15863 réponses à ce sujet

[Elhanan]

The importance of choice is subjective for each Player, as I would kill the Bloody Baron in TW3 every time. Then again in DAO, I kill Bhelen almost every time too, but am aware that many others don't for varied reasons.

Players place different priorities based on indv factors; same for purchasing games in the first place.

[FKA_Servo]

Players place different priorities based on indv factors; same for purchasing games in the first place.

 

So is this just an Elhanan's greatest hits sort of thing now?

 

BTW, in case you're interested - Enderal's finally coming out. A Skyrim total overhaul by the folks who did Nehrim for Oblivion. I for one am excited.

 

Releases next week! In German with subs first, though.

 

http://sureai.net/ga...nderal/?lang=en

 

[Akrabra]

The importance of choice is subjective for each Player, as I would kill the Bloody Baron in TW3 every time. Then again in DAO, I kill Bhelen almost every time too, but am aware that many others don't for varied reasons.

Players place different priorities based on indv factors; same for purchasing games in the first place.

How could you decide to kill the Bloody Baron without playing the game? Watching a Youtube video of the quest line does not provide the same context as you being in the situation of Geralt and experience it through him. 

[Dutchess]

Then again you could end up with a game where you don't like the set character, and then where do you go? Atleast with character creation you have the freedom to make whoever you want. Truth is i want the balance, i want some backstory to ground your created character and give them motivation. Hawke had potential to be like that in DA:II as you brought in the family element and a more set background story, but the game failed on many other levels (atleast for me).

Then you have a game like Fallout 4 which tried the same, but upset a huge chunk of the fanbase because it didn't offer the freedom they were used to, but the same people like The Witcher 3 for having a set protag? Where do you go from there? Or did people dislike Fallout 4 because it didn't offer a great story? Atleast ME:A is making the change i wanted them to, making both characters you can choose appear in the game regardless of your choice. 

 

I guess choice to me in an RPG is rather who i can be, and not what i can decide in the world, so it doesn't matter as much to me as it does to others. 

 

I think the most important thing is doing it well, whichever option is chosen for the protagonist. Overall, the Witcher games handled their set protagonist well. They gave you meaningful options to explore and flesh out Geralt's identity (especially in the first game, when he still had amnesia) and beliefs, and gave complicated choices without a clear superior path for him to take. The options generally fit with his core identity and personality and allowed you to form varying versions of this same person. 

 

In Skyrim you're whoever you want to be. The game gives you few dialogue options but also lays little in your way to conflict with the identity you shape for your character. You can devise a backstory and motivations in your head and pick out quests that support that. The game can't account for whatever players think of so you're unlikely to be able to actually express a lot of aspects of your character, but that's the other side of massive freedom.

 

DAO falls between those two categories and also did it well. There were restrictions but the origins and later references to them added enough flavor for me to play a range of very different characters. Then there is DA:I, as an example of how... not to approach it. You can choose race and gender and are supposed to be able to decide aspects like personality, (religious) beliefs and motivation as well as per the options provided by the game. Yet as an elf you get lectured about ancient elven heritage and who Mythal is by Morrigan, and you're still hailed as the Herald of Andraste by everyone you happen to bump into. After one question from Josephine where you can say you loved frolicking in the woods or hated it, the race and background of your character is pretty much discarded and ignored. 

Religion is a major theme in DA:I. Herald this, Maker that, Chantry there, it's thrown around numerous times. And yet even a character who follows what should be the ideal mold for this story, a human and devout Andrastian who is convinced he was saved by the religious icon herself, ends up falling completely flat because the game fails. I played a human noble this way and for a while it went well. He was a self-righteous ******, but as a character he worked. Then the Fade quest happened and he learned it was not actually Andraste who rescued him. Pretty devastating for someone who was so convinced of that, right? Well, no, not according to Bioware. Mild surprise was about the most I was offered to express there, and then it was promptly forgotten. The question whether the figure behind him who was seen upon the first escape from the Fade was replaced by the question whether the Fade spirit was Divine Justinia's soul/spirit or not by the religious NPCs (Cassandra and Leliana). There was no possibility to discuss the revelation about Andraste and being the Maker's chosen with any of them. So the choice was now whether to fess up or continue as a devout figure and be a fraud. And even that is done without batting an eye, without any accompanying talk beyond that suggestion from Hawke, without the opportunity of any reaction from my character. He just had to keep going and still got the option to claim he was representing Andraste in the scene judging the Warden Ruth. 

