The Witcher Officialsky Witcherovda 2 Impressiovna Threadskaia

[Vault Dweller]

Not trying to argue here, I'd just like to be enlightened. Can someone please clear these up for me?
1. Why is/are chapter altering decision/s in TW2 called a fork and in MotB it is not? Is choosing Okku over OoM or vice versa not a fork?

No, it's not. The rest remains the same, which allows your choice to modify the gameplay. For example, the hill tribe will attack you if you spared Okku, letting you think that they are just some hill savages, filler combat. If you kill Okku, they offer to teach you and give you more insight into your condition. Same content, vastly modified by the choice.

A fork will simply take you into a different direction, modifying nothing, really. What's worse, in my opinion, is that the goals aren't conflicting. I don't see a reason why you can't kill the commandant AND free the prisoners. It's an artificial choice.

To understand the difference, imagine that you're offered the same fork in Fallout: you reach the Hub and are told either to go after the water chip or to stop the mutant threat.

2. There are dialogue/decisions in TW2 that when chosen differently may result in a sidequest not being available entirely. How does this not affect gameplay?

Which ones?

3. Why are these:

"abija: So fighting villagers in a riot is the same as running through a peaceful village?
Getting to the barge while pretending Iorveth is a prisoner is the same as directly attacking it?
Killing the guards in a dungeon and getting out is the same as having an npc distracting them so you can escape without fight?"

instantly dismissed? Sure, they may not be entire game lasting, and all three are the combat/no combat variety, but is that not different gameplay?

Not really. At least not in my opinion.

Fighting villagers vs walking through a celebration is a fluff piece. It doesn't change anything. It's not a prelude to a quest that may distract guards. It's a mini scene. If your dwarf friend was killed in a riot, it would have been a huge and meaningful consequence. Same goes for if you had to fight to save him and could fail. Otherwise, does it really matter if the game throws a few fights your way or not?

As for getting to the barge, first, in a game with piss-easy combat, not fighting a few guards doesn't have the same effect as in a game with hard combat where every battle you have to fight in a quest weakens you more and more. The biggest issue, however, - and that's where I draw a parallel with AP's transmission in the ruins mission - is that when you reach the ship the fight begins no matter what you do. So, you fight anyway and the only question is do you fight more guards or less guards. What's the real difference?

Same goes for killing the guards in the dungeon. You have to fight until you reach the point where an optional NPC can call off the guards. There is no clear "save the son and you fight", "kill him and you don't" split, so the question, once again, is, do you fight more guards or less?

4. Going back to my first question, I don't remember much of MotB it's been so long, but if we consider Okku/OoM & accepting/rejecting being a spirit-eater as forks, what other gameplay altering C&C are there?TIA

http://rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=161

 

[Vault Dweller]

Or a different soul devouring ability.

You get a vital ability without which you'll probably die if you play a character with high hunger. Remember all the whining that the evil path is unplayable? So, yeah, it's exactly like using a different sword.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

I played up to lvl 29 without spending skill points. On hard. Really no big deal. If something's dangerous you can always throw bombs. However, this ends now. During the ghost battle the ghosts you have to take over seem to somehow be based on Geralts level/HP and so on, but lack dodging, bombs etc. So basically those ghosts just die fast and there's not much you can do it seems. This sequence really wasn't a problem at all previously so I think it must have something to do with me not leveling Geralt up. Anyway, pressing the awesome button (X) is more fun in the first place, so I'm going to spend my hard-earned 28 skill points now.

edit: yes, after leveling Geralt up the fight was a cakewalk

 

[Black_Willow]

But getting this ability is an effect of a logical course of the game - if you eat Okku, that means you embrace you soul devourer side and later you get an ability to help you. It's like getting +to hit when you level up - your character gets stronger with progresion, not thanks to some choices without viable consequences.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Which one? Arcane Warrior? No, there is no reason if you play a mage. Reaver? If you played as a good, paladin-like character, then it would be munchkin-silly to change your play style just because you can unlock something.

