Petition to erase all romances from the expansion packs

[Pug.]

The part of being a Sapkowski purest is true.

But the relationship between Geralt and Yennefer and Geralt in the books is almost the complete opposite of a Biowarian romance. It's two entirely different things. I don't complain about relationships at all. I complain about video gamey romances. I complain about pressing complex things into common video gamey terms that butchers almost all they originally stood for. I complain about turning complex and multi-layered relationships into one-dimensional, profance and ultimately childish romances.

That the choice between Yen and Triss in TW3 - two video gamey Biowarian romances at their "best" - is actually the most important amd most "meaningful" choice by far in the whole game is either a bad joke (like CDPR trolling us...) or pretty much the deepest narrative flaw of Witcher (minus the ending, which is by far the worst part).


Hell, why I'm so serious?! Not drunk enough again, Ggoddammit... :blink:

Cut CDPR a bit of slack. Compared to other forms of art/entertainment, video games are a relatively new medium and developers are still learning the ropes and maturing in their craft. It's going to take time before games get to the point where they convincingly portray the nuances and complexity of real life relationships.

As to your second point, there are other meaningful choices in the game besides choosing between Yenn and Triss. Just a few off the top of my head:

Spoiler

+ Siding with Redania or the Empire of Nilfgaard
+ Ciri's relationship with Geralt, how he navigates his relationship as a parent, and his ultimate choice between reuniting Ciri with her biological father, or encouraging her to pursue the life of a Witcher
+ Whether or not to assist the Bloody Baron, the PC's decision to empathize with him or not
+ Choosing what kind of Witcher Geralt is going to be: does he see monsters as disposable creatures that should be slaughtered, or does he see himself as more of a mediator between humans and non-humans
+ What kind of friend is Geralt in-game? You can choose to assist allies, e.g. do you help the mages evacuate Novigrad, or leave them to their own devices.

And to be honest, if you're a Sapkowski purest as you said above, I don't know why you're playing the games to begin with. They've always been a little bit "videogamey," dating all the way back to the original Witcher when you had to make the "Biowarnian" choice between Shani and Triss and you collected cards for every sexual conquest in the game. Compared to that, Wild Hunt is high culture.

 

[GuyNwah]

Moderator: Post removed for fighting words. This is not a matter to insult each other's intelligence over.

 

[Charcharo]

True. Though when you manage to be so good at being much better than Bioware (which is sometimes easy, sometimes hard) and it is damn near obvious how you can do even better...

Never settle. That is how we should think if we want this young medium to advance. And to this young medium's credit, it is known to be an art form where the work DOES change sometimes quite a bit after release.

Hence me being active on character and story threads (or reading them). As that is where I see CDPR can do the absolute most.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Spoiler

+ Siding with Redania or the Empire of Nilfgaard
+ Ciri's relationship with Geralt, how he navigates his relationship as a parent, and his ultimate choice between reuniting Ciri with her biological father, or encouraging her to pursue the life of a Witcher
+ Whether or not to assist the Bloody Baron, the PC's decision to empathize with him or not
+ Choosing what kind of Witcher Geralt is going to be: does he see monsters as disposable creatures that should be slaughtered, or does he see himself as more of a mediator between humans and non-humans
+ What kind of friend is Geralt in-game? You can choose to assist allies, e.g. do you help the mages evacuate Novigrad, or leave them to their own devices.

Spoiler

- about Radovid: that's a choice but it's not really meaningful for Geralt. He's not interested in politics. It's not close to his heart - like at all.
- the relationship with Ciri is just seriously fucked up stuff than I refrain to even talk about any longer. I've already made lengthy posts on that already.
- Bloody Baron is pretty much the only really meaningful choice for Geralt in the whole game besides the romances, so yes
- Geralt as wichter: yes, to a certain extend. There are some smaller choices of that kind in side quests but they are mostly pretty seperated from the main storyline and very limited in scope.
- Geralt as friend: I don't see any big choice here. Geralt can either do quests or just refuse to do so. He can't act in "a bad way" towards his friends. And the player gains abolutely nothing by refusing quests. So refusing to help friends is not really a viable option in the meaning of being an alternative of equal or comparable consequences.

And I don't think video games are "new" art. Newer than other media, of course, but it's pretty established now. And there are just some limitations in video games that are natural and inherent to it, like narrative limitations that come with the nararative interactivity. No matter how professional you are or how progressed your media is you can't "overcome" that. It's something you have to work with no matter what. The problem is that obviously some people meant that these limitations were not present for them while they in fact always were. It's pretty much impossible to create novel-like relationships in video games, especially if you enable or allow choices. Games have different strengths and qualities and you don't do gamers a favor if you neglect these strengths and instead try to overcome obvious ostacles that can't be overcome in the first place...

