[SPOILERS]Romance in TW2

[wichat]

FREEDOM? we have it with a character which have already his history. In the Witcher's games Geralt is not you but you are Geralt. For the freedom of customize your main character there are others game designed for this purpose. We'll can do it in CP2077, e.g.

As regards to sex and blood, let's just read the content warning labels before buying a game.

Please, let's try to respect the Geralt's original essence as CDPR does

 

[AltheAxe]

I enjoyed the sex scene/cards in W1, thought they added to the story and as another poster said some of the artwork was impressive. W2 got the balance about right. In the books, Geralt is far from a prude and the game reflects this without stepping into porn or 'Benny Hill'. In W3 I think the option to have a 'prude ' button sounds a good solution.

 

[Mothra]

I don't get where all that freedom-talk comes from ?
This is a story-driven decision-repercussion-heavy CRPG (C stands for character) where you play a well defined, known character born out of a series of books in an establishes universe with its own rules. The story/character should dictate your actions and decisions, not some wish for freedom to do what you like.
Best example is the way most last acts of games play out where you usually have an emotional peak, high stakes and pressing matters to attend to while many games give you story-unrelated quests to pad the running time while that character should be rushing to the conclusion bc lives are at stake and (insert xyz here) should be saved.

The whole freedom-thing can be done in open world RPGs where you define your own character/class and the main quest is just secondary to the game. It reminds me of that thread where ppl wanted Geralt to have a farm and plant crops bc, you know, it is OPEN WORLD.


PS: Regarding previous post about maturity level:
I say CDPR's maturity level is sometimes defined (not measured) by juvenlie gamers expectations where maturity equals tits and quick meaningless sex.
I don't mind having Geralt a few sexual escapades if it FITS inside his state of mind/the overall feel of the situation, not while he is trying to solve deep emotional issues or life-threating situations or trying to connect to his loved ones. CDPR tries to give the new Geralt (after his "resurrection") an emotional arc, a story of self-discovery. Having him run up to any NPC with tits and having sex after an exchange of 2 lines between TOTAL strangers does not add to the story in any way.

 

[Aaden]

I don't get where all that freedom-talk comes from ?
This is a story-driven decision-repercussion-heavy CRPG (C stands for character) where you play a well defined, known character born out of a series of books in an establishes universe with its own rules. The story/character should dictate your actions and decisions, not some wish for freedom to do what you like.

Just to prevent future confusion: the 'C' in 'CRPG' stands for 'computer', not 'character'. The term is as general as it sounds (meaning it includes just about any sub-genre of RPGs for video gaming systems), but is most commonly used for computer role-playing games that bring pen&paper-like roleplaying systems to the computer - Ultima, Wizardry, Baldur's Gate, Drakensang, Realms of Arkania etc etc.
Contrary to your description, those, among other virtues, have in common that your character is mostly a blank slate and is defined by your actions and choices throughout the game.

Either way, I agree with your point of view: Geralt is a largely defined character and freedom should only be granted within constraints that his character allows and that suits the narrative.

 

[Mizzen01]

Wichat, mothra, you have "your" Geralt and your standart of morality in your mind and you want to IMPOSE them to everybody. This is not Call of Duty. This is not a lineal history. In TW2 there are a two paths and a lot of different finals depending of the desitions in game. For example you can chose to be friend of Iovert or enemy. Well, I like it and I want even more desitions, even more freedom to chose if my Geralt falls in love, try to seduce or make a friend or an enemy.

And of course, I admit that you doesn´t like sex scenes. Why cant you admit that I do like it? Other games, as CoD, gives the player the option to disable bloody scenes, for example. Why TW3 can´t have this option with sex and blood? I think that would be the best way to make happy people as me, who like mature games and doesn´t offend with sex and kink in a game, and people like you who does.

Freedom and not impositions. It´s the key in the game and in real life.

 

[Demut]

Mothra be droppin’ mad truth bombs in here.

 

[Mothra]

the term character rpg was penned by cdpr in one of their first interviews as a play on the crpg convention of having a blank slate. I should have pointed that out.

and I do not impose my views on anyone. I give my opinion and counter-arguments to other's arguments. Like in .... a discussion you know, where opposite opinions try to make their point clear. I never said anywhere that I do not like sex scenes but I tried to rebutt the notion that the "sex scenes" in TW1 had any meaningful contribution to the story or gave you a way to "role-play" since most of them were out of the blue without any previous hint that a sexual encounter would appear. I would rather argue that the depiction of sex and romance in the MassEffect series is the most prudish and laughable way you could do it.