AKA LARPing. I thought the trick was to implement story- and gameplay consequences to all choices so to avoid LARPing (I'm picturing myself as a paladin, so even though the game doesn't care, I won't unlock Reaver).

Larping, in the context of crpg, is providing your own content where none exists. Like developing a routine or an imaginary friendship with an NPC in Oblivion.

Playing a consistent character (and/or following your alignment), using in-game options is not larping. If you're playing a "chaotic" character who does whatever pops into his mind, then sure do whatever the fuck you want. If you're playing an equivalent of a "lawful good" character, someone who tries to help and does what's right, then it would be nothing but munchkinism if you abandon your playstyle just to get a bonus item and specialization.

Edit: Question for you. I assume that you've played Planescape. Have you always sacrificed your party members to the grimoire to get powerful spells or to the pillar of skulls? If no, why not?

The shooting action was Mass Effect 2's horrible, twisted child, the story was banalshitboring (seriously, a corporation trying to instigate a war and they're even all "what is he trying? Hmm I wonder"). I don't think AP is bad, mind you, just mediocre.

Well, one can argue (not me, I'd never do that) that combat in TW2 is horrible and I don't think that everyone would praise the story to high heaven. Sure, it's not "save the world from evil", but is it good? Those in power want more power. Didn't see that coming.

Well, same to you. Though you annoy the fuck outta me sometimes.

I have to do it to keep the sexual tensions between us low.

 

[Havoc]

 

[Vault Dweller]

But getting this ability is an effect of a logical course of the game - if you eat Okku, that means you embrace you soul devourer side and later you get an ability to help you. It's like getting +to hit when you level up - your character gets stronger with progresion, not thanks to some choices without viable consequences.

First, you don't get the ability by default, the moment you kill Okku. You may decide not to deal with the cannibals and refuse to lure people to their lair, as there is a difference between killing an enemy in battle and luring a family to be eaten.

Second, you may develop the hunger regardless. Sparing Okku doesn't mean that you've embraced the light side. You may simply feel that not killing a spirit god will have its own benefits, which it does.

 

[Havoc]

So me choosing Iorveth and having every soldier in Loc turn hostile on Geralt, isn't C&C.
But not killing a guy and sparing him, which makes a group of cannibals hostile, is C&C.

Brilliant!

 

[Vault Dweller]

What part of "these are my early impressions, I haven't finished the game yet and am still in chapter 2, but so far the C&C aspect is kind of weak, which does not mean that this is my final set-in-stone position on the game" isn't clear?

Maybe chapter 3 is amazing and mind-blowing and will tie all the choices together so brilliantly that I'll join the chorus and even lead the holy war purging the heretics who dare claiming that TW2 is not the mother of all RPGs which puts every other RPG, including MotB, to shame. Let's wait and find out, shall we?

 

[Grunker]

Which one? Arcane Warrior? No, there is no reason if you play a mage. Reaver? If you played as a good, paladin-like character, then it would be munchkin-silly to change your play style just because you can unlock something.

AKA LARPing. I thought the trick was to implement story- and gameplay consequences to all choices so to avoid LARPing (I'm picturing myself as a paladin, so even though the game doesn't care, I won't unlock Reaver).

Larping, in the context of crpg, is providing your own content where none exists. Like developing a routine or an imaginary friendship with an NPC in Oblivion.

Playing a consistent character (and/or following your alignment), using in-game options is not larping. If you're playing a "chaotic" character who does whatever pops into his mind, then sure do whatever the fuck you want. If you're playing an equivalent of a "lawful good" character, someone who tries to help and does what's right, then it would be nothing but munchkinism if you abandon your playstyle just to get a bonus item and specialization.

Edit: Question for you. I assume that you've played Planescape. Have you always sacrificed your party members to the grimoire to get powerful spells or to the pillar of skulls? If no, why not?

