I have played the games more than 3 times for the last monts. While I don't mind at all the mechanics of the game, I do feel unease with the story line and some characters.

The mechanics of the games, combats, inventory etc... are very much dependant on programmers - a hard job it is to keep them bug-free. It is also the choice, also the risk that the developer took. Every game is different -ever customers' tastes and expectations are different.

However, for RPGs, I think most people would "raise the bar" when judging its story


Look at the main character: Geralt His moral standard is not really coherent
In Witcher 1, he can choose to allow a group bandit to rape a peasant girl while he *will* do some good deed in the main quest.

In WC2: he risks his life to save the elve women - and that is the main quest. Gamer has no choice in this dilema. Yet, in so many other cases, the game allows gamers to let Geralt does some very bad things, one of which I really hate is his attitude if he choose to rescue Phillipa. His attitude is not in line with his normal compassion and chivary. Other actions include to give fisstect to the ex-salamary for example.


Phillipia : when she talk to our Triss, she doesn't know Saskia's true identity. She seems to be at heart believing in the revolution Saskia is leading. She seems to be a very good person. Nevertheless, her actions to manipulate Saskia seems to be very surprising to me.

It would even be less surprised if Triss does that. Because from the book and the games, Triss is a bit more manipulative.

Iorveth : I can't hardly understand the guy agenda in the first 2 playthrough. I understand that the developers want to let gamers interpret his personality . Nevertheless, I feel that it is implemented in not so much a right way.

Zoltan outright says Iorveth and his band are bandits.

The dwarfs in Vergen call him "the butcher".

Cedric hardly agree with their cause. He call it "the lost cause".

Yet, the Scoiateal, in WC1, from the quest in Vizima, didn't steal the merchant goods when Geralt first met them. (quest : Stranger in the Night).

Iorveth , responding the Geralt's questions, says he doesn't want to be king. He was behind Saskia. He wants a kingdom where Dwarf are free to visit a human inn, and human won't worry to go out in the forest. From that response, he doesn't have much stereotypes with every human.

If he is that good, how could his band done something so dishonorable that even some nonhuman won't agree with him?

i think the problem has to do with our expectations as gamers. we don't usually expect NPCs to be plotting with secondary motives all the time in our games.

the witcher series is different in that each character, geralt included, is just bumbling through life with very, VERY limited information. people lie to each other all the time, but more than that, they lie to themselves.

does iorveth really believe that humans, dwarves, and elves can live together in harmony? of course not. but in a certain environment, with a certain comely dragon, he'll believe anything. take him out of vergen and put him back in the woods next to flotsam and watch the snark come back.

likewise, philippa may think she wants to have a free pontar valley state and act as an advisor, but as soon as opportunity presents itself, she grabs the chance to become not just advisor, but absolute ruler.

interesting response I can hardly disagree. Thanks mate !

I still wait for more responses

You should know by now that TW2 characters are not black and white, they all have their good and bad sides, much like people in real life do.

It's not true that Geralt has no choice in saving the Elven women. You can easily ignore them and run up to fight Loredo. Both can be seen as "good" choices - three women die, but Flotsam is no longer ruled by a horrible oppressor OR you save three women - go, you! - but Loredo gets to live and probably harm even more people.

You don't have to give fisstech recipe to the Salamandra dude. You don't even have to take the right recipe from the herb store owner.

I think the game mostly concealed Phillipa's manipulative side - just how much of her do we see before reaching Vergen? She saves you, yes, but in the end she only fights for herself. She even says she would've put a spell on Saskia even if she hadn't gotten poisoned.

Iorveth ended up being my favourite character because of this duality you mentioned. He is portrayed as a terrorist and murdered throughout the first chapter and his douchey attitude doesn't help, that's true. You won't get to see the 'good' side unless you give him 100% of your trust and that's just how some people are.

His goal was clear but his methods of reaching it were terrible. I think he ended up murdering everything in sight out of anger and desperation (maybe that's why Cedric says he is a "lost cause", because he let the anger take the best of him) and only put an end to it when he found someone who shared his ideals - Saskia. You can really see the change in Chapter 2 if you side with him.

i was most pleased when saskia told me she wasn't taken in by his sudden attitude change. he's made his reputation through the slaughter of thousands, it'll take equally long before people can believe his "new outlook on life".

Interesting point. My 2 cents:

I can't help but think about it as a reflection - to some point, not in general - of the society we live in. I think curlyhairedboy got it right - even if you think people would or would never do things, in specific circuimstances they turn out to do exactly the opposite thing you were expecting them to do (or do not). Hell, how many times did this happen to me personally!

I would also consider the fact that the characters from the game find themselves in some really stressful situations - fighting for their lives, dealing with magic powers, facing terror, racism, harassment and so on. That only makes incoherent behaviour even more likely to reveal.

Human beings are full of incoherencies and the game seems to reflect that.

Me too. You don't go from killing people for a century to becoming everyone's best friend within days. We got to see how quick he is (was?) to kill people who disagree with him, after all.

It's hardly surprising, if you miss 7 (!) books of Sapkowski. Game story starts a few years after last book story ends.

not really our fault, only 2 books have been translated into english. :\ i have NO idea what the delay is.

I don't mean to blame anyone. My post about actual story size.

yeah, i understand. i'm just venting a little. :P

Excellently put. Ambiguous characters are something we see all the time in media like books and movies, and it makes me very hopeful for the future of gaming that Witcher games seem to be telling stories at that level.

The best about WC2 , the best that I haven't found anywhere (perhaps I could found in Torment: planetscape) is about its moral dilemna.

I do feel that WC 2 is stand true by " games could also be a form of story-telling".

*******

anyway, what I would consider a moral dilemna is a situation where there is conflict of interest where I cannot satisfy both myself and the situation's demand. Act3' slast quest where I choose to save Temerin, Saskia or my Triss is one example.

*******
the incoherence in my book is for example:

if my Geralt choose to give the real formular to the ex-salamarians, and reveal that it is fisstect ---> by his nature, he should always kills the bandits.

when he reveals that the shop owner has fisttect, say after finishing the other quest, he will always choose to close shop. RPG elements in this case will only resort to the method he choose: to beat down the shop owner or convince him.

I do feel that Geralt is a good man - from Witcher wiki, I read a few stories, one of which is his quest to find Ciri. He found the merchant who save Ciri. Before he knew his savior, he already show hospitality toward the dwarf merchant .

He almost lost his life to save the nonhuman before. How could he in many cases would allow a group of bandit to rape a peasant girl (as in WC1) or allow fisttect to be trade around in WC2 damn I even didn't know that.

However, Geralt said before jumped off the ship was that he wasn't prepared to see murder happen.

I was very much compelled to save the elven women

I understand where you're coming from with this, but if the devs gave us a choice only HOW to kill the bandits, wouldn't that stand against the Witcher's concept of giving REAL choices to the player?

This is the story of a Witcher and his character, motives are well described by the books. But at least the game lets us shape "our" Witcher and his actions and then leave the consequences and their taste - sweet or bitter - to the player himself.

game is good -- too good. But giving a mod, I believe the community will further polish it to an exceptional classic.

I just comment on the story-viewpoint-kind-of-thing. LOL

Yes, as many already comment, the WC2 raises the bar on the storytelling level of games. It is not just a game - it is a good story. Like "Inception", not just a good action movie, but a good story.

*****
It reminds me of Dragon Age quest where you have a gang battle right in the Court no matter what you did to prepare. And then out sudden, you have no knowledge on how to kill the archdemon, despite the common sense you should, and have to some witch magic.