View Single Post

Default 

November 29th, 2011, 08:36
Originally Posted by JDR13 View Post
I had no problem with being made to choose between Iorveth and Roche. I thought TW2 did just fine in keeping many things in shades of gray, and I was never given the impression that one path was "good" or "bad".
No arguments there, I think they did a very good job on both writing the characters and portraying the morally gray areas that they moved in. The circumstances and events unfolding afterwards though can prove more rewarding some times if you make what initially seems like the more difficult choice (remember escorting and protecting the refugees when falling in with the Scoiatel and something similar in the context of moral rewards can be felt in the Iorveth path). I love that btw.

There is no doubt that it would be a lot of extra work and complexity to include the neutral path. I think that the game would benefit significantly from it though. It could also be the most dramatic choice, being shown the world collapsing around you and the body count rising because you once again decided to sit on the fence as is the Witcher's way and not take a stance (there was some of that in #1 but it could be made more poignant here due to the higher stakes). It would also possibly make you a target and a pariah for both factions again, also a dramatically compelling scenario…

Anyway, my true hope for #3 is that they take a step back and look at the general tone and mood of the game. I would hate to see them deviate too much from what made the original what it is imo and lose the uniqueness of the series. The Witcher is not a franchise I am prepared to let go with a light heart..
JonNik is offline

JonNik

JonNik's Avatar
SasqWatch

#18

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,734