I call bullshit extraordinaire. Doing something to keep a consistent character without the game recognizing it is the very definition of LARPing. I enjoy some LARPing (I, for example, did not unlock Reaver with my good character, though as you see below, the LARPing in the Reaver-choice is somewhat mitigated). In Planescape, you lose the party-members, AKA, the game recognizes it. Even if it didn't, I would probably just LARP. There are varying degrees of LARPing alright, but that doesn't make not unlocking Reaver not LARPing.

You should always be allowed to munch. Game balance is about removing munchkinism; presenting choices (do I choose A or B, which are equally good), instead of problems (unlocking Reaver is clearly better).

Unless it's also framed with a story-impact. Then it's not LARPing, is it? The game recognizes you doing it. Unlocking Reaver is recognized in a end-game slide.

So no, in essence, I guess it's not LARPing that much - but it's still no better than the TW2-choices you frown upon. If you need to make an "evil" decision to get power, then avoiding doing that should have impact on the story - the game should recognize it in some way. In Oblivion, there is aboslutely 0 reason for not doing the Dark Brotherhood questline no matter how you want to play. You have to LARP to not do it. So that's 100% LARP.

Well, one can argue (not me, I'd never do that) that combat in TW2 is horrible and I don't think that everyone would praise the story to high heaven. Sure, it's not "save the world from evil", but is it good? Those in power want more power. Didn't see that coming.

Did they present it as a twist? No. Does AP? Yes. Hence my comment about predictability. Could you predict Silé would fuck you and in which way? No. You have no reason to suspect her in Chapter 2. TW2's story is good, it's characters great, and the dilemmas and themes it presents mature and with depth.

I have to do it to keep the sexual tensions between us low.

 

[Black_Willow]

But getting this ability is an effect of a logical course of the game - if you eat Okku, that means you embrace you soul devourer side and later you get an ability to help you. It's like getting +to hit when you level up - your character gets stronger with progresion, not thanks to some choices without viable consequences.

First, you don't get the ability by default, the moment you kill Okku. You may decide not to deal with the cannibals and refuse to lure people to their lair, as there is a difference between killing an enemy in battle and luring a family to be eaten.

Second, you may develop the hunger regardless. Sparing Okku doesn't mean that you've embraced the light side. You may simply feel that not killing a spirit god will have its own benefits, which it does.

You're talking about munchkinism. See: your own post above.

 

[RK47]

Still angry at the Quen imbalance. I'm really tempted to learn how to parry and fight like a real swordsman, but the game rewards Quen-spam too much. How can I resist a 90 second Quen with 4 vigor bar casts?!

The pay-off is just too good.

Also, fuck the Kayran scripted combat. They messed it up big time. I chopped two just fine but the third one just won't get snared...then I watched a tutorial video and it showed that I have to switch to the tentacle on the rightmost instead. And it worked like a charm. Either I'm unlucky or the scripted bollocks need tweaking.

And I wish CDP would cut down on the multiple protagonist POV jumping. It's obvious the game wasn't meant for that.

EDIT: Alchemists are getting cheated by the new consumption system. There's just too many instances where I drink up the usual potions, only to be left with barely 3 minutes of effect after going through 5 minutes of conversation before a fight break out. Also, unable to consume during fights. SIGH.

Why don't they just put a penalty to in-combat consumption like instant damage or lowered effectiveness? At the moment, the most reliable non-puzzle boss strategy seem to be spamming super throwing knives and cheap bombs if Quen fails.

 

[Havoc]

What part of "these are my early impressions, I haven't finished the game yet and am still in chapter 2, but so far the C&C aspect is kind of weak, which does not mean that this is my final set-in-stone position on the game" isn't clear?

Maybe chapter 3 is amazing and mind-blowing and will tie all the choices together so brilliantly that I'll join the chorus and even lead the holy war purging the heretics who dare claiming that TW2 is not the mother of all RPGs which puts every other RPG, including MotB, to shame. Let's wait and find out, shall we?

How about "I shall not go deeper to annoucing that TW2 C&C is shit until I play the game till the end or even beat the game two times to see my choices play out differently."?

