 |
|
Apr 6th, 2017 at 17:45:38 - The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt (PC) |
This third session of the witcher was again interesting. While the ethical issues of the witcher were less present in this interaction there was one scene in particular that was interesting. Vessemir remarks that times have changed, that it used to be a simpler world where monsters were bad and humans were good. Now it isn’t so black and white. Geralt disagrees saying things were always like this and Vessemir just remembers things differently.
The double sidedness of the captain illustrates the point Geralt is making, even the “kind” captain who limited the required tax arrested and tortured the deliveryman who gave the soldiers rotten grain. While the peasant pleads ignorance and begs for mercy, the captain dismisses him as insulting them on purpose and orders him lashed repeatedly.
This seems to be the overarching theme of all characters in the universe of the Witcher. Whatever is on the surface is simply a façade of the truth. Kind and benevolent people seem to harbor secrets. The herbalist seems to have a long and troubled past that she has hidden away. Even the emperor and Yennefer are not all they seem to be.
Within this world, it seems that right and wrong are more subjective than in our own. Many of the problems faced by the people are vastly different, though related to the suffering of people in the real world. One major difference though is that our world does not contain Witchers, they can be a great equalizing force, and can bring much good or much ruin to the world based on their choices.
It is implied that during the events of The Witcher 2: Assassin of Kings Geralt played a role in shaping the entire world with the decisions he made. Entire nations were affected because of the choices he made. I think CD Projekt does a fantastic job of exploring how the choices we make may not necessarily have a right or wrong answer, but the choice nevertheless affects the world in a tangible way.
add a comment  - read this GameLog  |
|
Apr 5th, 2017 at 19:44:15 - The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt (PC) |
In this second session of The Witcher 3, I was able to get a little bit better of a glimpse into the world of the Witcher and the various struggles the people experience on a day to day basis. As I approached the Nilfgardian captain in the barracks, I was able to hear a conversation about the taxes the farmers were expected to pay to the army, mainly bushels of wheat. Though the captain was generous in requiring significantly less than the peasants were expecting to have to give, it is difficult to see the upside in paying taxes to an army that has recently conquered you. The peasants at the inn clearly still had strong ties to the Temerian crest, and these peasants can’t be too happy about garrisoning and feeding the conquerors of their lands.
The captain does seem like a genuinely kind person, willing to barter with you in order to stop the griffin from murdering more villagers. While this is also a military advantage he gains by removing a potential threat to his soldiers, he also genuinely seems to want to save as many innocent lives as he can. The herbalist he sends Geralt to in order to find the herb to lure the griffin into a trap is less optimistic about the state of the world. When Geralt expresses his intentions to kill the griffin and that it would stop the bodies from piling up, the herbalist says it won’t do any good.
She explains that as soon as the griffin is gone more monsters or more men will take its place and cause more bodies to pile up. That is simply the nature of the harsh and unforgiving world in which they live. When Geralt asks then what he could do, she simply replies “Ply your trade, but don’t think it changes anything” While the monsters Geralt defeats are a threat to the humans around them, and killing them may save lives, those lives aren’t truly saved, merely prolonged in this harsh reality. Eventually another man or monster will kill everyone. It truly does seem that no one dies of old age in the Witcher, its either a monster, sickness, starvation, or assassination. If you’re lucky it might even be a fair fight with another human. The ethics of facing this harsh reality and whether what you do as a witcher is really worth anything at all is actually not entirely clear. I’ll need to think on it more in my next session.
add a comment - read this GameLog |
|
Apr 4th, 2017 at 17:51:06 - The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt (PC) |
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is a game of the year winning Action RPG from Polish studio CD Projekt. The game revolves around the protagonist Geralt of Rivia, a Witcher by trade, and his search for Ciri, a girl he raised at Kaer Morhen. While I am still barely scratching the surface of the game after an hour of play, The Witcher has an incredibly rich world and the choices presented to the player are complex in both their immediate ramifications and from what I understand have a long term impact on the world around you as you play.
