A few days ago, I was watching "The Mailbox" which is a gaming opinion answer board from the man known as Totalbiscuit. I can't be bothered to search up the episode, but in it he said there was a bit of debate that The Witcher 2's moral choices were contrived in order to make "nothing right". Let's not focus on the ambiguity here or the leverage of the choices, but instead focus on the point being presented: Are the choices in The Witcher 2 contrived in order to fit within a narrative context?

Every story is going to have a deus ex machina or another, and I trust with this being a mature game board we all understand what that means. Obviously, sequences of events in media are contrived in order to keep thing happening at the pace a reader can follow. When something is actually contrived in a story it means it is put in to specifically drive something into motion where it doesn't mesh with either previous events, or can be clearly seen as a way to drive the story in a certain direction.

I, personally, would point to Mass Effect's moral choices as an example of contrived story-telling. Why? Because all the choices fit within mini side sections of plot which are completely unrelated to the overarching story. Sure, you may hinder a bad guy here or there, but that's not what you are meant to be at that place for. It's a deliberate effort by the developers to add some choices to the game without tying it to the main plot. A counter example of this would be Deus Ex, where every choice you make somehow ties back to the brilliant story or challenging gameplay in some way even if not immediately.

So let us take a look at The Witcher 2 and see if it truly is contrived in this manner. You can point out the various side quests like Troll Trouble as examples of things that don't have an effect on the overall plot, but I never said that sidequests are the issue. It's when the story branches into sub-sections that are still supposed to relate back to the actual plot when it becomes a problem. What I can possibly see as being contrived in TW2 would be the lack of action towards the main goal in Act I. It makes sense in the long run after you complete your objectives there, but having to go after the Kayran instead of pushing towards finding what you wanted to find was a bit irritating. The choice at the end of Act I may be where people point to and say that there's contrivance, but given the state of Flotsam from even before you get there up to the point where Geralt comes and upsets the unsteady balance it's quite clear that the choice would exist. There's absolutely no disconnect there, and it relates back to both character and story.

With Act II, the fetch quest (at least on the war camp side) was also rather frustrating but made sense given that the person you were helping was pretty much the most likely person to encounter the one you were after. At that point, you were just biding your time until a lead popped up, and once again meddling in politics. The fact that this was a premonition towards the ultimate story shift in Act III also helped it come back in towards the story. Now that I think of it, there is a bit of a grand conspiracy in TW2 like in Deus Ex. The difference here is that no one is right, and the various factions are basically after the same goal with different outcomes.

Act III itself passes by so quickly that it's hard to analyze anything, but once again the overwhelming power struggle rears its ugly head in to clash in all parts towards a final battle full of the story's culmination. There's not all too much in this chapter to speak on.

Overall, I think TW2 is a rather well written story if a bit hard to follow at certain points. The one real nick in Act I is a bit of a disappointment, but I wouldn't say that all the story is just pulled out of nowhere. Most of the choices relate to both how you want Geralt to progress as a character, which was the entire point of the first game, and the fate of the Northern Kingdoms. What do you all think? Is my love for this game simply blinding me, or is this story actually really well told?

I enjoyed the story quite a bit, and as far as being shoved at the Kayran I don't feel that it was contrived, but rather a necessity.

1st off Witchers kill monsters for money, a lot of money was involved for killing the Kayran, and Geralt is going to need money if he is going to pursue his own aims of tracking down the Kingslayer.

2ndly the Kayran has stopped all boat travel on the river. Geralt arrived by boat and ultimately has to leave by boat and the only way that is going to happen is if the Kayran is out of the way.

The situation kind of strikes me, spoiler alert for anyone who minds, of the cut scene where Geralt is making his was through a snowy mountain pass and has to kill an Imperial Manticore. He is after the Wild Hunt, and states that while usually this would be an exciting moment for him, it is just another obstacle between him and his goal. Sure he could find some other way around that would take longer, but why waste the time when you can just kill the monster blocking your direct path?

The Kayran would be just another blocking figure, if it were not for Síle's involvement. It's the presence of Síle, and the not-yet-answerable question of her motives, that raise the Kayran to an integral part of the story and not just another monster.

