Witcher 3 sells itself as gray and morally ambiguous but it really isn't

[dasft]

A Knight's Tales is quite interesting too, is more a detective process, but have some dreadful results, before realize how to organize something almost good.

Because there is no full rescuing in terms of a present body.

 

[Guest 3847602]

Well, for me there were still a fair amount of quests with morally ambiguous outcomes and really difficult choices. The most memorable were:

- how to deal with Temerian insurgent in Precious Cargo
- leaving the woman to her fate in Wild at Heart or killing Niellen (the werewolf)
- telling the truth to the mother of Nilfgaardian soldier (deserter) or lying to her in Blood Ties
- killing or sparing Gaetan in Where the Cat and Wolf Play
- siding with the elder or Sven in In the Heart of the Woods
- fighting the soldier or walking away in From a Land Far, Far Away

bonus:

Spoiler

- resisting Shani or not in A Midnight Clear :wub:

All of them are obviously the secondary quests and I think there is the main difference compared to TW1 and 2, where most difficult decisions were part of the main questline so they were more memorable. In the previous games the secondary quests were pretty straightforward for me regarding which outcome was favored by the writers. For many of them I was even awarded the sex cards in TW1. :teeth:

For all their other faults, I still think Bioware does difficult choices and consequences better than anyone.

Spoiler

I can only speak about Mass Effect games (since I've played just one from Dragon Age series), but while it is true that they have offered many choices throughout the trilogy that initially seemed difficult, the paragon options almost without exception were proven to be the better (more rewarding) ones in the end (The Rachni, saving the council, supporting Anderson, destruction of the Collector's base, etc...).
IMO, that's partially the reason why ME3 ending was received by fans the way it was (beside the incoherent writing) - there was just no way to have your cake and eat it too when dealing with Catalyst.

 

[Rawls]

^ I agree that there are many difficult decisions related to side quests. I also agree that it's the lack of difficult decisions in the main quest that creates the impression that I have about this game. I also agree that the "bonus round" one is one of the choices I've felt most conflicted about every time ... although I must admit my Geralt has never been able to be 100% faithful ...

 

[KingHochmeister]

My main issue with the game (other than my incessant ranting about the last act) is that the game really "whitewashes" the decisions Geralt makes, in Witcher 1 if you sided with either the Flaming Rose or the Scoia'tael, friends of Geralt will literally call him and idiot and criticize his stupid decisions in their eyes, in Witcher 2 it wasn't as much as in the first game but there were cases of people criticizing Geralt's decisions, in Witcher 3 however, almost no one criticizes Geralt's decisions, I only remember Johnny because in my first playthrough I kicked the other godling (Sarah I think she was called) out of the "haunted house" and he criticized Geralt's decision because she was with him, then it hit me that throughout my 100 hour first playthrough that was the first time I was actually being criticized over my decisions

Sure, most quests do not really go back to the main quest itself so the number of "decisions" to be showcased would be more limited, but it still was disappointing, I hope they focus on that in Cyberpunk.

 

[saltyB]

My main issue with the game (other than my incessant ranting about the last act) is that the game really "whitewashes" the decisions Geralt makes, in Witcher 1 if you sided with either the Flaming Rose or the Scoia'tael, friends of Geralt will literally call him and idiot and criticize his stupid decisions in their eyes, in Witcher 2 it wasn't as much as in the first game but there were cases of people criticizing Geralt's decisions, in Witcher 3 however, almost no one criticizes Geralt's decisions, I only remember Johnny because in my first playthrough I kicked the other godling (Sarah I think she was called) out of the "haunted house" and he criticized Geralt's decision because she was with him, then it hit me that throughout my 100 hour first playthrough that was the first time I was actually being criticized over my decisions

Sure, most quests do not really go back to the main quest itself so the number of "decisions" to be showcased would be more limited, but it still was disappointing, I hope they focus on that in Cyberpunk.