 

[sv3672]

It's pretty much impossible to create novel-like relationships in video games, especially if you enable or allow choices. Games have different strengths and qualities and you don't do gamers a favor if you neglect these strengths and instead try to overcome obvious ostacles that can't be overcome in the first place...

Interactivity and choices are qualities of games that normally cannot be present in a book or movie. That is why they should not be removed, as even if that allows for somewhat better narrative, it would still not have nearly the same depth as a book, and at the same time it would give up a major advantage of the medium. Of course, there are also limitations on how much choice can realistically be implemented in a game. When it comes to the romances, the formula from the original Witcher (and also the third, even if it feels unfinished) seems to be a reasonable trade-off between giving choice and - within the limitations of the medium - trying to make the relationships more complex.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Interactivity and choices are qualities of games that normally cannot be present in a book or movie. That is why they should not be removed, as even if that allows for somewhat better narrative, it would still not have nearly the same depth as a book, and at the same time it would give up a major advantage of the medium. Of course, there are also limitations on how much choice can realistically be implemented in a game. When it comes to the romances, the formula from the original Witcher (and also the third, even if it feels unfinished) seems to be a reasonable trade-off between giving choice and - within the limitations of the medium - trying to make the relationships more complex.

I never said choices should be removed altogether, quite the opposite. The question is rather WHICH choices make sense and strengthen the experience and on which choices you should concentrate and focus for your game. If you ask me I'd rather have some meaningful moral "the lesser evil" choices in the game than the choice between two romance options. I think cutting down these romance choices while including a lot more meaningful choices beyond that would enhance and strengthen both the narrative density and quality AND the specific strengths of the video game and RPG as interactive experience. Still a question of priorities of course but my intention is not to remove choice but to focus and re-evaluate its specific implementation in the game.

 

[web-head91]

The part of being a Sapkowski purest is true.

But the relationship between Geralt and Yennefer and Geralt in the books is almost the complete opposite of a Biowarian romance. It's two entirely different things. I don't complain about relationships at all. I complain about video gamey romances. I complain about pressing complex things into common video gamey terms that butchers almost all they originally stood for. I complain about turning complex and multi-layered relationships into one-dimensional, profance and ultimately childish romances.

That the choice between Yen and Triss in TW3 - two video gamey Biowarian romances at their "best" - is actually the most important amd most "meaningful" choice by far in the whole game is either a bad joke (like CDPR trolling us...) or pretty much the deepest narrative flaw of Witcher (minus the ending, which is by far the worst part).


Hell, why I'm so serious?! Not drunk enough again, Ggoddammit... :blink:

^THIS ! you sir deserve a medal.

---------- Updated at 11:45 AM ----------

I never said choices should be removed altogether, quite the opposite. The question is rather WHICH choices make sense and strengthen the experience and on which choices you should concentrate and focus for your game. If you ask me I'd rather have some meaningful moral "the lesser evil" choices in the game than the choice between two romance options. I think cutting down these romance choices while including a lot more meaningful choices beyond that would enhance and strengthen both the narrative density and quality AND the specific strengths of the video game and RPG as interactive experience. Still a question of priorities of course but my intention is not to remove choice but to focus and re-evaluate its specific implementation in the game.

agreed.
a bit off-topic though, but, does your choices still have an impact on the game experience ? like in the previous two games ?
aka a decision that comes back out of the blue, slapping your face and be filled with regret, or be thankful you made that certain decision ?

 

[Scholdarr.452]

a bit off-topic though, but, does your choices still have an impact on the game experience ? like in the previous two games ?
aka a decision that comes back out of the blue, slapping your face and be filled with regret, or be thankful you made that certain decision ?

Apart from the Ciri disaster stuff I don't think so. You have to make some choices (like Radovid vs Emhyr or Cerys vs Hjalmar) but none of them felt really meaningful for Geralt or cause a serious moral conflict and none of them really bite you in the ass somewhere down the line. There are some nice side quests with this stuff but they are rather limited in scope and influence.

 

[Krull32]

Well, i'm against erasing that type of stuff completly , if it's not over the top and well made.
It was always a part of Geralt journeys.

I want a chance with Shani! I was with her and then wake up with another woman in bed for no reason :fuss:

But I like your idea. In fact we should ask for a TRUE ALONE GERALT path, with zero romance and tons of brothel nights \o/

Here i agree. With booth
Just let us choose.

Romance - Yes, No ?
Or lonely warrior with tons of brothels ?
Or all, so Geralt jumps on everything thats not on three on a tree

But, i understand why asking for this.

 

[web-head91]

Apart from the Ciri disaster stuff I don't think so. You have to make some choices (like Radovid vs Emhyr or Cerys vs Hjalmar) but none of them felt really meaningful for Geralt or cause a serious moral conflict and none of them really bite you in the ass somewhere down the line. There are some nice side quests with this stuff but they are rather limited in scope and influence.

so in short: the main quest is nothing like the first and second game then ? and choice & consequences barely matter ?...
this is sad v_v