It's not a thrown-together story, but neither is it an artificially contrived one. It's well integrated and carefully told.

I don't think it's contrived, although before the game released I was worried their obsession with grey morality would feel forced. It doesn't. The writers pulled it off.

And on the plot in general, just like the first game, it's complex, it meanders ( though not as much) it's not a race to the finish. This is a strength. The story of Mass Effect 2 is extremely contrived and simple by comparison.

The thing about the Kayran quest, so long as we're using it as an example, is the way it's told, it invites five perspectives that I can count, and all of them play on Geralt's motivation for proceeding with the quest.

Loredo, Síle, the local merchants, and the riffraff on the docks all have their own reasons for wanting the Kayran done in, and they need a one-man wrecking crew who will risk his neck for a handful of coin to do it.

Geralt, well, this is who he is, and even if he grumbles about having done it for too long, he needs the money. (The fact that the game mechanics allow him too much money is unfortunate. Geralt is always a payday away from being comfortable for maybe a week.)

The fact that all of these points of view can be presented in the game is what makes it a good story.

TW2 does not strike me as internally contrived. In fact, I consider its characters and plot to be rather elegantly ambiguous. As Jean Renoir puts it in The Rules of the Game: "Everyone has his reasons." Sapkowski also consistently concerns himself with questions of destiny and chance in The Witcher saga, and CDPR has remained faithful to that while also showing considerable restraint in avoiding the deus ex machina narrative device. Choices change the balance of power and the nature of certain relationships even if the material outcome appears to be the same.

As far as the Kayran quest goes, I can think of another reason why Geralt would be tempted to get involved. He needs publicity. It isn't brought up in the games much (except for a few comments about Berengar in TW1), but the books make it clear that witchers use word-of-mouth advertising to keep themselves employed. Taking down big targets here and there is about more than the immediate payoff. It may be a narrative excuse for a game-mechanical flourish, but as a piece of narrative, it's completely consistent with the world.

As I mentioned in my thread yesterday. Convenience has a small role in the story that gets to be annoying (the most notable example comes at the end of Iorveth's path). But other than that, I think that this is one of the best written stories in gaming (definitely the best I've played this gen), with a choice and consequence system that is simply amazing.

Its retroactive too! Because the story is so good, you get really into the characters, so when you have to make choices you feel a deeper connection thanks to that and the fact that you know that the consequences will be severe.

The thing that hurts it the more, IMO, is the fact that you have to make a big number of important choices by the end but you don't get to see them play out.

Another event has struck me as being an example that someone could point to, and that would be Dandelion's and Zoltan's positioning at the beginning of Act I. I think I may have to thoroughly concede on this one, since there was no prior indication that either of them were going to be working as informants. I won't grudge the fact that they were together, given that they're buddies, but the fact they happened to be directly in the path that Letho was taking seems mightily coincidental.

This is from the books. But Dandy has a prior history of working as a spy for Redania. Zoltan is probably just tagging along as a travel companion. But arriving right as they were going to be hanged is a bit of a happenstance, but not too stretched.

Haha that was the one thing I thought was a bit of an implausible coincidence, but it's honestly not too jarring from a story perspective.

Thank all we got some people who know this fiction inside and out. My knowledge is limited to the games, so it would be fitting that Geralt would not have remembered Dandelion's past in this regard and was genuinely surprised to see him working as a spy. Thank you for the clarification!

Now here's a tough one, the Rose of Remembrance. Anyone got an explanation for that one?

Philippa always hedges her bets, especially when the opportunity to do so comes waltzing through her door voluntarily?

Regarding Philippa: what are the odds to get rose of remembrance for lesbomancy spell?
Unless she knew Triss have it.

Philippa and her double-agent apprentice are nothing if not opportunists. She took advantage of that which came her way.

She might have been able to surmise that Triss (or Geralt) would come upon one while they were in Flotsam, and that either of them would certainly keep it if they did.

But she didn't set out with the foreordained goal of taking over Saskia through lesbomancy; she saw her chance and made use of it.