Agree with everything! And yeah, i hope Cyberpunk will be on Mass Effect level for that!

 

[KingHochmeister]

i hope Cyberpunk will be on Mass Effect level for that!

Most of that was superficial though, don't really remember much about Mass Effect though.

 

[saltyB]

Most of that was superficial though, don't really remember much about Mass Effect though.

Nah, not really! Choices in Mass Effect have a real impact on later events in the game! Also how different characters interact with you and stuff. Bioware can handle these things very well!

 

[Rawls]

Nah, not really! Choices in Mass Effect have a real impact on later events in the game! Also how different characters interact with you and stuff. Bioware can handle these things very well!

Choices and consequences had a huge effect on mass effect until you got to the very end of ME3, which made all the other choices seem inconsequential on the marco scale. However - your choices really did have a big effect on the the other characters and various earlier plot-lines in ME3. ME3's problem was the whole "space Jesus" thing where you alone can save the galaxy. If CP 2077 makes the game more about the protagonists effect on the characters around him rather than some larger social issue or hero journey I think it will fit in the cyberpunk genre really well. Now on the other hand ME paragon vs renegade spectrum needs to go goodbye for ME:A, and I really doubt they would do something like that for cyberpunk. Bioware has said they're going away from that. So that be good ...

... wait ... I'm pretty sure I'm way off topic.

Crap. :wallbash: Bad.

Back on topic.

 

[mico11]

I just realized Bioware did a church vs mages plot and they did it better in Origins at least

I'm having an Identity crisis. Just end me

 

[Cs__sz__r]

Should've been a third way for the frying pan quest that led you to getting knocked out with it. Now that would be a consequence.

 

[saltyB]

Choices and consequences had a huge effect on mass effect until you got to the very end of ME3, which made all the other choices seem inconsequential on the marco scale. However - your choices really did have a big effect on the the other characters and various earlier plot-lines in ME3. ME3's problem was the whole "space Jesus" thing where you alone can save the galaxy. If CP 2077 makes the game more about the protagonists effect on the characters around him rather than some larger social issue or hero journey I think it will fit in the cyberpunk genre really well. Now on the other hand ME paragon vs renegade spectrum needs to go goodbye for ME:A, and I really doubt they would do something like that for cyberpunk. Bioware has said they're going away from that. So that be good ...

... wait ... I'm pretty sure I'm way off topic.

Crap. :wallbash: Bad.

Back on topic.

Yeah the End of ME3 was a big "Sorry but...we don't really give a shit about your choices anymore" >.>
And yes indeed not only in ME3, but especially in ME2 (Which is my favorite ME). In ME2 the choices you made really matter for the whole ending of the game! God...there were so many things you could fuck up only by forgetting to talk to someone or to make the wrong Choice in one Dialog!
And i agree again! It was also just a completely dumb explanation on why the Reapers kill all the Species from that "Kid" at the End! I really hope Cyberpunk will handle it well, lets see! I was also pretty happy about how Deus Ex Human Revolution handle the moral decisions!

Lol, completely forgot about ME:A...sooo...yeah.

Yes you are, and because of you i am too haha!

---------- Post Merged at 02:50 AM ----------

I just realized Bioware did a church vs mages plot and they did it better in Origins at least

I'm having an Identity crisis. Just end me

How would you like to be ended?

 

[Rawls]

Seriously though. Back on topic.

 

[Hazevamp]

Nah, not really! Choices in Mass Effect have a real impact on later events in the game! Also how different characters interact with you and stuff. Bioware can handle these things very well!

When it comes to moral choices in Mass Effect I was left disappointed in some of them as a Renegade player. The games rewards Paragon players primarily and would even switch decisions that would normally be Renegade with Paragon just so Paragon players could avoid a bad outcome. I certainly wouldn't want CyberPunk to be a copy of that. However, I would like more morally gray decisions as well as a bit more butting heads with companions and friends.

