Why can you let all your villain go?

[destroyraiden]

Why can you let all your villain go?

In 2 I cold let alot of villains go literally why is this ? Isn't the point of having a heroic character the ability to stop evil characters? We let the sorceress go you can let the guy you were hunting the whole game go I can let various npcs go this is very odd. Why is it in here to volunteer to let so and so evil characters go?

 

[bcheero]

The point is to have the freedom to do it. Why should I kill Letho when my Geralt doesn't believe he needs to be killed? This isn't a classic good vs evil story.

 

[CostinRaz]

Because Letho is not a villain. He's an antagonist, and you don't need to kill him.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

I am really tempted to just shout profanities at you right now op.

Instead, I will just say that as I respect your right to voice such opinions, I also appreciate the possibility to spare characters should I wish it. No one forces you to spare them. If you want to kill them, kill them.

But do not presume that such choices should not be there. If you do, The Witcher is clearly not for you, go play something else.

 

[wichat]

Do you prefer that your hero loose completly his humanity, his freewill and become an rentless android such a kind of Terninator?

 

[BluesBrotha.966]

Consequences

 

[destroyraiden]

That's just a very strange concept maybe its present in more PC games but in console game the majority don't let you let your main villain go its considered very anticlimactic its similar to the hero meeting the villain then throwing down his sword and walking away. I can see having a choice to let a sub-boss or evil npc character go once but not several times and at the end when they're obviously causing a coup really makes no sense story wise.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

*facepalm*
Not going to even bother.

 

[tommy5761]

I believe it`s called choices and consequences . The devs have decided to give YOU control of who lives and who dies based on how you play the game and not how they should think you NEED to play the game .

 

[GuyNwah]

That's just a very strange concept maybe its present in more PC games but in console game the majority don't let you let your main villain go its considered very anticlimactic its similar to the hero meeting the villain then throwing down his sword and walking away. I can see having a choice to let a sub-boss or evil npc character go once but not several times and at the end when they're obviously causing a coup really makes no sense story wise.

The point of this game is to upset all your expectations. You're getting close when you think of it as a strange concept. This strange concept is what is properly called a mature game, one in which juvenile conventions have been overthrown and replaced by a world of hard-boiled realism.

There is no silly hero/villain, good/evil, Light Side/Dark Side duality to be found here. There is only your responsibility to your friends and to your good name, and your willingness to help preserve or upend a Hobbesian social order. (KnightofPhoenix got it exactly right in another thread. The politics in this land are straight out of Leviathan.)

Who's to say he's a villain? He's your onetime buddy. He saved your woman. (He may have saved both of them.) He bears you no grudge and has done you no lasting harm. If your need for a climax still needs to be satisfied by killing him, kill him. His death will bring out the pointless waste of life in a world that "lost its virginity in a rape" even more clearly.

 

[CostinRaz]

Eloquently put Guy.

 

[thibbledorf_spent]

Consequences

This.

That's what makes the Witcher 2 such a great game. You (the player) can decide a lot of how things play out. That's one of the negative things about most games. No matter what you do, Character X must die.

 

[pomor]

And what exactly is wrong with having an option? Like, I happen to believe that Letho deserve to be killed. But me deciding to kill him, had had much greater impact of the story for me, then the game just forcing me to do it, whatever my preference may be.

 

[secondchildren]

That's just a very strange concept maybe its present in more PC games but in console game the majority don't let you let your main villain go its considered very anticlimactic its similar to the hero meeting the villain then throwing down his sword and walking away. I can see having a choice to let a sub-boss or evil npc character go once but not several times and at the end when they're obviously causing a coup really makes no sense story wise.

Then you have found a very uncommon game to play on the console. Happy?

 

[emberstrife]

I'm still a bit sad the game forces you to kill the final boss in TW1. After hearing the main villain's (very convincing) reasoning for doing what he had to do, it felt as if by killing him I have doomed the world.

Unlike TW1, TW2 lets you decide the fate of the story's "villains" - you can evaluate their deeds and motivations, and decide for yourself whether their death will make the Witcher world a better place. It's one of the things that make TW2 worthy of calling itself a "mature" game - it provides players food for thought and lets them make the hard decisions themselves.

 

[secondchildren]

I'm still a bit sad the game forces you to kill the final boss in TW1. After hearing the main villain's (very convincing) reasoning for doing what he had to do, it felt as if by killing him I have doomed the world.

Almost, I mean, you have the chance to kill De aldersberg yourself or leave him to the King of the Wild Hunt. The result is the same, De Aldersberg dies in the end, but you can do it with your hands or leave it to the spectre's.

 

[zero_phoenix]

Most of them weren't really your enemies, which simply had to be the point. It was a game where you're a pinball, stuck between bumpers.

Actually, the only characters I wanted to kill were the Nilfgaard Ambassador and Henselt. Sile... I didn't take the jewel out in time.

Letho's like you though, the wrong place at the wrong time. He even said a few times that he's not your enemy.

Geralt's player perceived allegiance to Temeria, Kings, or Others is subjective; as you can make that choice yourself through dialogue.

 

[Gocko]

In 2 I cold let alot of villains go literally why is this ? Isn't the point of having a heroic character the ability to stop evil characters? We let the sorceress go you can let the guy you were hunting the whole game go I can let various npcs go this is very odd. Why is it in here to volunteer to let so and so evil characters go?

Geralt isn't exactly what I'd call "Heroic". He's no hero fighting for a cause, trying to save the world and cleanse it from evil. He fights for himself and his friends. Sure he has a heart of gold, but he has a free will and does what he feels is best.

 

[datirishguy]

So you don't want choices and consequences in your game, yes? Well "they who hath be named" would cater to your needs.

 

[3DMaster]

I believe it`s called choices and consequences . The devs have decided to give YOU control of who lives and who dies based on how you play the game and not how they should think you NEED to play the game .

Ah, that's not entirely true. I can't kill Triss (and other assorted characters), so...

And I really want to kill Triss to. God damn, what a disgusting bitch.