C&C in The Witcher 2

[msxyz]

Ahoy Codexers, long time lurker here (2004-present)

Well, I guess TW2 made finally jump the fence about posting here

What I really liked about the first Witcher was how several choices had no immediate consequences and they affected the world in a "organic" fashion. The ending was the product of several decision taken in chapter 2,3 and 4. This gave the illusion that the story of Geralt and the story of the world around him were evolving in parallel with one influencing the other and no clear "deus ex machina" from above forcing one path or another.

I approached TW2 with the same expectations and I'm really disappointed. Disappointed because all the major decisions almost inevitably cause some kind of branching in the story that feels forced upon the player, sometimes even superfluous (especially everything decided in the second half of the game).

Spoiler

During my first play through I chose to side with Roche at the end of chapter 1. In the next chapter I found myself being an errand boy for the Kadewanian king. I accepted that because circumstances brought me there. However, when the story finally brought on the other side of the midst, all I could do was carrying on the tasks given me by the king. There was no option to say "screw you, king I'm gonna stay with good old friend Zoltan!". At that point I had all the relics needed to perform the ritual and I already knew that Triss and the Kingslayer landed near Vergen. So why not giving the player a chance to alter the course of the story? A single decision made at the end of chapter 1 basically decided the whole game. Slaying the king during the siege, saving Annais or Triss... all the remaining decisions serve no real purpose other than changing a few dialogues and interactive sequences.

The impression I had was confirmed during my second playthrough. This time I went with Iorveth. The King somehow managed to survive the curse, I still had to solve the midst problem, this time on Philippa's behalf. I actually enjoyed the sidequests in Vergen but, other than that, I felt little incentive to progress on the story as it was clear that everything, at that time, has been already decided.

This game fails exactly where it it supposed to give its best: C&C. Not only every decision is "binary", but the game does very little to mask the fact that, the player has little control of his fate through the choices he's asked to make.

 

[Data4]

...because the other Witcher thread has absolutely nothing about C&C in all its 57 pages, amirite?

 

[pocahaunted]

Oh, c'mon Data, cut him some slack. You're better than this.

 

[Havoc]

Oh, c'mon Data, cut him some slack. You're better than this.

Yeah. Like:

Fucking newfags! Get the fuck out of mah Codex!

 

[Black_Willow]

There are no C&C in TWicher2.

 

[Data4]

Oh, c'mon Data, cut him some slack. You're better than this.

Hey, he said he's been lurking since '04. Starting up a new thread when there's been a dozen or so pages in the Officialsky threadsky with lively discussions about C&C in the game just seems too obvious.

I'm a bit disappoint, is all. It's kinda like someone saying "I've been a Ford fan for years and years. I just wish they'd bring back the Trans Am."

Well, maybe not.

 

[msxyz]

The point is that C&C seems a term overused this day to lure "hardcore" rpg player into the same old shit. It's not a problem limited to TW2 but this is probably the most serious (and overhyped) offender in this regards.

To me, this kind of C&C is worse than having no choice at all because you don't have to deal with a story system which create expectations in the player of being able to shape the story. TW2 basically forces you to make a choice early in the game which will alter the course (to the point that it's like playing 2 different games from there on) and afterwards you're left wondering what would have happened otherwise and why you find yourself riding a one way train.

It's like those Bioware dialogues which always bring you to the same outcome no matter which line you chose. The feeling is the same but it basically lasts for the whole second half of the game

 

[Vault Dweller]

 

[Havoc]

That's called replayability. The outcome isn't the same thou. The whole way you get to the endgame is different.

 

[OSK]

 

[msxyz]

Thanks for the brofist, VD!

Now, let the abuse commence!

 

[Reject_666_6]

Your opinion is so dumb I don't even. You seem to have defined C&C as "that thing Twitcher does", when in fact the way it's implemented in 2witcher is a different, and an equally valid type of implementation.

 

[Arlborn]

Your opinion is so dumb I don't even. You seem to have defined C&C as "that thing Twitcher does", when in fact the way it's implemented in 2witcher is a different, and an equally valid type of implementation.

This.

Besides, that choice is only the biggest, not the only one.

 

[msxyz]

It's not a matter of implementation but what choices are presented to the player in relation to the story, when they occur and if the story provides a true illusion of freedom.

This is the shortfall ot TW2. CDR built the game around a certain plot, decided certain elements of the plot to present multiple variations according to the player input but failed to do so in a convincing way because C&C in TW2 are either binary branches or minor, almost meaningless choices later in the game. Why I am not allowed to choose other (logical, coherent) solutions to certain problems?

The truth is that as games becomes more and more laden with scripted scenes and cinematic sequences, it becomes more difficult to keep track of all different variations that could be introduced by a more pervasive C&C system. From the roleplaying/C&C point of view, TW2 is pretty close to the "father" of interactive movie games, Wing Commander.
Branched story? Check. Dialogues and scripted events? Check. Multiple endings? Check. Hyped graphics and "you're the hero: choose your own path" bullshit ? Check.

