''Your choices matter'' - Not at all. [SPOILERS]

[Pauers]

''Your choices matter'' - Not at all. [SPOILERS]

In the end, there's only three endings possibilities, and depends ONLY in if you chose to report to the emperor after finding Ciri and if you were nice with her along the game. That's goddamn all.

Everything you chose only determines which small diabloish cutscene will play after the ending. Seriously? There's no impact on the final battle at all, the battle with the wild hunt mage (forgot his name lol) and Erendir is the same no matter what you do in the entire game. All the sorceress you spend time reuniting in the third act does absolutely nothing to help you, there is no Triss, no Phillipa, no one. Only Yen.

Even the battle of Kaer Morhen, despite epic, there's no real different outcomes, it plays the same thing, wild hunt here and there, and in the end Vesemir dies.

I believe all the possibilities of choice were merely fake, I refuse to accept small cinematic cutscenes before the credits as outcomes for the choices you made.

 

[lordhovis]

Yeah the choices and consequences are generally far weaker than in the Witcher 1 or 2. Can't say I was expecting anything else with it being an open world and all. They were never going to be able to achieve Witcher 2 level consequences for our choices but I still thing they could have done better especially with reacting to decisions made in the Witcher 2.

Overall I think I was most disappointing in the simplicity and reactivity of the political plotline. I knew that the game wouldn't be nearly as focused on politics as Assassin of Kings was but I expected a bit more than what we got in Reasons of State. A single straightforward choice that changes the ending slide and nothing more is not enough. I mean the world doesn't even react to Radovid being assassinated. Least they could have done is change the background dialogue up make us feel like we made some impact.

There were still parts I liked though such as the choice over Keira Metz which can end in several sort of unpredictable ways. The Crones and the Tree was also well done.

 

[moonknightgog]

Yeah the choices and consequences are generally far weaker than in the Witcher 1 or 2. Can't say I was expecting anything else with it being an open world and all. They were never going to be able to achieve Witcher 2 level consequences for our choices but I still thing they could have done better especially with reacting to decisions made in the Witcher 2.

Overall I think I was most disappointing in the simplicity and reactivity of the political plotline. I knew that the game wouldn't be nearly as focused on politics as Assassin of Kings was but I expected a bit more than what we got in Reasons of State. A single straightforward choice that changes the ending slide and nothing more is not enough. I mean the world doesn't even react to Radovid being assassinated. Least they could have done is change the background dialogue up make us feel like we made some impact.

There were still parts I liked though such as the choice over Keira Metz which can end in several sort of unpredictable ways. The Crones and the Tree was also well done.

You don't. There is no need in changing the area, but, what is needed is to give more consequences and different quests.
No matter if you do Brother in Arms or not, nothing change. No matter what you do, nothing change.
This is a Bioware level of C&C system. which is really bad.

An RPG is entirely about quest design, dialogues tree and C&C system.

 

[Pauers]

You don't. There is no need in changing the area, but, what is needed is to give more consequences and different quests.
No matter if you do Brother in Arms or not, nothing change. No matter what you do, nothing change.
This is a Bioware level of C&C system. which is really bad.

An RPG is entirely about quest design, dialogues tree and C&C system.

Exactly. No matter what you do, the ending is the same. And I'm not even critizing the story itself, which was wonderful (except for the third act which sucked kong balls). The critic is on the illusion of choice.

Sure some quest have different outcomes for specific characters such the Baron and Keira, but the impact on the main story (Ciri - Wild Hunt) is innexistent.

 

[warbaby2]

To be fair, I don't quite see what people are expecting with all those kind of games... even a pen and paper RPG campaign has pre-defined endings, no matter how many choices you might have along the way. You would be hard pressed to ever find a story driven game (digital or otherwise) that features numerous, completely different endings. Why? Because you wouldn't have to follow a story in the first place then.

Video games are a limited medium... limited by time, budgets and technology.... and people that believe the "total freedom of decisions" marketing blurp should start to realize that.

That being said, Wild Hunt did quite a good job to at leastt give the illusion of choice and consequence... until the end. Also: Unlike other games in the genre, Geralt is not an almighty hero that is able to change the fate of the world, some things are just out of his control.

 

[moonknightgog]

That being said, Wild Hunt did quite a good job to at leastt give the illusion of choice and consequence... until the end. Also: Unlike other games in the genre, Geralt is not an almighty hero that is able to change the fate of the world, some things are just out of his control.

