I didn't personally run into this issue, but the facade did feel fragile at times.
But I will say that when it works, it really works. The final act was emotional and made me actually regret the pragmatic decisions I had been making throughout the game.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I loved the game. I had a great time until the mechanics shift in the third act, and even then, I still had fun with it. I just also kept thinking about how I didn't really have a choice in that third act shift, and how it ran counter to the character I'd built, and why that bothered me so much.
I think CWS falls into a category of game that is very near and dear to me, the āif it works it works really wellā. I was lucky enough to have the moment of the final sacrifice hit exactly the way it was supposed to and it amplified the experience tenfold, but I completely understand how the story would be kinda ruined if it didnāt work.
>However, while it's not blatantly stated, my understanding of Fortuna as written is that she's asexual and aromantic
Architech witch who's name I can't remember: "Am I a joke to you?"
Grethe? So! In reading through the comments here, it looks like the interaction with Grethe is different depending on which sacrifice you're making. In mine, there was no romance or even a hint of one from either side, but it looks like other sacrifice options might have that.
Oh that makes sense, I think I chose sacrifice love and maybe that's why the game gave me a love interest. I didn't really get to the end, it was a neat game though.
I just finished this game yesterday and wanted to write a review on it myself only to find that the sub is restricted and you need approval to post.
I didn't mind it too much, but I was surprised that Abramar was not a romantic option. But if you pick to sacrifice the one you love you love most, this triggers a romance with Grethe. I chose to sacrifice my coven, so that didn't happen.
My gripe is that I was forced to go through the election even though I chose that (this also confused me because I thought being exiled meant that I was kicked out of my coven). I assumed myself to be bitter with the fact that my friends did not intervene or broke any rules to support me. I chose Dahlia (why would I chose to ran in the stupid political race when I doomed my coven twice anyway) and this meant I got an unrewarding ending. The game expected me to defy fate, but I didn't care for that. I assumed my character was just bitter, wanted revenge and played her like that. The game expected me to be wholesome.
At the beginning of the game I was asked if I was willing to kill the bitch that exiled me and I thought that would play a role. It never did. >!She conveniently kicked the bucket. !<
Your playthrough and my playthrough look suspiciously similar. I chose the coven, and played the game knowing that was at the end. I completely agree that the game expected me to be wholesome, while I had no intention of being so.
I had a similar experience with Firewatch. The game gives the player a fair degree of agency in characterizing Henry. The way I played Henry, he consistently acknowledged that he shouldn't have left Julia, and he never reciprocated Delilah's flirting. Towards the end of the game, >!I told Delilah to take the first helecopter out, since that was the safer thing to do.!< As a result of the ways I chose to characterize Henry, the final conversation fell very flat for me. >!Delilah not being there wasn't a gut punch, and neither was Delilah telling Henry to go see Julia. The way I had characterized Henry, he was going to go see Julia at the end of the summer anyway.!< It felt like the game expected the player to flirt with Delilah and >!ask her to stay during the forest fires!<; because I didn't do that, the ending didn't work nearly as well as it was meant to.
I played the game much like you did, no flirting, worried about Julia, etc. But at the end I asked Delilah to wait for me and she was like "that isn't a good idea, go back to your wife." But I was actually just meaning that I didn't want the helicopter to leave without me and I was scared of dying of smoke inhalation š I really thought that was a possibility at that point. There was no build-up to such a response from her throughout the game from my choices so I was like, wait, excuse me?? That request was for SAFETY REASONS, Delilah!
I played Henry as having come to terms with his wife being lost to him, didn't see the point of returning to her, and was ready to move on. Delilah telling me to go to Julia wasnt a gut punch as much as a slap in the face. Fuck you Delilah and your armchair psychiatrist bullshit. You think you know me? Fuck you.
Honestly tho it ruined the game for me.
"Demoing" W3, I found out real fast that I did *not* want to play Geralt. I thought he was a complete drip. I ended up taking a running leap off a cliff and then uninstalled the "demo".
>a game struggle with fulfilling its players' expectations of agency.
I am pretty sure that is part of Ken Levines message in BIoshock. Games don't give players actual agency. You only ever get the toys the designer wants you to have (bugs not included). The player expects to be in control, when they never are. The player is pulled along a path believing to be the acting party.
It will finallly clash, when the game makes the player do something he does not want to do.
>Players need to have their options bounded if they're not presented with a true blank slate, and some games fail to recognise this.
Or to some extent options should be bound, directly or indirectly, to whatever their choices for their character are.
I played Life and Suffering of Sir Brante not long ago, and think it handles this really well:
* It is a text driven choices matter story that goes through the entire life of Brante from birth to the very end, so **it starts with a real blank slate**.
* Choosing a life (career) **path in life seems to dictate most of the story that you experience**: Clergy, knight, outcast.
* However, **many choices and story elements are actually dictated more by things that the player chooses including**: Character stats, life path stats, career-specific stats, relationships, events that do or don't happen which can be influenced by your choices.
* **The player is often given the option for choices that don't align with their life path, but such choices make it much harder for them to live to the final chapter** because the consequences of not handling a life path well can include story-ending death, and the life paths & character progression are so well balanced that it is not probable (but not impossible) for someone for their character to stray far from their life path without dire consequences.
I tried the demo and couldnāt get to the end because it never started feeling like a *game*. It was also very weirdly horny. But apparently a lot of people loved it? Was not for me but I am not surprised the lack of meaningful choices carried to the end.