Within the first half hour or so, most of which is a tutorial, you are given a few small dialogue options, most of which it seems are only slightly affecting the story around you. For instance you can choose to be a kind and caring guardian, playfully instructing Ciri during her training in the dream, or you can choose to be harsher, the only real difference this makes is the reaction and voice lines you get to hear.
On the other hand some dialogue options have more immediate effects on the gameplay and story. Shortly after the tutorial you are given the option of requesting a reward from the merchant who was attacked by the griffin. Asking for a reward is not something a hero would generally do, but Geralt is not actually a “hero” in this sense of the word. Geralt is a Witcher, which means he is a monster hunter mercenary. He doesn’t fight monsters or men for the sake of glory or to save the common people, he does it as a job, for money. Vessemir even mentions that it is unfortunate there isn’t a contract on the griffin that is terrorizing the town. If there was they could do something about it… but not for free.
Even magic plays into the conversations you have. After a disagreement in a tavern you are given the option to use a Witcher mind trick to pacify an agitator. While this causes one of the three men attacking you to bend to your will, the other see your magic and attack you for doing it. While you can’t kill these men (only knock them unconscious) the game still does a fantastic job of making your ethical decisions have real weight. I don’t know what would have happened if I had tried to deescalate the situation in another way, but the fact that I want to replay the scenario and see how it would have happened if I had chosen differently is an exemplary indication of a game that gets the way it presents a moral choice right. I cannot wait to get back into The Witcher!
add a comment - read this GameLog |
|
Feb 23rd, 2017 at 20:39:17 - Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor (PS4) |
This session (the final journal entry for Middle Earth) was interesting for me. Shadow of Mordor is an extremely fun game. The nemesis system, in which enemies rise up through the ranks and grow more and more powerful, is one of the most clever and well made game mechanics in the last few years. Adding a personal flair and all of the strengths and weaknesses to each enemy you target in the orc army makes each session of the game unique to each player. While one player may take out an Uruk commander named Dush who is afraid of fire and immune to ranged attacks, I took out Golgoroz, who feared beasts and had an enormous contingent of orcs that accompanied him everywhere he went. This makes my experience playing this game unique in some small ways to literally every other player who ever picked up a controller.
Integral to all of this is the relationship between Talion and Ratbag the Coward. Despite being an orc, Talion uses Ratbag to gain intel and works to maneuver Ratbag inside the upper ranks of the orc army. By working with an orc, Talion is sacrificing his moral superiority. Talion is willing to do whatever it takes to draw out the Black Hand of Sauron. This makes me wonder, do the ends justify the means? Is Talion taking Ratbag’s offer and helping this murdering scheming orc to rise in power worth it if in the end Talion is able to take out the Black Hand? If the ends truly justify the means then by all means Talion should use every advantage he can to exact his revenge, but where does the line stop?
While the game doesn’t let you do anything to harm slaves or innocents, would Talion as a character be willing to in order to meet his goals? Would there be anything stopping Talion from performing even more heinous acts if it meant getting what he wanted? The fear of death is a powerful motivator for men to not do immoral acts. Today if you are caught murdering someone, even if that is for the greater good of the world, you will likely face life in prison or the Death Sentence. Talion has no such restrictions. If he is killed he will simply come back. If that is the case, what motivates Talion to do the “right” thing. He seems to be an honorable man, and he certainly would have done anything to save his Wife and Son, but with those lost to him is there anything he wouldn’t sacrifice or do to get his revenge and break his curse?
This game has been immensely fun to play and I look forward to diving into more ethical frameworks and ideas for the One Page Analysis.
read comments (1)  - add a comment - read this GameLog |
|
|
 |
| element40's GameLogs |
|
element40 has been with GameLog for 7 years, 10 months, and 7 days |
view feed xml
|
| Entries written to date: 9 |
|