You interact with many devout people or clergyman and there isn't a single morally gray character to be found among them. They're all murderers, torturers, thief's, hypocrites, etc. Even random preachers on the streets sound like cartoonish caricatures.

I agree, there wasn't a single COEF character I liked or shown an ounce of empathy for. I just burned them with igni and called it a day. It would have been nice to have a side quest where we actually get their side of things, or show us some members hating what they are doing et al. It also would have been nice if Radovid was his TW2 self and not this fugly crazy man we meet in TW3.

 

[Whitey98]

rip topic. Ill help with it.

Morally ambiguous? There is a few morally wrong/dodgy choices in the game. Like who the fuck wants to side with the prick Radovid?

---------- Updated at 01:20 AM ----------

Radovid was his TW2 self

He is a nobjockey in The Witcher 2 aswell. Just he had rivals in the north and he hadn't brewed his hatred for magic quite as much. But still a prick.

 

[Phinnway]

Have to agree with OP, to be honest, but not necessarily for the same reasons. Morality in the Witcher series has gotten kinda heavy handed, IMO. They really like to beat it into you that "that choice was bad!" Except they tend to do this no matter what choice to take, so no matter what choice you choose you feel bad.

Does that make it morally ambiguous? I don't think so. I liked it better when some good came from your choice, some bad, and players were left to decide for themselves. Rather than the game kicking you in the balls and saying, "You dun !@#$ed up!"

Another element lacking, I think, is believe-ability. I want the outcome of my choices to be believable, rather than the worst possible thing that could happen happening no matter what choice I make.

---------- Updated at 10:28 PM ----------

My main issue with the game (other than my incessant ranting about the last act) is that the game really "whitewashes" the decisions Geralt makes, in Witcher 1 if you sided with either the Flaming Rose or the Scoia'tael, friends of Geralt will literally call him and idiot and criticize his stupid decisions in their eyes, in Witcher 2 it wasn't as much as in the first game but there were cases of people criticizing Geralt's decisions, in Witcher 3 however, almost no one criticizes Geralt's decisions, I only remember Johnny because in my first playthrough I kicked the other godling (Sarah I think she was called) out of the "haunted house" and he criticized Geralt's decision because she was with him, then it hit me that throughout my 100 hour first playthrough that was the first time I was actually being criticized over my decisions

Sure, most quests do not really go back to the main quest itself so the number of "decisions" to be showcased would be more limited, but it still was disappointing, I hope they focus on that in Cyberpunk.

Well said. TW1 was a thinking man's game. TW3 is not. Neither in narrative nor in gameplay (linear quests, etc). But I'll stop before I take this too far off topic.

 

[Ðarkstar]

I would've liked a consequence for lying about the death of Cirilla to Emhyr. It seems dumb for a mass manipulator such as the emperor to have believed Geralt when and if you tell him that Cirilla is dead. Especially since there was a somewhat open hostility between the two people, Geralt wouldn't believe the emperor so why would Emhyr believe Geralt?

For failing to attain the successor of the Nilfgaardian throne, it would've been expected for him to sentence Geralt to death and not just let him go, saying "I don't want to see you again". Like, sure if Geralt and Emhyr broke up, that's probably how you'd expect them to part ways but delivering Cirilla to the emperor had a lot more riding on it than "Just because".

Maybe they were going for a more melancholy ending to a somewhat happy outcome to trick the player into thinking they dun goofed until they saw Cirilla but they could've pulled off both and made the player wonder a bit more.

Not only that, Ciri becoming empress or witcher are two sides of the same coin, Geralt and Emhyr both seemingly want/need a successor. Geralt's reactions to Cirilla leaving is basically how you'd expect, he frumps down and accepts there's never a happy ending but I'm pretty sure Emhyr doing the same thing goes against his character as someone who always gets what he demands.

