Quests with negative consequences

[whiplash27]

Quests with negative consequences

I keep hearing about the fact that if you decide not to do a certain quest it may have certain consequences on the story line. However, there's no mention about whether maybe doing certain quests have negative consequences? Maybe by helping someone, that person then goes on to do something terrible. Maybe killing a certain monster actually has a negative impact on the town/world (think of troll trouble or something).

It would be interesting if it worked both ways. Skipping a quest may have some consequences and doing some quests can have some consequences. It would make players think before accepting a quest.

 

[Aes Sídhe]

Ok, I'll bite, a little nibble anyway. Surely not getting a positive benefit is analogous to a negative, non-beneficial result? There are other quests in TW2 off the top of my head that resulted in minor negative consequences from the npc involved. The Elf woman in Flotsam for instance, the other Troll in the ravines in Vergen. I admit I deliberately don't chase down every gamer site report on the game, as I prefer the speculation from the members here who I know are familiar with the game, rather than a dubious "journalist" for a site with their own agendas. I don't need the hype after all.

But I recall something was said, I think during the original CDPR announcement conference, about how the side quests, whether you do them & how they result, could factor into the main quest line.

If they realise their intention to be unlike Skyrims "all npcs know everything about you and treat you the same", then that would require some variation in how Geralt gets treated depending on your previous actions.

In short, yes, in this "story driven open world", I expect a more complex reaction system dependent on your behaviour.

or am I mixing this up with CP2077..? lol

 

[volsung]

They already did things like this in TW1.

Spoiler

If you let the Scoia'tael take Haren's weapons at the Outskirts they might kill Coleman at the Hairy Bear, making it impossible to deliver the parcel.

 

[darcler]

I've been discussing this idea on CP2077 forums (relevant post is here, I believe). CRPGs got us used to thinking that after every quest there's a reward awaiting us, and that completing a quest generally earns you respect/love/karma. So it's a good thing. There are some instances in various games of quests that turn the idea upside down, but more for a surprise value than anything else. It would be good if there finally was a CRPG where completing a quest, or even undertaking a quest, wasn't necessarily a good thing. BUT that should be actually a part of the game, and not a single quest instance. You should use your own rational thinking and moral compass to assess the quest before taking or completing it, and if you don't, then there will be negative consequences of your choice.

 

[GuyNwah]

Since TW1 already had these, many times over, I do not follow the argument that there aren't such games already.

Spoiler

Just see what happens if you let the villagers lynch Abigail, or if you kill the werewolf.

 

[FoggyFishburne]

I think that's the road they've taken in designing the quests op. I don't think that every quest you pass on will have consequences and quests you do won't have any consequences. I'm pretty sure they're gonna mix it up. That way there's always gonna be some suspense and tension on whether or not you should undertake a certain mission.

 

[Wazhai]

I'd love to see more quests along the lines of The Scent of Incense. The quest giver might try to trick the witcher into helping him with illegal and/or immoral deeds for their own benefit. There are quite a few examples of people trying to persuade Geralt to do things that he doesn't find right in the short stories.

Here are a couple examples for such quests:
-a shady character offering very good payment for "doing them a favor" upfront
-someone pretending to have good intentions which might be found questionable by some players; it shouldn't be as obvious as in The Scent of Incense, often making the player realize what they have really done too late to do anything about it

 

[whiplash27]

The Scent of Incense is a good example. Although with that one there are no lasting effects of your choice to do the quest. It's not like after the fact you see people all around under the influence of "legal fisstech." Also if you kill the bandits in the cave after the fact, it doesn't have an effect on the journal entry.

In TW1 the Abigail quest is a choice that's part of a quest. The werewolf one is a choice as part of a quest at first, but the quest after the fact is a good example. However, with that quest the outcome isn't all that bad if you chose not to complete it and the result was good if you chose to complete it. The weapons one is another choice as part of a quest. It's not a choice to do the quest or not do it.