All the games of this genre make a big wuss on how it is possible to affect the story while, in reality, it all happens at a certain fixed points and the changes are usually not reversible or bring very little to gameplay mechanics.

 

[1eyedking]

Meh, C&C in The Witcher is of the "you get a different cutscene/reward!!" type. It's fake.

C&C to me means a responsive world, and the world of the Witcher isn't very responsive. You never feel like the world (or the way the world sees you) is changing due to your actions. Never do you meet anyone who wants to kill you because of your specific actions (such as being an elf-lover), nor do you get some quests denied because of a certain way others developed. Nor is there a reputation system, and truly different ways to solve the same quest (such as recruiting the aid of another NPC, things going like crap). The Witcher had some C&C of this kind but it was still pretty weak.

That said, offering two towns in the second Chapter was a very clever way to mask all of this. I mean, come on, you get to see an entirely different scenario! Or the way Geralt gets killed if he's too smug at certain occasions! Even though you have the 'deflect arrows' skill you still get petered down by elven bowmen because you disagreed to help their leader, thus leaving only one outcome out of all choices! Awesome!!

Or the way a town goes into a pogrom if you decide to give a sword to an elf, I mean, like, it's totally predictable! That it sooo happens in Fallout 2 and Arcanum!!


So man up motherfuckers, we don't play The Witcher for its flaccid C&C, we play it because it has good writing and atmosphere, something a game like the Age of Decadence will never have, even though it will probably have the other. Want the best of both worlds? Then play Fallout, bitch.

 

[Arlborn]

Meh, C&C in The Witcher is of the "you get a different cutscene/reward!!" type. It's fake.

C&C to me means a responsive world, and the world of the Witcher isn't very responsive. You never feel like the world (or the way the world sees you) is changing due to your actions. Never do you meet anyone who wants to kill you because of your specific actions (such as being an elf-lover), nor do you get some quests denied because of a certain way others developed. Nor is there a reputation system, and truly different ways to solve the same quest (such as recruiting the aid of another NPC, things going like crap). The Witcher had some C&C of this kind but it was still pretty weak.

That said, offering two towns in the second Chapter was a very clever way to mask all of this. I mean, come on, you get to see an entirely different scenario! Or the way Geralt gets killed if he's too smug at certain occasions! Even though you have the 'deflect arrows' skill you still get petered down by elven bowmen because you disagreed to help their leader, thus leaving only one outcome out of all choices! Awesome!!

While you do have a couple of good points(I do think people should be more responsive to choices you made, somehow, for example) I'm going to ask you a tricky question here:

How is going to a different location depending of your choice not a consequence of that choice...?

You don't only get different cutscenes or rewards for every choice you make, that is just a silly statement. While there could be more meaningful consequences in many of the choices you make, that is still a very flawed statement.

 

[Reptilian Shapeshifter]

So man up motherfuckers, we don't play The Witcher for its flaccid C&C, we play it because it has good writing and atmosphere, something a game like the Age of Decadence will never have, even though it will probably have the other. Want the best of both worlds? Then play Fallout, bitch.

What about TW2's strongest point - its amazingly in-depth, well-balanced, strategic and challenging combat.

AoD (if it ever gets released) and FO1/2 can't possibly reach those lofty standards.

 

[Black_Willow]

What about TW2's strongest point - its amazingly in-depth, well-balanced, strategic and challenging combat.

AoD (if it ever gets released) and FO1/2 can't possibly reach those lofty standards.

TW is an action RPG, so its combat cannot be as strategic or in-depth as in FO. But it's certainly more challenging.

 

[Reject_666_6]

Binary branches are shit - you need at least ternary branches to be cool, amirite?

 

[Reptilian Shapeshifter]

What about TW2's strongest point - its amazingly in-depth, well-balanced, strategic and challenging combat.

AoD (if it ever gets released) and FO1/2 can't possibly reach those lofty standards.

TW is an action RPG, so its combat cannot be as strategic or in-depth as in FO. But it's certainly more challenging.

Do I need to make my sarcasm even more obvious, or is this reverse-sarcasm?

 

[Black_Willow]

I countered your sarcasm with treating you seriously and thus proving that sarcasm is shit.

 

[gromit]

combat... strategic or in-depth as in FO

I think darker forces than sarcasm are at play.

 

[Archibald]

Delusions?

 

[l3loodAngel]

So man up motherfuckers, we don't play The Witcher for its flaccid C&C, we play it because it has good writing and atmosphere, something a game like the Age of Decadence will never have, even though it will probably have the other. Want the best of both worlds? Then play Fallout, bitch.

I am sure it will have that and much more. Unless you are mistaking atmosphere for shiny GFX.

 

[Phelot]

I was under the impression that a lot of the choices I was making would bring about various consequences. I was even excited at the idea that maybe the next playthrough will allow me to experience all kinds of new shit, but I am quickly realizing that there is little difference in the choices I make. Disappointing, but it's still a fun enough game. Act 1 was starting to wear on me, but Act 2 with Roche is a lot better, especially now that I've gotten over the C&C.