[Elhanan]

How could you decide to kill the Bloody Baron without playing the game? Watching a Youtube video of the quest line does not provide the same context as you being in the situation of Geralt and experience it through him.

As I have mentioned, I have seen the entire quest in context, and killing the Baron is an easy choice for me.

The point being that different Players have varied views. I have also played DAI with a Human noble aligned with the Chantry, and a proud Elven female; have much different opinions on the game than some others.

[Hazegurl]

Then again you could end up with a game where you don't like the set character, and then where do you go? Atleast with character creation you have the freedom to make whoever you want. Truth is i want the balance, i want some backstory to ground your created character and give them motivation. Hawke had potential to be like that in DA:II as you brought in the family element and a more set background story, but the game failed on many other levels (atleast for me).

Then you have a game like Fallout 4 which tried the same, but upset a huge chunk of the fanbase because it didn't offer the freedom they were used to, but the same people like The Witcher 3 for having a set protag? Where do you go from there? Or did people dislike Fallout 4 because it didn't offer a great story? Atleast ME:A is making the change i wanted them to, making both characters you can choose appear in the game regardless of your choice. 

 

I guess choice to me in an RPG is rather who i can be, and not what i can decide in the world, so it doesn't matter as much to me as it does to others. 

If you don't like the set character then I would say that the people who created him/her did a good job. It means they created an actual individual person and not a cardboard cut out the player can insert themselves into. The set character may have opinions or flaws that the player doesn't like, something that can happen to anyone.  However, CDPR does give us some choices in who Geralt is.  Geralt is a womanizer and will flirt with women beyond the player's control. However, it's the player who decides if he sleeps with them. If you want to play a changed Geralt who only remains true to Triss or Yen then you can play that person if you wish. Or you can still be the womanizer(with Triss and Yen) and face the consequences of that choice.

 

I think the issue with FO4, for me, is that the story didn't match the game play so it came across as a bit ridiculous. My son is missing out there in this harsh world but I care so much about this idiot Preston and his settlements?   I also think the writers didn't give me much motivation to care about the main story or many of the people I came across, and some of my promotions within the factions made no sense, I'm now the leader of the Minutemen because I helped one settlement?

 

But I at least finished the game, so I think it's a step in the right direction, they just need some work. 

 

I think the reason why people loved TW3 but not FO4 is because players knew what to expect for TW3 whereas those same people were attracted to the Fallout series for a different reason. And TW3 was just better written.

[FKA_Servo]

If you don't like the set character then I would say that the people who created him/her did a good job. It means they created an actual individual person and not a cardboard cut out the player can insert themselves into. The set character may have opinions or flaws that the player doesn't like, something that can happen to anyone.

 

Well, this is great for NPCs, but it's not so great for characters we're expected to play. Let's be careful that we're not spinning bugs as features for our game of choice, as some here (who shall remain nameless) are wont to do.

 

That said, I don't think this is necessarily a problem with TW3 and Geralt, who I think is changeable enough to provide a fair number of starkly different character concepts from intractable arse to total softie, and who I really grew to like very much (TW3 was the only game in the series to write him with any real warmth or humor). I just don't think anyone needs to defend their choice to play a game with a protagonist that doesn't appeal to them.

 

But this is largely why TW3 is a terrific ride, a wonderful story, maybe the best game I've played in the last several years - but a bad RPG. Geralt is still gonna be an NPC to a lot of players looking for a character they can roleplay (and denigrating that as "cardboard cut out self-inserting" is uncharitable). Pretending they're Geralt of Rivia slicing up bandits isn't too far removed from pretending they're Link and slicing up peahats - or pretending they're Mario, stomping on Koopatroopas. I wouldn't really characterize those things as role playing. Which isn't a slam - they're just categorically different approaches to gameplay.

 

I think the issue with FO4, for me, is that the story didn't match the game play so it came across as a bit ridiculous. My son is missing out there in this harsh world but I care so much about this idiot Preston and his settlements?   I also think the writers didn't give me much motivation to care about the main story or many of the people I came across, and some of my promotions within the factions made no sense, I'm now the leader of the Minutemen because I helped one settlement?

 

But I at least finished the game, so I think it's a step in the right direction, they just need some work. 

 

I think the reason why people loved TW3 but not FO4 is because players knew what to expect for TW3 whereas those same people were attracted to the Fallout series for a different reason. And TW3 was just better written.