 

[Admiral jimbob]

He's just a guy giving his opinion on the game so far. That's allowed.

 

[Coyote]

Black Willow: I don't want to derail this into a discussion of your tastes, but I'm genuinely curious: if you consider the spare/devour Okku decision a poor example of [gameplay-affecting?] C&C, what do you consider a good example?

Grunker: My impression was that "LARPing", as the Codex uses it, originally meant taking actions that the game doesn't recognize at all, where the consequences exist entirely in your imagination (e.g., going to the chapel to pray every day in Oblivion because your character is supposed to be pious). When the game presents you with a choice and you choose one way or another based on the type of character you're playing, that wouldn't fall under this definition because the game does recognize your decision. Even if you get no tangible benefit out of it, you're not just pretending to make a choice; the game acknowledges that you've made a decision by, if nothing else, making it impossible to take a different action and reap the benefits from doing so. It's only recently that it has come to be used in a more mondblutian fashion (i.e. to mean taking any action that doesn't result in a tangible benefit for your character).

Although again, this is just my impression. Before coming to the Codex the only definition of LARPing I'd ever heard of would be irrelevant to a CRPG, and when you assign new meaning to a word without defining precisely what that meaning is, it's easy for people to interpret it differently.

(Note: not taking any sides here, I haven't had a chance to play TW2 yet.)

 

[flushfire]

No, it's not. The rest remains the same, which allows your choice to modify the gameplay. For example, the hill tribe will attack you if you spared Okku, letting you think that they are just some hill savages, filler combat. If you kill Okku, they offer to teach you and give you more insight into your condition. Same content, vastly modified by the choice.

I guess I just don't agree that a fork is worse. But I understand your point.

Which ones?

Newboy conversation. Told him ATM what i thought was true, that I was not sure what the amulet's magic is, although it's def. enchanted. Got a dragon book as a reward, not the amulet. Is it a bug? Not sure.

Otherwise, does it really matter if the game throws a few fights your way or not?

I see your point, however the same could be said of other RPGs where peaceful solution is offered. Should these differences be dismissed just bec. combat is easy? Bec. even the trinity didn't have hard fights.

http://rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=161

first time i saw this. thanks!

Still angry at the Quen imbalance.

Exact same gripe I had with Risen. I wanted to use parrying/countering and lateral blows but charge attack was was just too good.

 

[UserNamer]

Maybe chapter 3 is amazing and mind-blowing and will tie all the choices together so brilliantly that I'll join the chorus and even lead the holy war purging the heretics who dare claiming that TW2 is not the mother of all RPGs which puts every other RPG, including MotB, to shame. Let's wait and find out, shall we?

Chapter 3 has a major non-choice. You can choose to fight a shitload of black clad soldiers, or a shitload of yellow clad soldiers (I suggest you to take on the yellow soldiers because it has a few neat cutscenes with Roche). The plot doesn't change in the end. And you have a few absolutely inconsequential choices like kill the dragon\don't kill the dragon or fight the end boss\don't fight the end boss (personally I didn't find any reason to fight the end boss.. only reason I figured was to avenge a few slain kings but who the fuck cares)

I still want to clarify that I love the game, there is a sea of shit out there and I think it would be unfair to say this branching style of C and C makes the game shitty. I really hope cd project would consider making an expansion or a sequel with non linear quests though

 

[Vault Dweller]

No arguing here. It is a great, very enjoyable game. One of the best I've played in a long time.

 

[Crooked Bee]

Thanks for your explanations, Storyfag and Mrowak. As I said, I can't really comment on anything since I haven't beaten the game, but I'm glad there are disparate sets of quests for Act 3, that's an incline.

as in not 'I am full of angst, so I will destroy the world' or 'Gahahahaha!!!'

Yeah, you have a point there, even though not all SMT characters are like that.

If you can block any quests is always more due to your ineptness in investigating than anything else e.g. you believe a witness without checking his alibi - you fuck up the quest. Moreover, I can't say there are any good/bad endings there. This is partially because the game rejects this dychotomy and forces you to choose between two or more 'lesser evils'. Hence, some surprising variations occur. Whatever is choose, however, it's never going to be the 'good' ending. You will always antagonise some.