And COD is a bad comparison, this 2 games could not be further apart.
The decison to go with Roche or Iorveth in TW2 is a prime example how you do decision in a good way because each decision has advantages/drawbacks and show different views on the same dilema that is integral to the story without having a clear good/bad distinction. shades of grey.

My standard of morality is in no way aligned with Geralt. My roleplaying of Geralt is in line with his character though.

Disabling sex/blood would take away from the story as the developers would like to tell it with all the impact they try to convey. I rather be annoyed by something if it does not fit my interpretation but can respect its existance than having CDPR go all censorship just to please a few fans with different viewpoints.

When presented with censorship or (imo) laughable sexual encounters I would go with the latter anytime. Games that try to be everything to everyone end up being mediocre and without a personal voice.

 

[Demut]

I would rather argue that the depiction of sex and romance in the MassEffect series is the most prudish and laughable way you could do it.

Well, what do you expect if a talentless hack like Hamburger Hepler is allowed to be involved in the writing process?

 

[wichat]

Impositions? I accept what CDPR give us without ask anything to them in order changing their way of do it their games. I believe that asking to CDPR for changing thier philosofy is closer to an imposition.

Please, reviews the posts and read calmly. Listen to the interviews given by CDPR and accept the fact that The Witcher games are not conventional RPGs. And I would like them to remain unconventional as Geralt of Rivia concerns.

As regards about "impositions".... CDPR has imposed us Geralt of Rivia, a hunter of monsters very definite and very strong past, gamer likes it or not.

If CDPR's tell us they will make TW3 much closer about Geralt of books for players in order to learn this impressive character, why change his personality in an alleged sake of freedom of action that would contradict completely the figure of Geralt?

And don't blame me, I didn't put you the -1. I hate to put red markers. Green is always better />.

 

[Mothra]

Now that you pointed it out I see it for the first time !
+/- reputation system. I do not like it. anonymous down/upvoting is bad. rather give an opinion in a post.
Stay0Frosty should not be punished (even if it is just a meaningless -1 on a fan forum) for voicing his opinion.
He did not act hostile or disrespectful in any way.
HIGH-FIVE BRO

 

[Mizzen01]

Mothra, we all give opinions, but your opinion is that the Geralt in TW3 should be limited to your view about the caracter and be IMPOSED to all. Anyway, this discusion goes nowhere, because I suppose that you aren´t a developer, and developers will do the game the way they think is better and doesn´t care about your opinion or mine. Next year, if deadlines are met, I´ll read the reviews and videos and I´ll see if the new game is something that I want to buy, or is too prude or lineal for me. It´s simple.

PD. About the reputation system, it´s my very first day in this forum. I don´t know how it works, but your are right, upvoting should be only for disrespectful post.

 

[Demut]

For me the anonymity isn’t the biggest problem of this system (although it adds to it). My gripe with this thing that it’s utterly worthless in my opinion. Unconstructive criticism in general is. What good does it do me when I know that some anonymous people liked or disliked my post? It would be much better if said people would come forward and articulate what they did or did not like. Otherwise one can’t rightly act on said criticism.

[...] I´ll see if the new game is something that I want to buy, or is too prude or lineal for me.

I thought it was a typo before but now I feel compelled to point out to you that “linear” is probably the word that you are actually looking for

 

[Mothra]

Mothra, we all give opinions, but your opinion is that the Geralt in TW3 should be limited to your view about the caracter and be IMPOSED to all. Anyway, this discusion goes nowhere, because I suppose that you aren´t a developer, and developers will do the game the way they think is better and doesn´t care about your opinion or mine. Next year, if deadlines are met, I´ll read the reviews and videos and I´ll see if the new game is something that I want to buy, or is too prude or lineal for me. It´s simple.

PD. About the reputation system, it´s my very first day in this forum. I don´t know how it works, but your are right, upvoting should be only for disrespectful post.

lol, i do not want Geralt to be limited to my view, it should be limited to the way he is being described in the first 2 games. The journal is full of information about him, the discussions he has with his friends or enemies paint a clear picture and the way CDPR implemented the role-playing in this game (shades of grey, morality-heavy decisions) impose rules on the way the character can be handled in a realistic manner (inside the fiction they created). I do not impose anything on anyone and I am tired of repeating myself.
And the discussion did go somewhere imo by presenting contrasting views. I just think your responses did not give any examples regarding the TW universe, just about RPGs in general.
Since nobody here is a developer or has direct influence on the game NONE of any of the discussions on this board go anywhere but this can't stop us from discussing it anyway because we care about the game/the universe.

 

[Aaden]

developers will do the game the way they think is better and doesn´t care about your opinion or mine.

