GAME JOBS
Contents
What Would Geralt Do? Witcher 2's Approach to Choice and Decision
 
 
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
 
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
June 7, 2013
 
Telltale Games
Lead Environment Artist
 
Trendy Entertainment
Technical Producer
 
Sledgehammer Games / Activision
Level Designer (Temporary)
 
High Moon / Activision
Senior Environment Artist
 
LeapFrog
Associate Producer
 
EA - Austin
Producer
spacer
Latest Blogs
spacer View All     Post     RSS spacer
 
June 7, 2013
 
Tenets of Videodreams, Part 3: Musicality
 
Post Mortem: Minecraft Oakland
 
Free to Play: A Call for Games Lacking Challenge [1]
 
Cracking the Touchscreen Code [3]
 
10 Business Law and Tax Law Steps to Improve the Chance of Crowdfunding Success
spacer
About
spacer Editor-In-Chief:
Kris Graft
Blog Director:
Christian Nutt
Senior Contributing Editor:
Brandon Sheffield
News Editors:
Mike Rose, Kris Ligman
Editors-At-Large:
Leigh Alexander, Chris Morris
Advertising:
Jennifer Sulik
Recruitment:
Gina Gross
Education:
Gillian Crowley
 
Contact Gamasutra
 
Report a Problem
 
Submit News
 
Comment Guidelines
 
Blogging Guidelines
Sponsor
Features
  What Would Geralt Do? Witcher 2's Approach to Choice and Decision
by Christian Nutt [Design, Interview]
6 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
October 29, 2012 Article Start Previous Page 3 of 3
 

I'm interested in the process of devising multiple feasible options. Like you said, it's not about providing like a Light choice and a Dark choice, it's about providing two viable choices that both seem like something the character might do. And that's a whole layer of subtlety beyond.

MZ: Yeah, that's very hard work, actually.



Is there someone who oversees everything, story-wise?

MZ: There is. [Lead story and dialogue designer] Sebastian [Stępień], definitely. I think the story lead is one of the guys who knows everything about the storyline in the game. He works with all the other story designers.

MS: And there is Mateusz [Kanik] on the quest team, who oversees the questing. So basically they talk a lot to each other to make it coherent.

MZ: It's their responsibility to make sure that the game is coherent, yeah.

If it all relates to like what Geralt would do, do you have a bible, a wiki?

MS: We have people that are really hardcore fans of Sapkowski.

MZ: Yeah, but the books are our bible. If there is a situation in a game that we could, well maybe not copy, because obviously we have a different storyline, but that's similar to the situation from the books we would definitely try to compare them, and try to figure out why it was designed this way. So the books are our bible.

That's interesting, and I can see what the advantage would be there. But you are defining your own story. So you don't follow the story the books unfold.

MZ: No. It's totally our story. But it goes well with the story defined in the books. I remember hearing this quite often whenever we were thinking about new solutions, or something. Sometimes someone says something like, "That would never happen in the books," or, "That's not coherent with the world from the books," and that's like the...

MS: Final argument.

MZ: Yeah, final argument. It's cutting the feature. We can't allow our game to go too far from the world described in the book.

MS: We just cannot go against our lore.

That's kind of fascinating because I think that in fiction, it's hard for people to stay true to things, when it would be so much easier as a writer to just go, "Oh yeah, I could just make this happen, and it'd be so convenient!" We see this all the time in movies with deus ex machina, or you see characters doing things that get the story from point A to point B rather than what the character would actually do.

MZ: And see, I think I can see a connection between what you just said, and between playing games without a defined character. I tried it myself many times. I'm like, "Okay, this time I'm playing a real badass."

MS: And trying to define yourself.

MZ: Yeah. In an open world game... I've created my character and stuff, but nothing forces me to be this badass all the time, so I keep on losing those emotions, or sometimes I make the choices that are not true to what I was trying to play at the very beginning of the game. And then, sometimes for me, it gets tasteless, because I'm spoiling my own game. I'm not trying to be coherent to my…

MS: You just sometimes make easier choices.

MZ: Yes, easier choices. In The Witcher, when you have a defined character, it just happens for you. You know you don't want to go somewhere. You see there's trouble, but it's Geralt, and he's going to go there. You have to do it. You can't say, "next time." No, it's him. So sometimes he's grabbing the story and trying to push it a little bit further.

We all play games and we all know this, but I think a lot of times developers don't face up to the fact that if you can ruin the game for yourself, even if you know you're ruining your own game by doing something cheesy or cheap.

MS: You'll still ruin it.

You'll do it because it's the path of least resistance, as a player.

MZ: It's like cheats, sometimes.

Cheats, or if you know a game has a deep combat system but just mashing X works, you're just going to keep mashing X.

MS: Because it requires less effort from you, and we are lazy bastards, as people.

MZ: Spoiling the system is also part of the fun.