Yeah, I just have my problems with that kind of design. It's basically the kind of game that doesn't seriously punish you for not being smart or, uhm, RPG-proficient enough, as you're able to "beat" the game in any route. There is no "lol, you've failed" or "dead end" route. Not that it's a major problem, just my personal quirk, really, as I understand there're simply different kinds of games with different kinds of priorities.

 

[Havoc]

"There is no "lol, you've failed" or "dead end" route."

There's conversation death... for example when Geralt has bowmen aimed at him.

 

[Mrowak]

No arguing here. It is a great, very enjoyable game. One of the best I've played in a long time.

And that's fair enough. Let's leave at that, shall we?

As it is now, we are arguing about the semantics - whether TW2 is RPG or not, how much C&C it needs to be an RPG and suchlike bullshit. It's all totally pointless, tantamount to spoiled brats' fussing about their toys. Neither side stands a chance of convincing the other because both hold too strong convictions. Neither of the sides has to be wrong.

 

[Crooked Bee]

"There is no "lol, you've failed" or "dead end" route."

There's conversation death... for example when Geralt has bowmen aimed at him.

Yeah, I remember than scene, and kudos to the devs for it, that was a fun moment (even if you could just reload the autosave from before the conversation starts). Still, what I have in mind -- and sorry if I'm not articulate enough, I'm not really good at articulating things -- is having a set of wrong routes in which the choices you make are wrong (= not clever enough) and lead you, steadily and slowly, into a dead end / destruction of the world / bad ending / whatever, making you play the game in a smarter way next time / develop your character build better / think harder about what you're doing.

 

[UserNamer]

after reading "the edge of the world" (a short story about the witcher) I have a clearer idea about the elves and humans in the witcher universe. In the game I had the impression that only the humans were unnecessary racists and evil, leading some elves to become terrorists. I'm glad is more nuanced than that and that the elves have shitty attitudes and racist feelings too.

 

[flushfire]

It's all totally pointless

There's some good that came out of it. VD no longer claims in TW2 character skills don't matter its all player skill unlike in Risen.

at least that has been proven wrong if you trust VoD.

 

[Mrowak]

Thanks for your explanations, Storyfag and Mrowak. As I said, I can't really comment on anything since I haven't beaten the game, but I'm glad there are disparate sets of quests for Act 3, that's an incline.

as in not 'I am full of angst, so I will destroy the world' or 'Gahahahaha!!!'

Yeah, you have a point there, even though not all SMT characters are like that.

Yeah, I know that, of course. The thing is it's enough if just some of them are like that to ruin perfectly fine and interesting scenario. To be frank, that may be reason I can't get into most jRPGs these days e.g. Devil Summoner.

If you can block any quests is always more due to your ineptness in investigating than anything else e.g. you believe a witness without checking his alibi - you fuck up the quest. Moreover, I can't say there are any good/bad endings there. This is partially because the game rejects this dychotomy and forces you to choose between two or more 'lesser evils'. Hence, some surprising variations occur. Whatever is choose, however, it's never going to be the 'good' ending. You will always antagonise some.

Yeah, I just have my problems with that kind of design. It's basically the kind of game that doesn't seriously punish you for not being smart or, uhm, RPG-proficient enough, as you're able to "beat" the game in any route. There is no "lol, you've failed" or "dead end" route. Not that it's a major problem, just my personal quirk, really, as I understand there're simply different kinds of games with different kinds of priorities.

I like this kind of design myself as well, though the delayed consequences in TW2 could make it so for some players (i.e. retards) it would be unfair to be punished without clearly stating what was done wrong... There are a few fun moments where the retributive hand of justice fins you and promptly kills you, but nothing really beyond that. Well, there's one or two quests I remember where you can be proved fool and get a bad ending. There's nothing like that as far as the main storyline is concerned, unfortunately.