|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » RPGWatch Side Quest - Manipulation and Perversion

Default RPGWatch Side Quest - Manipulation and Perversion

January 14th, 2008, 20:15
Originally Posted by magerette View Post
This is very much what I was trying to say, Vio (though it may not seem like it-and I have no wish to draw down on my head the combined forces of Corwin and Prime Junta—-Debate Team from Hell )
That does it. Corwin — you hold her down, I'll get the board with the nail in it.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#41

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

January 14th, 2008, 20:23
Originally Posted by Prime Junta View Post
That does it. Corwin — you hold her down, I'll get the board with the nail in it.
***quietly but quickly boards bus to unknown destination leaving no forwarding address…***

Where there's smoke, there's mirrors.
magerette is offline

magerette

magerette's Avatar
Hedgewitch
RPGWatch Team

#42

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,929

Default 

January 15th, 2008, 04:18
Originally Posted by Vio View Post
Apart from that, Witchers are supposed to be neutral and slay monsters. Whether going against this "nature" in favor of compassion or nobility is a good idea on the long run is one of the core themes of the game.
Indeed Vio but, while it isn't quite obvious from the game, the important thread in books is that Geralt is a non-typical Witcher because he is the only one who has human feelings. At first Geralt think that he is an experiment gone wrong but, as it turns out, this is exacly what his creators hoped to achieve. Unfortunatelly he was the only from his grup who survided the ordeal.

Originally Posted by magerette View Post
My point about the Rev was that he was unlikable and obnoxious, but should you really be basing a life-changing decision for all the people of the village on whether you like or dislike someone? I agree that he had a high conglomeration of negative traits, but he was the leader chosen by these people, rightly or wrongly. So theoretically, his worth could be evaluated on some level beyond his personality. I couldn't choose him either, and maybe that is part of how the devs wanted you to define Geralt
Couldn't agree more magerette. I was thinking long and hard about it: Abby was a necromancer and a lier but I still could not bring myself to side with Reverend and villagers against her.
Last edited by zahratustra; January 15th, 2008 at 05:52.
zahratustra is offline

zahratustra

SasqWatch

#43

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,345

Default 

January 15th, 2008, 10:41
And ultimately, to how many of you would it have mattered how much of a jerk or a nice guy he is, as long as he was about to burn a witch? I would have chosen this option even with relatively clear indications that Abby had been doing something severely wrong - burning at the stake is not my idea of justice, no matter the crime. Don't forget, Gerald tells the Villagers to go home and contemplate starting new - to attack (and thus, to die), is the choice the villagers made.
GhanBuriGhan is offline

GhanBuriGhan

GhanBuriGhan's Avatar
Wose extraordinaire

#44

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,482

Default 

January 15th, 2008, 12:10
That's what we say today, knowing that in reality it was a huge and cruel injustice. But back in the day, people feared witches - and in that world, as opposed to ours, there really ARE witches.
Maybe they really believed it was a good thing. Even though their fear was being instrumentalized by the Rev, and even though it suited their ends (covering their crimes).

How about people who support the bombing of entire countries because they are "evil"? In an age where the internet provides an endless supply of information?
Vio is offline

Vio

Watcher

#45

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 32

Default 

January 15th, 2008, 12:12
Originally Posted by magerette View Post
My point about the Rev was that he was unlikable and obnoxious, but should you really be basing a life-changing decision for all the people of the village on whether you like or dislike someone? I agree that he had a high conglomeration of negative traits, but he was the leader chosen by these people, rightly or wrongly. So theoretically, his worth could be evaluated on some level beyond his personality. I couldn't choose him either, and maybe that is part of how the devs wanted you to define Geralt.
Somehow, this interpretation reminds me of the personal test result of you. Jokes aside, this can make the choice feel more balanced (although I felt the number of the bodys of the villagers were rather exaggerating). Then, the designers are able to introduce the grayness and the cruelty of the world and offer a balanced choice to some extent. Thinking how long Abigail's thread and this thread went on, I think the "manipulation" of the designers worked very well.

