thothistox said:I liked the way TW2 branched. It was a bold design decision that added a lot of replay value. I understand if they don't want to make TW3 branch that much, but I still want smaller scale branching, as was promised by CDPR in this thread. To me, RPGs are about decisions, and those decisions are only profound if they exclude other possibilities.
One thing I should stress though: having the option to do or not do a quest is not a form of branching. I should have that option most of the time, but it's not much of a decision on its own.
Well phrased,that's all i have been raving about in a nutshell.
Shavod said:Oh great, another of these topics. They said that there will be no completely different chapters like in The Witcher 2 when they announced TW3, but only now some people awake and start whi... I mean complaining about that. It was already explained that it's not about taking features out, but using open world as a tool to improve story's nonlinearity. Thanks to that you can always go back to the places you already visited and see with your own eyes a long term consequences of your decisions. Separate chapters would be extremely restricting in this regard and that allows them to make story longer, as they don't have to cut it into bigger pieces.
I probably haven't successfully conveyed my worries so far.Those consequences you talk about and so far I had heard of were environmental meaning that something happens to your environment like a village burns.A branching narrative is when quests chains get locked/unlocked based on your decisions ,but seemingly Redorigen confirmed it although on a much smaller scale than the witcher 2