MS: Sometimes, yes.

MZ: But when you already discover how to break the system, it stops being that interesting, I guess.

So it seems to me that somehow you're suggesting that having a character with a strong identity helps paper in the cracks of where people might want to deviate from?

MZ: I think it does, somehow.

MS: It also does.

A lot of the fantasy games just seem very bland, whereas if you read some of the darker, interesting fantasy novels, they come to life. I think some of the dark fantasy stuff that's come out recently in games has been a little bit self-consciously like, "This is so badass!"

MS: We're not trying to be too dark or too awesome, or something, or too epic, for example. We're just trying to be true.

MZ: We learned quite early that sure, we need a brutal combat system -- blood, monsters and stuff like this. But we learned that that's not what makes the game dark or shady. That's just there. That's brutality, and everyone is used to it already. Whenever you see a head popping off a character, it's not that bad anymore, because it's everywhere. We're trying to have some different tools to create this feeling of a shady world.

And the tools are narrative-driven.

MZ: Yes, mostly. And your decisions -- but your decisions are also connected to the storyline, so yeah.

MS: The darkness is just like pepper, right? You just should add a bit. If you overdose, your dish will be without flavor. You'll just feel bad.

 
Article Start Previous Page 3 of 3
 
Top Stories

image
Gearbox's Randy Pitchford on games and gun violence
image
How Kinect's brute force strategy could make Xbox One a success
image
Microsoft's official stance on used games for Xbox One
image
Keeping the simulation dream alive
Comments

Rob Bergstrom
profile image
One "What would Geralt do?" T-shirt, please.

Paulo Ferreira
profile image
My kingdom for a PS3 version of Witcher 2 :P

James Cooley
profile image
Witcher 2 is turning into my fondest gaming memory of 2012. The best point in the game for me was spending the game chasing a character to decide we really didn't have to fight. It wasn't what my Geralt of Rivia would have done. When I did it, it was unexpected -- but it just felt right.

Oh, and the dawning realization that small decisions could change the majority of the game. It was like, hey, EVERYTHING is different! Never before had choices mattered so much.

Bart Stewart
profile image
Excellent interview. But, this:

"MS: We just cannot go against our lore."

Well, great. Now I'm going to wonder what Star Trek Online might have been like had it been developed by CDPR.

More seriously, why do so many developers so frequently choose conceptually easy game mechanics over lore fidelity? Even more oddly, why so consistently choose conventional mechanics over lore-driven mechanics if they (or their game's publisher) have paid good money for the license to make a game based on some popular bit of IP?

"Gameplay always has to come first" is the usual retort. But doesn't the decent commercial and critical success of The Witcher gamer suggest that this choice isn't always self-evidently right?

Paul Marzagalli
profile image
Geralt is one of my favorite characters of the last decade. I was thrilled that the Witcher 2 was such a success and especially thrilled that they kept the same voice actor for the English version of the game.

Witcher 2 disappointed me in a few small ways. While I appreciated CD Project's eliminating of the backtracking that plagued the first game, Witcher 2 also felt much smaller than the deep narrative of the first game. I won't lie - I also missed the James Bond-like lustiness of Geralt in the first game. Another thing I wish CDPR had done is what Bioware did for Mass Effect 2 on the PS3 - have a comic or something that allowed you to define Witcher 1 choices for the second game. I couldn't run the game on my PC so had to get the 360 version. It would have been nice to see my Witcher 1 choices reflected in the story.

Still, it has been my favorite RPG of this year and one of my favorite games of the year, too. I'm glad they've hit that next level of success with the sequel and I look forward to them building on that going forward. My only hope is they don't shy away from the story's complex narrative, thinking they have to water it down to give it a broader appeal. Nothing would be more fatal.

Richard Redding
profile image
I have actually played both of the Witcher games and I am looking forward to the third one as well as to see how well they incorporate the lessons they learned from the Witcher games into their new cyberpunk offering that they have in the works.

I do not necessarily have a favorite character from the series as I enjoyed them all immensely.

The morality system that is in place however, I do think could use a little tweaking. One of the subtle tweaks I would put into play would be that decisions are not necessarily light and dark or grey for that matter. It merely affects how the world sees your character. Saying this however is easier said then done. If you think about the Shannara series of books written by Terry Brooks and one of the main characters therein, Allanon the druid. Allanon did not always do things because they were right or wrong, he did them because he felt they needed to be done and always for his own reasons.

A morality system is a wonderful thing to have, but players will always find a way to abuse it and twist it to their own desires. The best way to get around this would be to make it so that the system itself has no impact on what the character can obtain, merely how it is obtained and how the world reacts to the character.

One of the few things I did not like about the witcher series, was the camera angles and the lack of ability to go into a First Person Point of View.

Overall though, I am looking forward to a third game in the Witcher series should one be made.


none
 
Comment:
 




UBM Tech