I remember people saying that CDPR lightened Emhyr up from what he was in the books and I totally agree, there wasn't a consequence befitting of his original character that made me think he was an arsehole, just that he was royalty like the other kings in the north that demanded things.

Like they tried making Emhyr morally ambiguous to the player but anybody who's read the books knows he tried to sire children with his own daughter, how can you wash that away?

 

[cyberpunkforever]

@Mrwhitey998 Radovid is crazy but he is a better ruler for the north than the nilfgaardian invaders, emhyr will still exterminate magicians, sorcerers, alchemists, herbalists, etc too, the thing is, Radovid and Redania are part of the north, Nilfgaard is not and has no right to invade

tw3 is "grey" and morally ambiguous as the previous games are, the thing is, now we are used to it, so we need stronger elements to receive the same effect, this time we were expecting it, so we were prepaired for it, and maybe some expectations were abit too high, and tw3 is meant for a broader audience than tw1 and tw2.

i really enjoyed the "morally ambiguous choices in tw3" it is not a flaw in this game at all, there are other things that have priority if something is to be improved

 

[Hazevamp]

rip topic. Ill help with it.

Morally ambiguous? There is a few morally wrong/dodgy choices in the game. Like who the fuck wants to side with the prick Radovid?

---------- Updated at 01:20 AM ----------



He is a nobjockey in The Witcher 2 aswell. Just he had rivals in the north and he hadn't brewed his hatred for magic quite as much. But still a prick.

I'm not saying he wasn't a prick but he was at least somewhat sane and calculating. In TW3 he was just plain bat crazy. Which is a shame. I brought him the princess in one of my TW2 play throughs because he seemed like the best choice to keep her safe even if he was gonna use her for his own political means. It would have been nice to get some updates on that choice and what the war means to Radovid et al. Instead all we got was a crazed witch burner just like the COTEF.

@DarkStar, I agree with most of what you say about Emphyr. I think CDPR should have made it clear what Emphyr really wanted to do with Ciri.

But I don't think Emphyr believed Geralt's lie. Through out the game, almost everyone tells Geralt he's a bad liar, I find it hard to believe Geralt suddenly became convincing, especially when you can flat out tell Empyr that you have no intentions of ever bringing her to him. I see it as Emphyr finally realizing that Ciri is lost to him for good. But once again, it doesn't fit his character. However, sentencing Geralt to death would be pointless as Triss or Yen or Ciri could just teleport in and save him whenever they like.

 

[YenneferB]

However, sentencing Geralt to death would be pointless as Triss or Yen or Ciri could just teleport in and save him whenever they like.

If he will kill Geralt then he can forget about Ciri ever wanna to take his place. She will probably find a way to kill him for what he done, She will have her revenge.

 

[Whitey98]

Radovid is crazy but he is a better ruler for the north than the nilfgaardian invaders, emhyr will still exterminate magicians, sorcerers, alchemists, herbalists, etc too, the thing is, Radovid and Redania are part of the north, Nilfgaard is not and has no right to invade

That is frankly untrue completely. Emhyr is not Radovid. Radovid kills anyone with a near whiff of magic, the land is effectively lawless now, When you have a insane nutjob "running" things. No, Emhyr does not kill magicians or hebalists, he has thousands of them in Nilfgaard and the south. He even grants the lodge amnesty and Emhyr doesn't break his promises. Redania is the best ruler for Redania that's all, Redania doesn't have the right to invade Temeria or Kaedwen, so what's the difference? The north is so fucked up now that a Nilfgaard invasion isn't even that bad anymore.

Sure i would love for the north to go back to the 4 kingdoms and the 4 kings. But that's the past now, there is nothing left except 1 madman king who wants to rule it all. What some people might not understand is, It's only Redania and Radovids sphere of influence that hunts mages. Everywhere else on the continent they are free. Nilfgaard (and its conquered realms), Skellige, Kovir, Zerikania, Dol Blathana etc they are all free.