The Scent of Incense is the best example of what I'm thinking of except with an actual consequence that's visible in the game world. Wazhai gave some good examples of how it could work.

 

[SystemShock7]

I pointed this out on another thread about choices and how they affect the story, not always in a "good" or "bad" way.
Just in the prologue of TW2 alone:

Sassing Roche during the interview.
Talking to the Crinfrid Reavers.
The Aryan La Valette encounter.
Whether you go left or right in the dungeon once you leave your cell.

Those I can remember off the top of my head. So I expect more of the same.

 

[Wazhai]

actual consequence that's visible in the game world

Yes, absolutely. The point of quests with negative outcome is nullified unless there is a clear consequence as a result of your choice.

I pointed this out on another thread about choices and how they affect the story, not always in a "good" or "bad" way.
Just in the prologue of TW2 alone:

Sassing Roche during the interview.
Talking to the Crinfrid Reavers.
The Aryan La Valette encounter.
Whether you go left or right in the dungeon once you leave your cell.

Those I can remember off the top of my head. So I expect more of the same.

The world of Geralt is filled with corruption and crime. Quests with clear negative outcomes would certainly make everything more interesting and real, in addition to making the player think before accepting and doing every quest mindlessly. Despite all the grays in this world, we shouldn't limit ourselves and not have clear good and evil from time to time, good and bad choices. Bad choices sometimes happen and it is human to make them, every choice being valid and morally gray isn't the best route for each situation. Choices that turn out to have been bad would have a greater emotional impact on the player as well.

 

[SystemShock7]

Yes, absolutely. The point of quests with negative outcome is nullified unless there is a clear consequence as a result of your choice.


The world of Geralt is filled with corruption and crime. Quests with clear negative outcomes would certainly make everything more interesting and real, in addition to making the player think before accepting and doing every quest mindlessly. Despite all the grays in this world, we shouldn't limit ourselves and not have clear good and evil from time to time, good and bad choices. Bad choices sometimes happen and it is human to make them, every choice being valid and morally gray isn't the best route for each situation. Choices that turn out to have been bad would have a greater emotional impact on the player as well.

I don't get what you are driving at. There is a difference between choices that turn out to be bad and choices with clear negative outcomes. Choices that turn out to be bad fall under "gray".

Spoiler

If you talk to the Crinfrid Reavers, yo have the option to tell the Reavers the medallion will protect the boy in battle even if he doesn't use any armor. If you do, the boy dies. Clear.

The first encounter with Aryan, you know he's the heir to the La Valettes because Foltest. You have a clear choice to kill him or not, and surely understand the consequences.

I can keep on throwing examples at you, but I don't know exactly what do you mean, as Witcher has a number of choices the player needs to make which which go from good to evil, black to white., and every in between.

 

[Maerd.298]

Despite all the grays in this world, we shouldn't limit ourselves and not have clear good and evil from time to time, good and bad choices. Bad choices sometimes happen and it is human to make them, every choice being valid and morally gray isn't the best route for each situation. Choices that turn out to have been bad would have a greater emotional impact on the player as well.

Geralt does a lot of "good" quests, several "grey" quests and can be tricked to do something he wouldn't do otherwise but outright evil quests just don't fit his character and if everyone will be giving trick quests it won't be so fun anymore because you will be expecting tricks on every corner. The number of deceits must be reasonable to be believable. I think TW2 has done it right. Btw, unfortunately, chapter 1 in TW2, based on several items laying around, seems like had quite a few unfinished "grey" quests that were abandoned by devs.

 

[jaabaa]

Btw, unfortunately, chapter 1 in TW2, based on several items laying around, seems like had quite a few unfinished "grey" quests that were abandoned by devs.

What items are you talking about?

 

[Maerd.298]

What items are you talking about?

Like a letter to Thaler (but you cannot give it to Thaler's agent), Margo notes that expose her, Margo's letter to Iorveth that you don't have an option to deliver, letter that proves of Luise Merse's corruption, and some other items, there were quite a few of them. I think these items belong to abandoned for various reasons quests.