I understand, @
KnightofPhoenix .
I also strongly disagree.
For me, the depiction of politics in the
Witcher 3: Wild Hunt are a display of a single persistent theme which resonates throughout the game and that is the overwhelming ambiguity of a situation as large as the Nilfgaard invasion of the North. You can certainly argue that the politics of the game are superficial, devoid of meaning, and limited. I'd argue, instead, that the politics of the Witcher 3 are FLAWED and INCOMPLETE rather than this. I can only speak to my interpretation of events rather than any objective qualities regarding the issue.
There are no dozens of factions all interacting and interrelating in a massive web.
The Novigrad section is a political situation involving Nilfgaard, Redania, the Church of Eternal Fire, the Sorceresses, and the Alliance of Crime Lords. It is a delicate balance of power we watch disintegrate and is predicated on numerous factors which slowly get widdled down to nothing.
There are no systemic changes and macro-processes that go beyond the individual and beyond temporary political arrangements, there are no real themes and thematic oppositions, there are no multifaceted phenomena or multifaceted portrayal of war.
The idea there's no themes or thematic oppositions in Wild Hunt or a multifaceted portrayal of war is, however, simply difficult to parse. I feel the depiction of war in the first two Acts of Wild Hunt is one I find to be one of my favorite in fantasy gaming. For me, I think its use of both visual imagery and background information provides a multifaceted and interesting vision of the Nilfgaard-Northern conflict.
Much is left to the interpretation of the player because it is background information but we're provided more than enough to draw inferences and judgement about both how the war is effecting the common people as well as the nobility. If one ignores the Notice Boards, Background conversations, and does not explore then you are unlikely to gain a full understanding of the progress of the war though because the War is merely a backdrop for Geralt's more personal search for Ciri.
However, just like the Civil War plays a role both emotionally and storytelling wise in "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" so does the Third Nilfgaard War form an important stage for the events of his conflict with the Wild Hunt to play out.
There are no economic, geo-strategic, and social factions interacting so seamlessly, in such a way that it also avoids overloading players with too much unnecessary information.
Economic, Geo-Strategic, and Social Factions are all referenced in the game. None of these particularly relate to the overarching quest to find Ciri but they're factors which get referenced as well as provide a stable backdrop to the realism and authenticity of the game's setting.
There is no exploration of the psyche of individuals and of peoples (in fact one thing I regret not doing is writing a focus piece on the psychological trauma that the elves have experienced, which manifests itself in many different ways, represented by Yaevin, Iorveth, and Cedric).
The idea there is no exploration of the psyche of individuals and of peoples with the situation of the Bloody Baron and the people of Velen with their relationship to the Crones, environment, religion, and the war is....silly.
The articles written are necessarily superficial and generic, as the subject matter itself is (and again, I hope I do not come across as overly aggressive, it is not my intent). The Witcher 2 did have all this, on the other hand, masterfully so.
The articles are covering, of course, not a single topic from the game but giving a basic overview of the political issues raised in the game as well as topics which are valid points of discussion. Just as you could do a thesis on any single element of Citizen Kane (which Wild Hunt is, not remotely, qualified to rival) you could talk about any single element of the game at length.
My original intent was to write a article purely about the Third Nilfgaard War and its players but decided instead to focus on providing a larger overview.
---------- Updated at 03:41 AM ----------
Edit:
Honestly, I'd like to say that the big thing I like about the Third Nilfgaard War as the backdrop for the game is that it is the majority portion of what amounts to the real overriding theme of TW3WH. Specifically, it is closing the chapter on Geralt's story by forming a story about the transition of the North which forms a lovely linked theme (accidental or otherwise) to Ciri's move from girl to woman.
How much of this is the work of CD_Projekt Red's writers and how much is the efforts of Sapkowski being transmitted from the page to pixels by copying themes of the books is debatable but either way, the effect is the same. The larger themes of the book were "The End of the Old, the Beginning of the New."
In this case, W3 is about saying goodbye to the North we've known from the previous two games and the disintegration of the ragtag alliance of kingdoms and principalities the titular Witcher thrived in for either its absorbtion into the Nilfgaardian Empire or its transitioning from a loosely-allied set of feudal states to a single economically-driven united autocracy.
I confess, I think a lot of the problems people have with the story of the Witcher 3 is it's not that the content for a serious political and emotional story isn't there, it's just that the story is very bloated and loose when it should be tight. The elements for extremely good storylines equal to those of AOK2 Wild Hunt are all present but they're hours apart and countless miles of travel as well as sidequests apart.
Another thing is the themes of W3 are diametrically opposed to one another in terms of their opinion of politics as well as the larger role of the individual. AOK2 is based on the "One Great Man of History" model as well as a "Game of Thrones" chess model where events move as a series of moves and countermoves. W3 is, by contrast, closer to my own view of politics which is that the One Great Man of History model is complete crap.
Events move in wild uncontrollable directions with effects and long-term effects largely invisible to their participants. The murky confusing nature of war, gains, and strategic value of specific targets are invisible to the participants and only slightly less opaque to the commanders above. I confess, there are places where corners were obviously cut like Henselt's Sword of Damocles' esque Death and absence of any larger effects from the Pontar Valley affair but even that mattered little to me as AOK was clear Nilfgaard's invasion WOULD render the political gambits of the 2nd game pointless anyway.
Hence the final scene.
All the plans of Kings and Popes go out the window due to the vagaries of fate or, in this case, Emperor Emhyr.
BTW, catching up on your writings! They're awesome!