 

I agree that it's up to expectations - though I would go on to say that the biggest problem with Fallout 4 is the specificity of the scenario. The character never should have been saddled with such limited circumstances - or had a voiced protagonist for that matter. When every second dialogue option in a given interaction is some variation on "my baby was taken from me" you're prevented from coherently playing any character other than the one the developers intended. In a game like Fallout, which will get a lot of its longevity from the mod scene and the emergent narrative intrinsic to Bethesda's open world games, this is a huge shortcoming.

[Wolven_Soul]

Then again you could end up with a game where you don't like the set character, and then where do you go? Atleast with character creation you have the freedom to make whoever you want. Truth is i want the balance, i want some backstory to ground your created character and give them motivation. Hawke had potential to be like that in DA:II as you brought in the family element and a more set background story, but the game failed on many other levels (atleast for me).

Then you have a game like Fallout 4 which tried the same, but upset a huge chunk of the fanbase because it didn't offer the freedom they were used to, but the same people like The Witcher 3 for having a set protag? Where do you go from there? Or did people dislike Fallout 4 because it didn't offer a great story? Atleast ME:A is making the change i wanted them to, making both characters you can choose appear in the game regardless of your choice. 

 

I guess choice to me in an RPG is rather who i can be, and not what i can decide in the world, so it doesn't matter as much to me as it does to others. 

 

Fair point, but when you like the character, as many do with Geralt, it really allows for a lot of great decisions.  I, like you, prefer the balance, but I have yet to see the game that gives you the balance and gives you the kind of choices that you get with TW3. 

 

I disliked FO4 not because of the story, none of the FO games I have played have had truly great stories.  I disliked it because of the lack of interesting choices, because of not feeling like I had any impact on that world. 

 

RPG choice for me is always about what I can decide in the world, about the kind of impact I have.  It doesn't matter to me so much who I can be if who I am doesn't get to make really interesting decisions. 

[Wolven_Soul]

 

 

But this is largely why TW3 is a terrific ride, a wonderful story, maybe the best game I've played in the last several years - but a bad RPG. Geralt is still gonna be an NPC to a lot of players looking for a character they can roleplay (and denigrating that as "cardboard cut out self-inserting" is uncharitable). Pretending they're Geralt of Rivia slicing up bandits isn't too far removed from pretending they're Link and slicing up peahats - or pretending they're Mario, stomping on Koopatroopas. I wouldn't really characterize those things as role playing. Which isn't a slam - they're just categorically different approaches to gameplay.

 

 

 

 

If your going to call TW3 a bad RPG because it has a set protagonist, then you have to call the Final Fantasy series, Breath of Fire series, and more than a few others, bad RPGs because they don't really allow for a lot of that type of role playing.  That's something I refuse to do.  They're not bad RPGs, they're just different.  This is why I love playing RPG's with every kind of protagonist, set, custom, or balanced.   

[FKA_Servo]

If your going to call TW3 a bad RPG because it has a set protagonist, then you have to call the Final Fantasy series, Breath of Fire series, and more than a few others, bad RPGs because they don't really allow for a lot of that type of role playing.  That's something I refuse to do.  They're not bad RPGs, they're just different.  This is why I love playing RPG's with every kind of protagonist, set, custom, or balanced.   

 

I personally think all of those are terrible RPGs ( which is not an indictment of their quality or merits - I'm not calling that into question), but I know that many disagree with me. It's undeniably true that some of what I feel to be the most fundamental aspects of roleplaying - conceiving a character, inserting that character in the world, inhabiting that character's mind - are completely absent from those games.

 

A less controversial restatement of my position might be - if games as distinctly different as The Witcher, Baldur's Gate, Skyrim, and Final Fantasy are all RPGs, then RPG as a genre descriptor is pretty much meaningless. I'm less fundamentalist than some people on this forum, but I do think that any RPG worth its salt grants the player a large amount of control over the creation and conduct of the character. This might lend itself better to some playstyles and gameplay genres than others.

 

I will re-iterate that being a bad RPG doesn't mean that it's a bad game (or again, that it's not the best damn game I've played in the last several years).

[Wolven_Soul]

I personally think all of those are terrible RPGs ( which is not an indictment of their quality or merits - I'm not calling that into question), but I know that many disagree with me. It's undeniably true that some of what I feel to be the most fundamental aspects of roleplaying - conceiving a character, inserting that character in the world, inhabiting that character's mind - are completely absent from those games.

 

A less controversial restatement of my position might be - if games as distinctly different as The Witcher, Baldur's Gate, Skyrim, and Final Fantasy are all RPGs, then RPG as a genre descriptor is pretty much meaningless. I'm less fundamentalist than some people on this forum, but I do think that any RPG worth its salt grants the player a large amount of control over the creation and conduct of the character. This might lend itself better to some playstyles and gameplay genres than others.

 

I will re-iterate that being a bad RPG doesn't mean that it's a bad game (or again, that it's not the best damn game I've played in the last several years).

 

Oh I can respect your opinions here.  I don't agree with them, despite thinking that they have merit, but I can respect them.  Personally, I think we're starting to rehash arguments we've already had in the past just to keep the thread going longer, lol. 

 

I think your actually right though that RPG as a genre descriptor has become fairly meaningless.  I mean, there are a lot of games now that no one has ever considered an RPG that have a few elements that most usually qualify as being RPG-ish. 

[Hazegurl]

Well, this is great for NPCs, but it's not so great for characters we're expected to play. Let's be careful that we're not spinning bugs as features for our game of choice, as some here (who shall remain nameless) are wont to do.

 

 

 

I disagree, for a set PC to be universally likeable certain aspects that define them as their own person would have to be stripped turning them into essentially a cardboard character you place at point A or B and select dialogue for.  We're talking about a set PC with a full background, life, lovers, friends et al.  That is different from a PC who has none of these things or very minimal because the player is expected to fill this in, either through in-game choices or head canon. A set PC shouldn't be universally likeable because we're all different people and have different things we like about other people. I'm not saying a player shouldn't play TW3 if they don't like Geralt, I'm saying it's not the end of the world if you do play and not like him.  There are still plenty of other choices to define Geralt as the person he is presently, if there weren't then there would be no discussions about why someone picked Triss over Yen or why we decided to kill Karadin,  side with the tree spirit, or let Olgerid be taken by o'Dimm. I can't agree with you that TW3 is a bad RPG based solely on you not being able to define every single aspect of your PC's identity and past.  I understand why some RPG fans feel that way, but IMO, I don't think RPGs should be placed inside a box.

 

 

 

I agree that it's up to expectations - though I would go on to say that the biggest problem with Fallout 4 is the specificity of the scenario. The character never should have been saddled with such limited circumstances - or had a voiced protagonist for that matter. When every second dialogue option in a given interaction is some variation on "my baby was taken from me" you're prevented from coherently playing any character other than the one the developers intended. In a game like Fallout, which will get a lot of its longevity from the mod scene and the emergent narrative intrinsic to Bethesda's open world games, this is a huge shortcoming.

 

 

 

I agree that *Bethesda should have come up with a story that fit their open world style, but I loved having a voiced PC, it's one of the reasons I gave FO4 a chance. IMO, a voiced PC feels more immersive. I love hearing my character actually talk back to someone rather than just stand there doing their best mime act.

 

*Just noticed I typed BW lol!

[TmTapani]

If most of the role-playing in a game happens only inside your own head, is the game still a good rpg? Or even a rpg at all? Games that allow you to create your own character from scratch very, VERY, rarely support any actual role-playing. The characters just do not have any weight to them. Skyrim is an excellent example of this. The game pretty much allows you to be whatever character type you want, but the character you make and play as is meaningless. Race, class, skills? Aside from game mechanics nothing has any relevance. Are you a grandmaster in magic, leader of the mages on the continent? Not even your own guild members act like they know that.

 

Set characters like Geralt or Adam Jensen have that benefit. They have gravitas. A presence. Even if you don't like some things about them.

 

Shepard as well. While you could create him as a character of your own he was still... well... Shepard. He had many set qualities and had influence as a character that was reflected in the games themselves. At least it was in the first two, haven't played the third. A very good hybrid character between created and set, the most successful example of it that I can think of.

 

Fallout 4, compared to the previous ones in the series, is pretty much a joke. A bad one. Sure you can role-play it (in your head) but the game itself doesn't support it. They even got rid of the limited S.P.E.C.I.A.L. points that previously forced you to create different types of characters. Now you can have a 10 in every stat, and all the perks that exist are available to every character. There is only a single thing in the game that limits you and encourages multiple playthroughs, and it happens way too late in the story to really matter. And its significance is in any case almost non-existent anyway.

 

Head canon, while nice, shouldn't provide the whole RP experience in the G.

[FKA_Servo]

I disagree, for a set PC to be universally likeable certain aspects that define them as their own person would have to be stripped turning them into essentially a cardboard character you place at point A or B and select dialogue for.  We're talking about a set PC with a full background, life, lovers, friends et al.  That is different from a PC who has none of these things or very minimal because the player is expected to fill this in, either through in-game choices or head canon. A set PC shouldn't be universally likeable because we're all different people and have different things we like about other people. I'm not saying a player shouldn't play TW3 if they don't like Geralt, I'm saying it's not the end of the world if you do play and not like him.  There are still plenty of other choices to define Geralt as the person he is presently, if there weren't then there would be no discussions about why someone picked Triss over Yen or why we decided to kill Karadin,  side with the tree spirit, or let Olgerid be taken by o'Dimm. I can't agree with you that TW3 is a bad RPG based solely on you not being able to define every single aspect of your PC's identity and past.  I understand why some RPG fans feel that way, but IMO, I don't think RPGs should be placed inside a box.

 

Well, genres are usually pretty strictly defined things. I'm wondering if in the box isn't better than strewn across the floor all willy nilly, is all.

 

And I did grant that this position is less applicable to Geralt, but I still think that it constitutes a "ride" more than anything else. I'm directing the story - that's not quite the same thing as participating in the story. But like I said, that's not entirely compatible with certain gameplay genres or narrative approaches (which I think are distinct from each other as well). I'm not claiming that the game doesn't tell a rollicking, nicely interactive story with great characters.

 

I'm just concerned about bandwagoning. If everyone decides that TW3 is the greatest RPG ever, and that means the takeaway is that AAA RPGs are now action games with fixed protagonists, well, then I'm grumpy, because that's not what I always want to play. As it is, I'm thinking the only thing that the various definitions have in common is branching dialogue.

 

I agree that BW should have come up with a story that fit their open world style, but I loved having a voiced PC, it's one of the reasons I gave FO4 a chance. IMO, a voiced PC feels more immersive. I love hearing my character actually talk back to someone rather than just stand there doing their best mime act.

 

Well, my beef is that Fallout 4's particular approach only works for a limited range of characters with a limited range of motivations. The voice can be modded around easily enough, but it's a problem when the game assumes you're wanting to find your child no matter what. Tough to get around that even with alternate start mods.

 

The annoying thing is this could have been avoided just by changing up the introductory sequence a bit and revealing that stuff later on in the main storyline. This would have let us start the game under the assumption that "my family is gone or dead, I need to make my own way in this new world" - and ignore the main storyline completely if we choose to, like we could with every previous Beth game.

[FKA_Servo]

If most of the role-playing in a game happens only inside your own head, is the game still a good rpg? Or even a rpg at all? Games that allow you to create your own character from scratch very, VERY, rarely support any actual role-playing. The characters just do not have any weight to them. Skyrim is an excellent example of this. The game pretty much allows you to be whatever character type you want, but the character you make and play as is meaningless. Race, class, skills? Aside from game mechanics nothing has any relevance. Are you a grandmaster in magic, leader of the mages on the continent? Not even your own guild members act like they know that.

 

Set characters like Geralt or Adam Jensen have that benefit. They have gravitas. A presence. Even if you don't like some things about them.

 

Shepard as well. While you could create him as a character of your own he was still... well... Shepard. He had many set qualities and had influence as a character that was reflected in the games themselves. At least it was in the first two, haven't played the third. A very good hybrid character between created and set, the most successful example of it that I can think of.

 

Fallout 4, compared to the previous ones in the series, is pretty much a joke. A bad one. Sure you can role-play it (in your head) but the game itself doesn't support it. They even got rid of the limited S.P.E.C.I.A.L. points that previously forced you to create different types of characters. Now you can have a 10 in every stat, and all the perks that exist are available to every character. There is only a single thing in the game that limits you and encourages multiple playthroughs, and it happens way too late in the story to really matter. And its significance is in any case almost non-existent anyway.

 

Head canon, while nice, shouldn't provide the whole RP experience in the G.

 

I won't deny that headcanon necessarily figures into roleplaying as I characterize it - though I would say that it's always necessary to some extent, to smooth over certain things and ensure we're playing a coherent character. I personally find it very rewarding, including and especially in the context of TES games where most of my character concepts end up being 90% headcanon, but it's not for everyone.

 

However, if pressed, I have to say that I think the happy medium offered by games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age is the best way to go overall, with Shepard and Hawke being fairly strongly pre-defined (in fact, I think Hawke is a better example than Shepard, there), the warden and the inquisitor being a good deal less. Headcanon there is still important, but it's not required to cover the whole of the experience.

