Witcher2

[HoonDing]

Got to say though, I'm intrigued by CDP's new IP.

 

Wait, what? Which IP is this?

Perry Rhodan

[WorstUsernameEver]

Got to say though, I'm intrigued by CDP's new IP.

 

Wait, what? Which IP is this?

 

We don't know. That's kind of the point.

[GhostofAnakin]

I'd thought perhaps they'd already made the announcement, and was hoping for a link.

[Zoraptor]

May 30th, at their conference is the date for an important announcement so that may be the new IP reveal. Or it could be PS3 version of TW2, or an expansion, or TW3, in increasing order of likeliness.

[Hassat Hunter]

Folks who don't want to play through multiple times to see all possible scenarios might not like it, but for someone like me who enjoys multiple play throughs with outcomes that differ, it's fantastic.

I wanted, but couldn't slog myself throught act 1 again (back with patch 1.1 or 1.2) to experience it. Maybe should do it now with the EE being around...

[GhostofAnakin]

I wanted, but couldn't slog myself throught act 1 again (back with patch 1.1 or 1.2) to experience it. Maybe should do it now with the EE being around...

 

Do you have a save right before the Iorveth/Roche choice? That's what I did on my second play through. I made a save there, so I could skip all of Chapter 1 in future play throughs, and just play through with whatever path I chose.

[HoonDing]

It's silly that the 'choice' boils down to giving the sword back to the Elf or not. First time I had to reload because of this. Giving back the sword just seemed like the non-jerk option to me.

[Pidesco]

You can give Iorveth the sword and side with Roche.

[GhostofAnakin]

You can also refuse to give Iorveth the sword and side with him.

[Orogun01]

But then the town will party or rebel, depending on whether Iorveth is captured/free.

[Enoch]

But then the town will party or rebel, depending on whether Iorveth is captured/free.

Yes. The sword decision will govern a) what happens to Flotsam (including the fate of folks like the cathouse madam), b) some of the details of the end-of-chapter mission (mostly whether Iorveth is leading it or not, if you're on his side) and c) which person Triss talks to through the megascope. (If you help Iorveth, you get to control Triss in a chat with Phillipa Eilheart; if you didn't, you control her talking with Dethmold.) That last one was the most surprising and interesting to me.

[GhostofAnakin]

But then the town will party or rebel, depending on whether Iorveth is captured/free.

 

Which is one of the subtle differences that occurs depending on your choice that make the Witcher 2 such a good game. I like that better than the exact same thing happening, no matter who you side with.

[Wombat]

In the Witcher series, it's the world which the players, as Geralt, are interacting with - not individual characters. They tend to be just the presentations of the political mess, which constantly alienates Geralt or the players. As such, as long as the Gelart is the most interesting character for the players, the story personalization is successful.

[WorstUsernameEver]

In the Witcher series, it's the world which the players, as Geralt, are interacting with - not individual characters.

 

This really isn't true, especially for The Witcher 2.

[Wombat]

In the Witcher series, it's the world which the players, as Geralt, are interacting with - not individual characters.

 

This really isn't true, especially for The Witcher 2.

Well, guess it's probably the matter of the extent. In something like Planescape: Torment, character-player relationship was very important in personalizing the story but, I don't think it can also be true to the Witcher series. I think a certain level of alienation is one of the factors in settings such as The Witcher and Fallout series for different reasons. I admit that the Witcher 2 probably tried to put characters more "humane" compared with its predecessor. However, then, why the designers didn't let the players to choose someone like Cedric as a possible key NPC to interact with rather than the "extremists" such as Roche and Lorveth? I haven't read the novels but I feel that letting the readers sympathize with lives screwed in stupid conflicts, no matter how Geralt deal with his political alliance, is a key factor of the works. Whether this is right or not, in the Witcher series, I find characters in humbler episodes more interesting.

[Orogun01]

However, then, why the designers didn't let the players to choose someone like Cedric as a possible key NPC to interact with rather than the "extremists" such as Roche and Lorveth?

Because; like in RL, manic extremists achieve more than drunk prophets.

[zero_or_more]

However, then, why the designers didn't let the players to choose someone like Cedric as a possible key NPC to interact with rather than the "extremists" such as Roche and Lorveth?

Well I don't really get what you're trying to say... but the devs do have limited resources. And of course you get to know Geralt best, he's the PC.

 

But the game does have memorable NPCs imho and really, not everyone is 'evil' or something. Here's Cedric for example, he provides a nice contrast to Iorveth's ideologies...

[Nepenthe]

But the game does have memorable NPCs imho and really, not everyone is 'evil' or something. Here's Cedric for example, he provides a nice contrast to Iorveth's ideologies...

Who's Cedric?

[GhostofAnakin]

However, then, why the designers didn't let the players to choose someone like Cedric as a possible key NPC to interact with rather than the "extremists" such as Roche and Lorveth?

 

Probably because Cedric has no motivations other than drinking his sorrows away so he doesn't have to remember his past? Of course the developers made the player choose between Roche or Iorveth instead of Cedric; Cedric wasn't going anywhere. What was Chapter 2 and 3 supposed to be about? Geralt and Cedric seeing who could drink the most beers, or kill the most monsters with traps?

 

The other two had motivations that carried them forward in the story. They had, for their own reasons, motives for being involved in the conflicts that took place in the chapters after Flotsam. Cedric, even if he didn't die, had no motivation beyond his next drink and making sure people don't get killed wandering into the wilderness around Flotsam.

[Orogun01]

Wow... we really don't like Cedric.

[Malcador]

Bah, who cares about drunken hippies.

[BobSmith101]

The Cedric bit reminded me of the hunt for Hawkes mother in DA2. Only not stupid.

[GhostofAnakin]

Wow... we really don't like Cedric.

 

I don't mind the character, for what he is. I just don't see how it's a good idea story-wise for him to be available as a choice to follow instead of Roche or Iorveth. Cedric's story is all about Flotsam and the area around Flotsam. He's not -- and doesn't wish to be -- involved in the politics that take place in Chapter 2 and 3.

[Zoraptor]

Hmm. There could be motivation for Cedric to do something based on what happens with Roche's path in Flotsam- iirc the pregnant girl in the Commander's house is actually the lost love he mentions in passing and that could be used as motivation. Of course that would require a rewrite, and would probably end up with Cedric just becoming Iorveth Mk II anyway.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Zoraptor

[GhostofAnakin]

Hmm. There could be motivation for Cedric to do something based on what happens with Roche's path in Flotsam- iirc the pregnant girl in the Commander's house is actually the lost love he mentions in passing and that could be used as motivation. Of course that would require a rewrite, and would probably end up with Cedric just becoming Iorveth Mk II anyway.

 

The pregnant girl is the wife/lover of that other elf that talks to Cedric right when you first meet Cedric. She wasn't actually Cedric's love, so I don't think she'd be motivation for him to seek revenge. And even then, the person he'd want to seek revenge against would be Loredo, the boss of Flotsam. So he wouldn't need to go traveling to the places in Chapter 2 and 3 to track him down.