I must say I wasn't really impressed with the Witcher 1. It seem very "immature" to me. Probably the voice acting, and I have very low standards... It is a good game, leagues ahead of BG 1 and definitely on par with DA:O, maybe even better. (Never even downloaded TW 2, even though I preordered it here ... ).

TW 1 does a good job at it. But it also boils down to the "fluff text" and "crossroads" choices in the end. But it also had a linear storytelling structure, making that a lot easier.

The biggest problem of DA:O was the "open world concept" in that you could do everything in every order. TW 1 didn't had that problem and therefore had a better way of telling the story. But that also doesn't make it comparable to AP, which had both true non-linearity and properly implemented choices and consequences.

When it comes to good storytelling in those games you either have "mini stories" contained in itself that stand on their own (like Fallout New Vegas) or you stick to a linear structure like TW 1 or PS:T. I probably prefer the linear storytelling, as it captures the story better usually, but both can be very good.

What I don't like in Bioware games is that they always give you a third, best choice.

You have to choose to save Quarians or Geth? Screw it, you can save them both, with no effort whatsoever. It happens all the time in DA:O , ME, NWN games too. I hate that, because it steals away any drama from any hard choice. There is no actual choice, when you can always save everybody.

Do download it. I've seen a lot of ways to put it. 'Immature,' 'bad writing,' whatever. What it actually comes down to is the really bad presentation of the first Witcher - it's writing isn't the best out there, but it certaily holds its own if you try to look at it objectively and the only immature thing about the game are those sex cards. The Witcher 2 remedies all that.

As for actually linear storytelling, well... Yeah, it does come down to crossroads. But how those crossroads are handled and which choices influence what is quite simply staggering in The Witcher. I won't even go into Alpha Protocol territory, that game, of course, has it's own place in heaven.

TW 1 was, how should I put it, "bipolar" on the storytelling. Some really good elements, but also some really, really bad ones.

Actually, most of what Flintlockjazz said here I would actually argue was the case of TW 1. Most NPCs were just hollow "evil XYZ standins" that didn't really interest me. The whole world just seemed "gritty for grittiness sake" there was hardly any motivation for the displayed actions and there was no connection to the parties. There were some very nice exceptions, but for the most part it just felt very uninteresting for me.

While I didn't think all that much of the writing in Dragon Age, I think your criticisms are still a bit harsh. I didn't find all the characters raging stereotypes or one dimentional. Many of them have understandable motivation, even if they're in opposition to you.

Morrigan was a self interested cow, but she was on the right team and very practical about achieving her own ends. She gets upset when you mess that up by having a relationship with her (friendship or romance), causing her slight moral conflict. She's great.

Queen Anora is awesome. She was practically running the country while her airhead Husband was off playing at war and siring bastards. Even after you rescue her she keeps her head and does a solid deal with you that protects her interests. Its a little sucky that if you then try to double cross her, she knows about it and stabs you first... but if you do right by her, she's magic.

Better still you can ingratiate yourself further by saving her dad (and having another hold over her) and finally... FINALLY get to rid yourself of Alistair. I feel so sorry for female Couslands who have to romance that thing to be Queen.

There are many black and white characters, but not all. You need some obvious bad (and good) guys, just to speed things along. Even CRPG Games don't have the luxury of time needed to have everyone be a fleshed out, multilayered individual.

As for 'winning' at the Landsmeet, that can only be done by Cousland Wardens. Marry Anora. Save Loghain, keeping Alistair around to take one for the Wardens isn't worth it. Better to just knock boots with Morrigan AND take all the credit.

As for Orzammar, I disagree that there's a 'winning' choice for most Wardens, nor that the decision is a blind one. Do you let the Dwarves decide their own fate or back someone with more similar interests... even if they are scum of the earth.

Its clear from the outset that Harrowmont is a traditionalist who resists change. Its no great leap of reasoning that he will give you as little help as is required by the treaty and little else.

Bhelen is revered by the lower classes, especially the merchants. You know up front that he favours opening up Orzammar to the surface, you also know he's more interested in personal power and easier to make deals with.

Either choice turns out badly for the Dwarves in the long run. Horrowmont proves too conservative and Behlen too greedy. The only way to ensure a happy(ish) ending for Orzammar is to be a Dwarven Warden, and actively help Behlen with the might of the Fereldan military behind you.

I am going to agree with that statement. I also wasn't impressed with the consequences in that game.

Just out of curiosity: Have you red Sapkowski's books? Witcher, I mean. It helps clear motivations up quite a bit.
See, the bit that really got me in the Witcher games was that in most RPGs to date, your consequences to your choices happened right after making them. In the Witcher, what you do actually does matter and might come and kick you in the ass a few hours later (or exactly the other way around)

Nope, sadly not. I usually try to read books in their native language. But the only polish I know is "Hands up in the air", "Form an orderly line" and "this land now belongs to us" (We learn that in the school in Germany).

It probably does help a lot with understanding what is going on in the game. I need to check out the quality of the translations.

I have played a few chapters of it and it seemed fairly disjoint to me. Did it really matter if you saved the witch or followed the villagers?

Well you meet her in chapter five, she helps you with something. I don't really quite remember that bit too well.

If you let her die, she's replaced by a healer in a country town who refuses to help you, citing your treatment of Abigail. Abigail is there instead of the healer, and offers Geralt aid with a quest; if she's alive.

Right before the end of the game you meet her once again, and she either attacks you or aids you depending on how you dealt with her at the start of the game.

I have read the ones that were translated into english (sadly, just the first set of short stories and the Blood of Elves). They help clarify the Elves position, the way people treat Witchers and totally change the way you see Triss!

Despite Alvin being a construction of the game, he's cribbed from an obvious character in the books and you do get a sense of the danger he represents.

My favourite part of the game was how people changed if you supported their side. Its worthy of a replay to see the differences. Siegried actually becomes more of a person, less of a git if you help him... he has depth.

Actually, jackass, I point out how nostalgia probably clouds my views all the time.

And you ignore repeatedly what I have said, which is that I am not declaring any game objectively better than another. I am saying ignoring your nostalgia and gaming history's effect on what you like and don't like is ridiculous.

Rosebud is the name of the sled.