View Single Post

Default 

November 29th, 2011, 16:59
Originally Posted by JonNik View Post
True, But it was a rather small game so perhaps it is not a totally unreasonable request.
It is unreasonable .
The thing is, you sorta have the way to act "neutral" throughout the game already.
During the major branch at the end of the first chapter Geralt can be roleplayed as someone who just uses Roche or Iorveth as means to pursue Letho/Triss. Siding with one of them does not necessarily mean Geralt subscribes under their ideologies, such thing is not forced upon him, afair.
In the later chapters one can to some degree nuance Geralt´s involvement and stance towards all the politics around and I think the very last encounter in the game wrapped the "unpolitical"-dude-caught-in-politics aspect nicely.
Ok, having a third major branch would be cool if it wouldn´t compromise quality of the content, but the fact that there are only two does not mean the game doesn´t have a place for neutrality, it´s just organically woven within.


As for TW1/TW2, I sorta summed what I think a while ago in the other thread, so a repost :

Originally Posted by DeepO View Post
At least among the people who liked the first game, I wouldn´t be surprised if there´s actually a bit more of those who consider it overall a better game than the sequel.
I really enjoyed the second game as well, but if I was forced to choose I´d go with the first one. Without going into specifics, the first game is a "classic" for me, whereas the second one, while certainly being a worthy successor of the first and whose continuation I´m looking forward to, is "just" a very good one.

Going more into specifics, part of the above may stem from the fact I didn´t mind and actually quite liked the combat in the original so its somewhat better iteration (at least on the action side) in the sequel didn´t make much of a difference to my enjoyment of both games. I honestly didn´t find much flaws in other game aspects of the original, while I was quite constantly stumbling upon flaws in the sequel - granted, most of these were fairly minor, but it adds up.
The original felt more open and more personal, while in the sequel, despite the C&C stuff, it felt more like you´re sorta taken on a ride without much time to breathe. I´ve also found the original´s atmosphere overall more engaging - the sequel has undoubtedly better graphics, but the art direction in the original is at least as good and it has much better soundtrack and music plays quite a major role in constituting atmosphere in a game for me.
The fourth chapter of the original was something really special.

Speaking of personal, I think the devs missed a major opportunity in this regard when they chose to make discovering Geralt´s past/identity completely non-interactive and independent on player´s choices. It didn´t work this way in the original and I´ve found it quite poignant/cool that the quest was never moved into completed ones in the journal. That it didn´t continue in a similar manner in the sequel and the concept wasn´t expanded upon was quite a big disappointment for me.

I love all the political intrigue in the sequel, branching in the story, visuals or the game´s down to earth ending and Roche just plain rulez, but at the end of the day, the first one was simply a more memorable experience for me overall.

Originally Posted by Pessimeister View Post
Little details not carrying over from the first game. Such as having fought Zdenek once before (and the game not recognising it) or more importantly the relationship I had Geralt forge with Shani.
That Shani bit is indeed annoying - it was a major part of the first game and wasn´t really wrapped up there, thus the total omission in the sequel renders it pretty much pointless in retrospect and as far as potential replays go.
And I don´t think it even required that much work to address it sufficiently without complicating the sequel´s storyline. Some additional dialogue with Dandelion and Zoltan and few differences in the Triss relationship might´ve been enough.

Originally Posted by Pessimeister View Post
Given that these stories are based on novels and established lore, this all kind of makes sense and is easily explained and rationalised but the lack of acknowledgement seems to distance the player from the ability to shape/customise Geralt from a role-playing perspective.
Yeah and it sorta ties to what I´ve mentioned in the repost - the past/identity thing.
In the third game they probably intend the more personal part of the storyline to revolve around the past foreshadowed in some of the second game´s vignettes and I really hope they will take an ambiguous route in this regard. The past may be set in stone in the books, but it doesn´t have to be in the game.
That they´ll allow players to deal with its consequences in different ways is likely granted, but I´d like to be able to also interpret the past events (as in, what and why really happened) in more than one way.
For me, all those snapshots of past events without any player´s input rather diminished a feeling of Geralt being a player´s character.
Last edited by DeepO; November 29th, 2011 at 21:02.
DeepO is offline

DeepO

DeepO's Avatar
deep outside

#23

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Prague
Posts: 2,327