View Single Post

Default 

June 27th, 2013, 20:11
Living With The Consequences: The Witcher series is known for the freedom it affords players to shape the narrative with their actions and choices. The Witcher 3 is no exception. The optional side quest we saw carried both story and environmental consequences. Defeating the leshen lifted its curse on the woods, transforming them into a sunnier, more hospitable environment. However, they also resulted in tragedy for the village; not only was Hilde sacrificed to ensure the leshen would not return, but a young and ambitious villager used the opportunity to kill off the town's elders and take control. Returning at a later time reveals a grim fate for the community in the form of a flashback the village was eventually raided due to the regime change and its inhabitants were slaughtered. The outcome could have been completely different had the player made different choices or chosen to skip the side quest altogether.
Bioware has this right: it is about big decisions. The player wants to feel important, it wants the game world to revolve around the PC (and therefore the player)
Every decision is not a choice. For a decision to be a choice, outcomes must be equivalently desirable or feared, tearing the person taking the decision apart.

This is when games want to chew much more than they can. When reading the report, it appears that the player cant fathom the consequences of the decisions. Games can offer a player to take big decisions (here, determining the fate of a village) but it is not a choice as the player is not aware of the stake at hand.

Being able to fathom the consequences of a decision requires a familiarity with the gameworld, a familiarity that a so called RPGs like the witcher cant provide.

Players wishing to play God, not choice and consequences.
ChienAboyeur is offline

ChienAboyeur

SasqWatch

#15

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,015