An illusion. Which is not the same.
And the problem is that consequences should not be restricted to the ending.
Nothing change if you send Keira to Kaer Morhen or not.
She is not available in the third act anyway. If you bring Letho, Roche, Ves, Hjalmar to Kaer Morhen or not....nothing change. So why even bother? What's the point in give you a choice if there are no consequences?

The Bloody Baron lives or die? Doesn't matter, the entire area is the same.
Nothing change in Novigrad, there is always a witch hunt.
Nothing change if you kill Radovid, soldiers continue to say "Long live to Radovid!".

The only change is in the final slides. Which, again, is the Inquisition level of consequences. And it is bad.

 

[Pauers]

To be fair, I don't quite see what people are expecting with all those kind of games... even a pen and paper RPG campaign has pre-defined endings, no matter how many choices you might have along the way. You would be hard pressed to ever find a story driven game (digital or otherwise) that features numerous, completely different endings. Why? Because you wouldn't have to follow a story in the first place then.

Video games are a limited medium... limited by time, budgets and technology.... and people that believe the "total freedom of decisions" marketing blurp should start to realize that.

That being said, Wild Hunt did quite a good job to at leastt give the illusion of choice and consequence... until the end. Also: Unlike other games in the genre, Geralt is not an almighty hero that is able to change the fate of the world, some things are just out of his control.

I understand and you're right, but the problem is the marketing that makes people create hype the game won't make up for it.

This choice and consequence is not something done very often, when Bioware did it in 2007 with Mass Effect it generated lots of hype, but failed specially with ME3. Now with TW people were like ''hey this time it might actually work, It's 2015 and they are saying so!''. Buuuut now me and the crowd are starting to realize that's just cheap marketing.

An illusion. Which is not the same.
And the problem is that consequences should not be restricted to the ending.
Nothing change if you send Keira to Kaer Morhen or not.
She is not available in the third act anyway. If you bring Letho, Roche, Ves, Hjalmar to Kaer Morhen or not....nothing change. So why even bother? What's the point in give you a choice if there are no consequences?

The Bloody Baron lives or die? Doesn't matter, the entire area is the same.
Nothing change in Novigrad, there is aways a whitch hunt.
Nothing change if you kill Radovid, soldiers continue to say "Long live to Radovid!".

The only change is in the final slides. Which, again, is the Inquisition level of consequences. And it is bad.

Can't get more clear than this.

 

[warbaby2]

An illusion. Which is not the same.
And the problem is that consequences should not be restricted to the ending.
Nothing change if you send Keira to Kaer Morhen or not.
She is not available in the third act anyway. If you bring Letho, Roche, Ves, Hjalmar to Kaer Morhen or not....nothing change. So why even bother? What's the point in give you a choice if there are no consequences?

The Bloody Baron lives or die? Doesn't matter, the entire area is the same.
Nothing change in Novigrad, there is aways a whitch hunt.
Nothing change if you kill Radovid, soldiers continue to say "Long live to Radovid!".

The only change is in the final slides. Which, again, is the Inquisition level of consequences. And it is bad.

Not saying the illusion was perfect... especially the big stuff like the regicide, Bloody Baron or the Battle of Kaer Morhen could have had more impact, bu I guess that's price to pay when you make a non linear, open world game.

I understand and you're right, but the problem is the marketing that makes people create hype the game won't make up for it.

This choice and consequence is not something done very often, when Bioware did it in 2007 with Mass Effect it generated lots of hype, but failed specially with ME3. Now with TW people were like ''hey this time it might actually work, It's 2015 and they are saying so!''. Buuuut now me and the crowd are starting to realize that's just cheap marketing.




Can't get more clear than this.

OR it might just not be possible yet, not the way people want it to be... take a look at TW2, it had a big decision in the second act, that potentially made 1/4 of the game obsolete for this particular play-through. That's a HUGE gamble, as far as project resources go.

 

[moonknightgog]

I understand and you're right, but the problem is the marketing that makes people create hype the game won't make up for it.

This choice and consequence is not something done very often, when Bioware did it in 2007 with Mass Effect it generated lots of hype, but failed specially with ME3. Now with TW people were like ''hey this time it might actually work, It's 2015 and they are saying so!''. Buuuut now me and the crowd are starting to realize that's just cheap marketing.