Like GhanBuriGhan, I don't feel the manipulation as the way Corwin pointed out, though. Corwin and I must be very different since I thought the Rev's personality simply made me question his fairness and that Abigail's try on seducing Geralt somehow backs up testimony of her manipulative aspect. After all, I was not convinced to either side but I simply felt the idea of killing Abigail for the peace of the village disturbing somehow. I didn't expect it would end up with ruining whole the village. Exiling Abigail could have been an agreement but the Witcher is not a negotiator but a sword master. I still don't know the explanation for all the dead bodies there except those who are killed in the fight, tough. [Edit]Silly me. The ghost dogs must have assaulted whole the village and disappeared when Geralt killed the Hellhound, which explains why people inside houses stayed alive.
Last edited by Dusk; January 15th, 2008 at 14:41.
Dusk is offline

Dusk

Sentinel

#46

Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 278

Default 

January 15th, 2008, 13:08
It's the case of all story driven rpgs that you are manipulated to travel along the stories path. They are similar to those old dnd modules; you are given an adventure to do not a world to play in. Geralt does say that Act 1 is a place of so many bastards so I think it's quite clear he doesn't care for the people of that area. It's the same in PS:T and KoToR you do an area and move on to the next with some zones having a few more areas to play around in. The Witcher just forces the odd difficult choice your way because, in reality, one man can't always do what he wishes and is forced to make a decision. Basically, it forces you to take one side or another because the outside world demands it.
woges is offline

woges

woges's Avatar
SasqWatch
RPGWatch Team

#47

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 2,110

Default 

January 15th, 2008, 13:16
Originally Posted by GhanBuriGhan View Post
Don't forget, Gerald tells the Villagers to go home and contemplate starting new - to attack (and thus, to die), is the choice the villagers made.
Right GhanBuriGhan, that's what I thought too!

Originally Posted by Vio View Post
That's what we say today, knowing that in reality it was a huge and cruel injustice. But back in the day, people feared witches - and in that world, as opposed to ours, there really ARE witches
But Gerald knew all about prejudice. He was subjected to it often enough.
Last edited by zahratustra; January 15th, 2008 at 13:19. Reason: Typo
zahratustra is offline

zahratustra

SasqWatch

#48

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,345

Default 

January 17th, 2008, 08:05
Originally Posted by magerette
You pretty much know where everything you do will take you
If I understand you correctly, the difference is you are choosing to play a role in NWN, which you can choose to change based on your feelings att or based on story changes. In the Witcher it's really unambiguous in many parts, you are forced to unrealistically side someone.
Sure this has happened in other games but it was clear they did it based on their story, not trying to trick us into believing we are making a choice, which is the real manipulation, imo.
Once again I am drawn to the Triss and Shanni quest in chap 3, sure it's fine they need us to choose between the two for story purposes, no problem. In the instance you pick Triss which according to the story at EVERY level she is the only choice and yet even though Geralt has saved her life Beast and saved her from gang rape, given the child away and knows absolutely jack, nadda or squat about magic as she herself said after the Beast fight. Why rub our faces in it?

Originally Posted by Ionstormsucks
Maybe they thought that sympathetic persons seldom want to burn young ladies
Lol.

Abigail had turned out to be an evil wrench who slyly tricked you into helping her to dispatch of her enemies in the village
Even if that had turned out to be true, the villagers still are trying to burn her for somethings she didn't do.

Originally Posted by bkrueger
There are other similar situations, where it was obvious for me, what the "good" solution was, though the Witcher is claimed to be open in this regard.
Exactly.

Exactly these possibilities would be the "good" solutions from a non-biased point of view.
Sort of have to disagree here, up rooting a culture to replace it with a previous, becsue they were *there first* could hardly be called good. First was the previous culture good itself, if not and was replaced by a good culture then obviously it would be an evil act, so really the only good solution would be living together in peace, if I understand correctly.

Originally Posted by Corwin
Think what it's doing for our reputations!!
This is like reading a great novel or seeing a great movie, feeling all warm and fuzzy.

Originally Posted by magerette
I did feel I was being asked to evaluate complex situations using a different value judgment system than my own—that is, trying to think like Geralt
Yes, so true The Witcher's strongest and best moments came from these times.

Trust me, most of the names I have been called you can't translate in any language…they're not even real words as much as a succession of violent images.
Acleacius is offline

Acleacius

SasqWatch

#49

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,498

Default 

January 17th, 2008, 08:42
I think "open in this regard" does not mean that there are no choices that are obviously better or worse than others - that would in fact greatly limit creative freedom. I think it did (and should!) mean that not every choice is along clear light side / dark side lines, that taking the "good" option can sometimes have negative consequences, not only to you, but even to others. It means it manages to create an atmosphere where decisions are not easy, where you start to think "where could this lead". That is what makes the witcher so strong, it makes you care about what you are doing. The abby example teaches us this lesson in chapter one. We can do the right thing, and say the right thing to the townpeople, but we can not save them, because they damn themselves.
GhanBuriGhan is offline

GhanBuriGhan

GhanBuriGhan's Avatar
Wose extraordinaire

#50

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,482
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » RPGWatch Side Quest - Manipulation and Perversion
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 16:06.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch