A nice notion, ignoring the fact that CDPR made the entirety of TW2 as a war prelude with choices that will affect the war so that excuse doesn't work.
Nor do I agree for a second with this notion that just because no one has done it well CDPR can't do it. No one had done a game as good looking on technical level as they did with TW2, one of the best looking games ever made, but they did it anyway.
Quote
It isn't realistic that every decision you made in the previous game helps you and pops it's head out in the next.
It's not about every choice having consequences, it's about choices which logically should have consequences: Henselt's fate, Anais, Saskia, Stennis, The Council, Sile and Letho.
In this lies the failure of the ME3 imports with the smaller choices, as I said they just added a lot of consequences just because they wanted it there for the players, not because it made story sense.
A guy by the name of MrBtongue once made a point that choices and consequences are both overrated and underrated. His point was that if the only goal with choices and consequences is to have a feature to slap on the box of a game then you are making a nice turd, but if you are doing to make the world believable and for the purposes of simulation then you are doing it right.
The fact is TW2 has a lot of meaningful choices, which for the most part are logical in the way story is done, problem is very few have real meaningful consequences in the game and namely: The Garden's choice, the Path choice and finally the Council choice. That's fine as I see it because I would expect those consequences to really show in the third game where it is only logical ( like Henselt's fate, Sile's fate, Saskia's fate, Iorveth's fate ).
If TW2 choices don't have real consequences in TW3 then CDPR has just made another turd.
Comments
Stryker577
03.10.2012 @ 09:46