But choice&consequences are not something created by Bioware, or new in the genre.
Take Planescape Torment, Deus Ex, Vampire the masquerade, Gothic, Fallout 1/2.

---------- Updated at 09:22 PM ----------

Not saying the illusion was perfect... especially the big stuff like the regicide, Bloody Baron or the Battle of Kaer Morhen could have had more impact, bu I guess that's price to pay when you make a non linear, open world game.



OR it might just not be possible yet, not the way people want it to be... take a look at TW2, it had a big decision in the second act, that potentially made 1/4 of the game obsolete for this particular play-through. That's a HUGE gamble, as far as project resources go.

What it hurts is that I know they are good developers, they can actually create a satisfying C&C system. Because they have done it before, with both The Witcher 1/2.

Here....not.
And this cause me a really big butthurt.
Because C&C system is one of the pillars of the genre. It is more important of the "open world", "exploration", "romances" and similar pointless stuff.
So...instead of creating pointless sidequest...they should have been put more effort in the main quest and in the C&C system.

 

[Cirivia]

How can you say the choices don't matter? That's just ridiculous. The world changes with your choices, villages thrive or villages burn depending on what you do. It doesn't need to be about immediately evident things. Despite choices seeming minor to you the fact of the matter is that these choices matter to Geralt! Take into account a few things...

1.) word travels fast in the Witcher universe

2.) the power of the Emperor

3.) Geralt's relationship with the Emperor

4.) the fact that witchers spend the majority of time on the move

5.) witchers are not liked by many

6.) Ciri

 

[moonknightgog]

How can you say the choices don't matter? That's just ridiculous. Just because it doesn't

Eh...uh...wut?

 

[warbaby2]

But choice&consequences are not something created by Bioware, or new in the genre.
Take Planescape Torment, Deus Ex, Vampire the masquerade, Gothic, Fallout 1/2.

There is the biggest reason why C&C is so much harder to do in modern games then it was in earlier generations: Afford.

Why could games like PS:T or Fallout pull of huge, branching story lines like that? Because all developers had to do was write more text... time investment, that was all that was needed. Now take a look at what the market these days demands of AAA games: Hours of voice acting, hand crafted in game cut scenes and assets, etc.

Need I say more?

 

[moonknightgog]

There is the biggest reason why C&C is so much harder to do in modern games then it was in earlier generations: Afford.

Why could games like PS:T or Fallout pull of huge, branching story lines like that? Because all developers had to do was write more text... time investment, that was all that was needed. Now take a look at what the market these days demands of AAA games: Hours of voice acting, hand crafted in game cut scenes and assets, etc.

Need I say more?

So...cut the sidequests....and put those resources into the main quest.
Even because there is no point in doing sidequests which are not plot related when you are in Act 2 and 3.
You can add those cutted side quests in the game anyway, if you want, later. But you can't fix a broken main quest.

 

[Willowhugger]

No choices matter because this is all a collection of pixels.

Whether the game CONVINCES you that you're actually saving people from Drowners and that the Bloody Baron dying or not is worth caring about is the issue.

 

[warbaby2]

So...cut the sidequests....and put those resources into the main quest.
Even because there is no point in doing sidequests which are not plot related when you are in Act 2 and 3.
You can add those cutted side quests in the game anyway, if you want, later. But you can't fix a broken main quest.

Thing is, it might be easier to do side quests, I can't really say... at least voice acting could be cut down quite significantly, with reused remarks from Geralt and stuff... could be wrong there, though.

 

[moonknightgog]

No choices matter because this is all a collection of pixels.

Whether the game CONVINCES you that you're actually saving people from Drowners and that the Bloody Baron dying or not is worth caring about is the issue.

...
A choice matter when there are changements in the main quest.
For example...Keira save Lambert in Kaer Morhen Battle...what would be a consequence to not bring Keira to Kaer Morhen? That Lambert dies.

 

[Maerd]

...
For example...Keira save Lambert in Kaer Morhen Battle...what would be a consequence to not bring Keira to Kaer Morhen? That Lambert dies.

No, it's not true. If you don't bring Keira to Kaer Morhen then Geralt can save Lambert (and why wouldn't he?). So, this choice only determines whether Lambert is going to plough Keira in the epilogue or not.