying in the game, it just is like that, you become your character. Though I will forever be grateful that it does not extend to actual wet feet, reeking from being drenched in drowner blood and worse while fighting in the sewers, and experiencing the I am sure equisite aromas of a medieval tavern in the slums.....SacredSquirrel said:I suppose most of you will understand what I mean when I'll say that, throughout this post, I had to correct myself from saying "I" or "me" instead of Geralt, despite being female. And it's also interesting to see how we've all shaped our own little Geralt
Well, remembering the short-lived enterprise known as "Smell-o-vision", you can never be sure...Starwolf said:
[quote author=Ryk Niedźwiedzia]There you go. The game practically pushes you towards siding with Abigail. While I think "The Witcher" has its share of pretty tough choices, I wouldn't give that one as an example. That's probably the only major choice in the game that actually makes you feel good about selecting one path and bad about selecting the other.[/QUOTE]That's actually what I was thinking about in my question. Because as morally ambiguous as the choices may be painted in game, some choices may still generally be seen as more morally right than others. As the case with Abigail. I can't imagine many players not chosing to save her, unless they're curious to see what happens or roleplay Geralt in a particular way. I haven't tried playing neutral, which I agree would probably be the most satisfying road - and the one most close to how the Geralt character is written in "the last wish". He tries to remain non-judgemental, seeking the lesser evil - (although it's debated if there is such a thing in the book, which I think is great).For me choosing to side with the non-humans was the obvious choice in terms of moral, since they were being treated as second rate citizens. But is that an obvious "good" choice for everyone? Is there anything that makes some players feel that siding with the order is the superior moral choice?Anamacha said:
sure -- I can see people who are very much Lawful Good doing this (the siding with Order thing), as well as people who are racists or who feel themselves vastly superior to others in some way. I don't get that, I don't understand it, but I recognize that some people are that way.mosberg said:
*shrug*There have been wars. The humans won. The non-humans refuse to integrate, and resort to terrorism.Now, I have issues with the word "terrorism." It's the dumbest word ever ..When a people has fighting forces capable of possibly winning a war, they'd consider fighting an open war.When your forces is outnumbered & outgunned by many orders of magnitude, the only viable options to fight a war?Guerilla tactics - decrease enemy's strength at little cost to yourselfUndermining the enemy's support base - "PR" campaign, to make issues confronting to those who would prefer ignorance as well as possibly making it seem as if the violence is a rational response to oppressionsowing discord among their forces - by the disruption of chain of command through assassination and/or the use of espionage/misinformation.All are reasonable courses of action in order to reduce the enemy's combat effectiveness.The deal with conventional warfare is a bunch of powerful nations deciding how wars are fought ... supposedly to spare civilians ... but those rules are heavily skewed in favour of the wealthy and powerful. Terrorism isn't "evil," it's no different from any other war.War is ugly! I mean it's been less than a century since the time of carpet-bombing cities and trench warfare & mustard gas!Now, back to the Witcher's world ... the war between Elves and Humans is due to their respective inability to coexist.Their ways of life are simply so different they require different habitats!Given the competition over resources and land (ok fine, maybe Humans breed like vermin in comparison, but whatever), violence was inevitable.And the Elves lost.To the losers of such a war, the remaining options are extinction or adaptation.The Elves are choosing extinction.So maybe there are a great deal about their culture that is superior to the Humans ... so what?It is simply not their world anymore.