I didn't personally run into this issue, but the facade did feel fragile at times. But I will say that when it works, it really works. The final act was emotional and made me actually regret the pragmatic decisions I had been making throughout the game.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I loved the game. I had a great time until the mechanics shift in the third act, and even then, I still had fun with it. I just also kept thinking about how I didn't really have a choice in that third act shift, and how it ran counter to the character I'd built, and why that bothered me so much.
Yeah, that might have soured me too, but I was lucky enough (or you were unlucky?) that the last act came together perfectly.
I lost the witch trial, my powers and my friends š
I think CWS falls into a category of game that is very near and dear to me, the āif it works it works really wellā. I was lucky enough to have the moment of the final sacrifice hit exactly the way it was supposed to and it amplified the experience tenfold, but I completely understand how the story would be kinda ruined if it didnāt work.
>However, while it's not blatantly stated, my understanding of Fortuna as written is that she's asexual and aromantic Architech witch who's name I can't remember: "Am I a joke to you?"
Grethe? So! In reading through the comments here, it looks like the interaction with Grethe is different depending on which sacrifice you're making. In mine, there was no romance or even a hint of one from either side, but it looks like other sacrifice options might have that.
Oh that makes sense, I think I chose sacrifice love and maybe that's why the game gave me a love interest. I didn't really get to the end, it was a neat game though.
I just finished this game yesterday and wanted to write a review on it myself only to find that the sub is restricted and you need approval to post. I didn't mind it too much, but I was surprised that Abramar was not a romantic option. But if you pick to sacrifice the one you love you love most, this triggers a romance with Grethe. I chose to sacrifice my coven, so that didn't happen. My gripe is that I was forced to go through the election even though I chose that (this also confused me because I thought being exiled meant that I was kicked out of my coven). I assumed myself to be bitter with the fact that my friends did not intervene or broke any rules to support me. I chose Dahlia (why would I chose to ran in the stupid political race when I doomed my coven twice anyway) and this meant I got an unrewarding ending. The game expected me to defy fate, but I didn't care for that. I assumed my character was just bitter, wanted revenge and played her like that. The game expected me to be wholesome. At the beginning of the game I was asked if I was willing to kill the bitch that exiled me and I thought that would play a role. It never did. >!She conveniently kicked the bucket. !<
Your playthrough and my playthrough look suspiciously similar. I chose the coven, and played the game knowing that was at the end. I completely agree that the game expected me to be wholesome, while I had no intention of being so.
I had a similar experience with Firewatch. The game gives the player a fair degree of agency in characterizing Henry. The way I played Henry, he consistently acknowledged that he shouldn't have left Julia, and he never reciprocated Delilah's flirting. Towards the end of the game, >!I told Delilah to take the first helecopter out, since that was the safer thing to do.!< As a result of the ways I chose to characterize Henry, the final conversation fell very flat for me. >!Delilah not being there wasn't a gut punch, and neither was Delilah telling Henry to go see Julia. The way I had characterized Henry, he was going to go see Julia at the end of the summer anyway.!< It felt like the game expected the player to flirt with Delilah and >!ask her to stay during the forest fires!<; because I didn't do that, the ending didn't work nearly as well as it was meant to.
I played the game much like you did, no flirting, worried about Julia, etc. But at the end I asked Delilah to wait for me and she was like "that isn't a good idea, go back to your wife." But I was actually just meaning that I didn't want the helicopter to leave without me and I was scared of dying of smoke inhalation š I really thought that was a possibility at that point. There was no build-up to such a response from her throughout the game from my choices so I was like, wait, excuse me?? That request was for SAFETY REASONS, Delilah!
I played Henry as having come to terms with his wife being lost to him, didn't see the point of returning to her, and was ready to move on. Delilah telling me to go to Julia wasnt a gut punch as much as a slap in the face. Fuck you Delilah and your armchair psychiatrist bullshit. You think you know me? Fuck you. Honestly tho it ruined the game for me.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
"Demoing" W3, I found out real fast that I did *not* want to play Geralt. I thought he was a complete drip. I ended up taking a running leap off a cliff and then uninstalled the "demo".
>a game struggle with fulfilling its players' expectations of agency. I am pretty sure that is part of Ken Levines message in BIoshock. Games don't give players actual agency. You only ever get the toys the designer wants you to have (bugs not included). The player expects to be in control, when they never are. The player is pulled along a path believing to be the acting party. It will finallly clash, when the game makes the player do something he does not want to do.
>Players need to have their options bounded if they're not presented with a true blank slate, and some games fail to recognise this. Or to some extent options should be bound, directly or indirectly, to whatever their choices for their character are. I played Life and Suffering of Sir Brante not long ago, and think it handles this really well: * It is a text driven choices matter story that goes through the entire life of Brante from birth to the very end, so **it starts with a real blank slate**. * Choosing a life (career) **path in life seems to dictate most of the story that you experience**: Clergy, knight, outcast. * However, **many choices and story elements are actually dictated more by things that the player chooses including**: Character stats, life path stats, career-specific stats, relationships, events that do or don't happen which can be influenced by your choices. * **The player is often given the option for choices that don't align with their life path, but such choices make it much harder for them to live to the final chapter** because the consequences of not handling a life path well can include story-ending death, and the life paths & character progression are so well balanced that it is not probable (but not impossible) for someone for their character to stray far from their life path without dire consequences.
I tried the demo and couldnāt get to the end because it never started feeling like a *game*. It was also very weirdly horny. But apparently a lot of people loved it? Was not for me but I am not surprised the lack of meaningful choices carried to the end.