You're mistaken about that. CDPR do read the forums and participate in discussions (although the latter mostly on the Polish boards, afaik), and they do discuss, think about and consider things that are brought up here. So, keep your feedback coming, discussions about almost anything are welcome and may in fact be helpful in the development process.

 

[dragonbird]

If you want a 007 style Geralt who tries to seduce every woman or pay for sex, it´s OK.

I'm OK with "try" as long as some of the women say no. The idea that every woman will say yes if asked is something I'd oppose on every level. This is supposed to be a video game, not an interactive story, and I don't see why choice and consequence shouldn't come into play on this, as with any other element of the game. It would also offend me to think that the game is portraying women as Drones Who Always Say Yes To Sex. That isn't the kind of message I'd expect to see in any game that expects to be taken seriously.

 

[gedierond]

I'm OK with "try" as long as some of the women say no. The idea that every woman will say yes if asked is something I'd oppose on every level. This is supposed to be a video game, not an interactive story, and I don't see why choice and consequence shouldn't come into play on this, as with any other element of the game. It would also offend me to think that the game is portraying women as Drones Who Always Say Yes To Sex. That isn't the kind of message I'd expect to see in any game that expects to be taken seriously.

Pretty much this. If one wants to play Geralt as a womanizer, trying to get into every woman´s pants, that´s fine. However, women who actually accept the proposal should be relatively few.
The possible sex partners in TW1 were too many IMO, and some of them were laughably cheesy to get ("Give me a present and you´ll get laid"). In TW2 the balance was perfect IMO. You can "choose" to fall in love with Triss, and have options for other sex partners, all logical and plausible to get. And you can hit on some women which will flatly say "no", which is perfect.

Edit:
I do agree with the OP in that taking Shani out of the picture completely was a bit lame, though.

 

[Mizzen01]

Mothra, I´m from Spain, english is my second lenguage (probably this is obvious), and I don´t express myself in this lenguage with the accuracy I would like. I don´t want that Geralt can be a woman or an elf, for example. I don´t want a 100% sandbox game as "the sims". I have read the novels and the short stories and I know who Geralt is. There are limits in the caracters, but, without leaving those limits, I would like to be as free as possible in the game, because the game also is free (with limits) about the novels. For example, in novels Triss isn´t like in the games. In games she have more personality and "guts", she is more like Yennefer is in novels. In TW2 there are two posibilities of make an ally or an enemy, a posibility of romance, a few of sex and some decisions that determines the end of the game. Even there are decisions that have the consecuence of be killed. In TW3 I would like more, and this means more freedom.

Also, novels aren´t prude at all. There are sex (straigh and gay), drugs, senseless violence (in one of the novels, Ciri becomes a lesbian juvenile "gansta" addicted to drugs and violence) , betrayal, ambition, etc. The game should not be prude at all. In novels Geralt loves Yennefer, but have love affairs with a lot of women. Yennefer the same, she even have two lovers at the same time (Geralt and a sorcerer) in one of the short stories. In one of the novels, even being in love with Geralt, Triss have a lesbian affair with Phillipa... I want the possibility of this kind of things in the game too... or to chose to make him devoted to an unique love, If I prefer. This is the kind of freedom that I would like in the new game, because this kind of things enrich the personality or the caracter. Is a bit like create your own story. There is much of this in TW2 and I like, so in TW3 I want more.

 

[Mizzen01]

dragonbird, I agree. I wrote "try to seduce", not "seduce". It´s for example like when Geralt try to intimidate someone in TW", and sometimes can´t.

 

[Mothra]

Mothra, I´m from Spain, english is my second lenguage (probably this is obvious), and I don´t express myself in this lenguage with the accuracy I would like. I don´t want that Geralt can be a woman or an elf, for example. I don´t want a 100% sandbox game as "the sims". I have read the novels and the short stories and I know who Geralt is. There are limits in the caracters, but, without leaving those limits, I would like to be as free as possible in the game, because the game also is free (with limits) about the novels. For example, in novels Triss isn´t like in the games. In games she have more personality and "guts", she is more like Yennefer is in novels. In TW2 there are two posibilities of make an ally or an enemy, a posibility of romance, a few of sex and some decisions that determines the end of the game. Even there are decisions that have the consecuence of be killed. In TW3 I would like more, and this means more freedom.

Also, novels aren´t prude at all. There are sex (straigh and gay), drugs, senseless violence (in one of the novels, Ciri becomes a lesbian juvenile "gansta" addicted to drugs and violence) , betrayal, ambition, etc. The game should not be prude at all. In novels Geralt loves Yennefer, but have love affairs with a lot of women. Yennefer the same, she even have two lovers at the same time (Geralt and a sorcerer) in one of the short stories. In one of the novels, even being in love with Geralt, Triss have a lesbian affair with Phillipa... I want the possibility of this kind of things in the game too... or to chose to make him devoted to an unique love, If I prefer. This is the kind of freedom that I would like in the new game, because this kind of things enrich the personality or the caracter. Is a bit like create your own story. There is much of this in TW2 and I like, so in TW3 I want more.