 

Fallout 4 is a pretty big disappointment, although I have to say so far that they tightened up their game with Far Harbor (which I haven't played much of, because poking through B&W has monopolized my attention so far). The companions are still great - in terms of characterization and personality, some of them pop just as much as Bioware and CDPR at their best. Which is pretty unheard of for Beth.

[Hazegurl]

Another easter egg! This makes me wanna use free cam more often.

[KBomb]

As I have mentioned, I have seen the entire quest in context, and killing the Baron is an easy choice for me.

The point being that different Players have varied views. I have also played DAI with a Human noble aligned with the Chantry, and a proud Elven female; have much different opinions on the game than some others.

Why would it be an easy choice for you?

It wasn't an easy choice for me. If ever a quest was in a grey area, that would be the one.

[Elhanan]

Why would it be an easy choice for you?

It wasn't an easy choice for me. If ever a quest was in a grey area, that would be the one.

Do not care of the motivation, a large monster of a man (one that can kill Geralt) striking a woman as was done does not get a pass from me. I simply deal with each indv for their crimes; not their motivations for their poor decisions.

[KBomb]

Do not care of the motivation, a large monster of a man (one that can kill Geralt) striking a woman as was done does not get a pass from me. I simply deal with each indv for their crimes; not their motivations for their poor decisions.

Pfft, he may kill your Geralt--if you had one. My Geralt would wreck him.

So, the story or motivation doesn't counter with your decision at all? If horse thievery was punishable by death (which it was) you wouldn't care if he had stolen it to free himself of slavery? I promise I am not trying to bait you into an argument. The Baron was by far one of my favorite quests and it intrigues me what motivates people's decision about it. I have heard so many answers and I was just curious about yours.

[Elhanan]

Pfft, he may kill your Geralt--if you had one. My Geralt would wreck him.

So, the story or motivation doesn't counter with your decision at all? If horse thievery was punishable by death (which it was) you wouldn't care if he had stolen it to free himself of slavery? I promise I am not trying to bait you into an argument. The Baron was by far one of my favorite quests and it intrigues me what motivates people's decision about it. I have heard so many answers and I was just curious about yours.

Killed the Geralt I saw the first time. And there are enough folks saying that TW3 offers some tough choices; just do not count this one among them for myself.

[slimgrin]

I haven't played through all the permutations for the Baron, but once he fessed up and once I saw how he treated Ciri, I was committed to minimizing any more suffering his family went through. Both he and Anna were wrecked by the war and the susbseqent sh*tty decisions they made. So for me the choices in that quest weren't that taxing, but the outcome was very well written and it's the best depiction of that topic I've seen in a game.  

[KBomb]

Killed the Geralt I saw the first time. And there are enough folks saying that TW3 offers some tough choices; just do not count this one among them for myself.

Eh, maybe if you invested yourself in it, you'd feel differently. Watching something on Youtube isn't quite the same. You may not get all of the story or investigation options, codex etc. So, you're only seeing the story as that player plays it and not necessarily how you would approach it.

It seems you made your choice on someone else's playthrough. Personally, Anna was just as horrible as the Baron. Rotten to her core and they deserved each other.

[KBomb]

I haven't played through all the permutations for the Baron, but once he fessed up and once I saw how he treated Ciri, I was committed to minimizing any more suffering his family went through. Both he and Anna were wrecked by the war and the susbseqent sh*tty decisions they made. So for me the choices in that quest weren't that taxing, but the outcome was very well written and it's the best depiction of that topic I've seen in a game.

This 100% . The only victim was the daughter. Her parents were selfish and hated each other more than they loved her. It was a really sad situation all around.

Edit: I spoke too hastily about them both being horrible people. I think your interpretation is probably more accurate. Both were loving, good people, but the war destroyed them. I think they were too damaged and allowed selfishness, anger and pride come before any blessings in their life.

[slimgrin]

This 100% . The only victim was the daughter. Her parents were selfish and hated each other more than they loved her. It was a really sad situation all around.

 

That was so well done. She made this hugely questionable life choice in reaction to her upbringing. She's shackled to it. Almost everyone can relate to that. You can tell the writers were pouring their hearts into that story. I read that some of the devs, parents mainly, were initially opposed to the whole abortion/botchling part. It was too much for them.

[Onecrazymonkey1]

This 100% . The only victim was the daughter. Her parents were selfish and hated each other more than they loved her. It was a really sad situation all around.

 

I felt bad for Tamara's whole situation but then I did a face palm when I found out she joined the witch hunters. >.<