Now we're talking
I can see where you are coming from and can understand your reasoning behind it. The way you put it there I can agree with, the thing that concerned me with your previous posts was that is was presented in a "loose" manner and (as I interpreted it) with a lot of generalisations. Thanks for that elaborate post and trying to convey it in your 2nd language (english is not my mother tongue as well as you can see from my location).

 

[przemuch]

Whatever "freedom" or "options" could possibly mean in this context, adding more restrictions compared with previous games (at least in "personal" department) makes sense.

The first one had amnesiac without roots, additionally affected by whatever "emotional atrophy", even if it was less significant or less "chemical" than in average case. Add to that he just lost decades of experiences, character development, relations etc. Player has - and I guess *should* have - a lot of control over what happens in his private life. Then stuff happens, some memories come back, soon Geralt lives his life for a while without players' interference, until he wakes up in that tent. I still don't get the rage behind that tbh, it's like people expected their "shanified" decisions were suddenly supposed to result in what, "until death" relationship because reasons? If there was a big dowry involved, with Geralt being a nobleman - or a peasant - then sure... Thankfully, he is not MMO character either. (which makes me wonder if Witcher I wasn't a better choice for open world game instead of 3, but hey...)

Second game? With more memories coming back, Geralt didn't even get a choice that could be comparable with the previous game, it was more like deciding for or against Triss, Ves is nowhere near that dilemma, a side story, both literally and figuratively and with obvious disparity, that is not even concluded (mostly because there was nothing more to conclude). Whatever people would like to see, Geralt offers no indications it was anything more for him.

Then we get to the third game, with Geralt being his own man again, with all those years and experiences back in his head. Sure, whatever is shown by the story can make him reevaluate and perhaps make other options available. Make it convincing enough and hell, let him marry a mermaid for all I care - but horse before the cart, with plausible story offering an explanation, not because he meets a mermaid with funny dialogue lines and some players feel "their" Geralt "connects" with her based on sketchy interpretations or, heck, just on "because I want it so". That last argument should make the least sense now, with hero being the opposite of a blank slate. It doesn't mean we have to suddenly play a monogamous witcher, this guy didn't exactly spurn Fringilla in the middle of a similar journey. But there's a big difference between some opportunistic one-night-stands and "seducing" or whatever you call actively pursuing a woman over time you don't really have. Makes no sense. What else, 0-100 Seduction Progress Bar?




(not-so-related thing after reading some posts in this thread)
As for sex without any significant strings attached (either by a story or by players)... We get constant reminders in books that witchers were... going around, at least in the eyes of "normal" people. Granted, if it's mentioned right next to being an abomination, magical, unnatural freak offending the gods, certain hyperbole is a given. But on the other hand, there's no smoke without fire - and it's not hard to imagine they might be both compensating for screwed up emotional side and also lacking empathy, which in turn results in treating sex as instrumentally as possible. Add in all factors that were already mentioned time and time again like sterility, immunity, that magical-ish aura of sorts, word of mouth about their "experience" or even freak factor. Last, but not least, women themselves who might actually have different notions about sex than they do in whatever cultural circle gamer is from; oh and there's no christian morality to dictate anything about sexuality either, aside from some random weirdo monks here and there. That would be more than enough to justify even the silliest Witcher I pieces, with some of them transferring to Witcher 3 assuming no clashes with more important things that part introduces. But here's more...

With only a shell of Geralt being playable in Witcher I, even cards have their place - all those "it's objectifying" arguments do not specify why he shouldn't be able to act exactly like that, especially with what's been mentioned above. He is not a role model, this is not a educational game either - and players have quite a lot of ways to choose a different behavior. As for women being portrayed as if their sexuality is the only bargaining chip - well, it very often was. Gold? Not really. Influence? Sometimes, if story supports it - how often influence over a dumb village elder means anything, really. Information? Sure, Geralt totally needs to know butcher's son has herpes. Thing is, the lower you go on feudal ladder, the bigger the chance NPCs, where "N" stands for "nobody", can offer you *literally* nothing except for a few coins, usually pooled by the entire village or a district. If we get a story that suddenly has each of those penniless NPCs being able to offer you a secret entrance to the castle, rare meteorite steel found in a latrine, family heirloom ring that makes you invisible and brings some random screaming wraiths... then it's contrived and it basically screams "I am here for the sake of appearances". Meh.