Just reached the part in Chapter 2 where Roche (which should be pronounced Roshe, not Roatch.. minor annoyance amidst many) and Geralt are off to kill Dethmold after he killed Roche's men..

This whole plot point REALLY FUCKING annoys me.. The situation is put to us, the player, that it's the righteous thing to, revenge for the death of all the honourable soldier's.. ok, fine, the soldier's might have been 'honourable' ('if' there is actually any honour in killing with political motivation)... but Roche's actions were what got them killed in the first place, he's as guilty as Dethmold for this.

Henselt ordered Dethmold to kill them (MAYBE..this part isn't clear, the story mostly says that Henselt chewed Dethmold out for failing to fully protect him against assassination conspiracies and Dethmold took the hump because of this, went ballistic, and took it out on anyone he considered in league with the head of the consipracy...i.e Roche's men... this is situationally quite reasonable, how is he to know they weren't in on it?), but his motivations were purely to protect his own life.

Let's look at Helselt for a sec... what kind of person was he.. we know he was/used to be a beloved king.. he mixed with his men and adressed them by name had they distingushed themselves.. he only changed and grew more distant after the slaughter of both armies Sabrina's magic caused, in which, you ALSO have to realise that he wouldn't take advantage of the magical storm to win the battle at the expense of his own men, he was even so appaulled he then immediately ordered Sabrina's execution.. so the distancing was probably caused by him either feeling a certain amount of shame, or at least sadness and regret at the death of his men, caused by his advisor's actions (he even expressed regret at the deaths of the opposing 'honourable' soldiers) and needed to back away, to harden himself further, inorder to properly carry out his kingly duties...... all in all Henselt seems a pretty OK guy for king... he could have been a mental despot, alot of the old kings were.

So in the end, what do we have.. Roche conspiring to kill Henselt, an ok guy, because of an assassination scheme he cooked up with his dead king three years ago.. getting caught and his men are killed in place of him as a punishment.. this is what usually happens when you fail in a plan that involves such lethal finality... and THIS is where we get to the part that REALLY bothers me.

Roche is a thug.. no better than a school yard bully, with the same rigid, thug mentality.... he picks a fight.. loses and pays a price and then instead of just admitting that he failed, lost fair and square and shouldn't have started the whole bloody thing in the first place, he vows for revenge over actions that are PURELY of his making, then couches the whole bloody thing in him being the righteous one.... STOP RIGHT THERE.. fucking NO!!!.. and to make matter's worse.. we, the player, playing Geralt, a NEUTRAL witcher, is quite contented to go along with this outrageous, circular, thug stupidity?

This is where the game reallly fails as an rpg...I'm not neccessarily saying that the writer's should account, plotwise, for ever eventuality and choice... but on the other hand it should NEVER box the player in to HAVING to perform actions, or act out a storyline that is completely ABHORANT to the player.....

IF this had really been an RPG (and I certainly don't consider it to be.. it is barely more than an adventure action game with a partial branching storyline), then I should have had either the option to split from Roche and is meaningless lust for more violence shaped as revenge, or ideally a more involved option leading to the same conclusion.

Personally I would have called Roche a homicidal leader and an idiot and shoved my sword so far up his arse his hat would have fallen off, then gone off to slot Dethmold for the blooddrenshed path he would lead Henselt down, on the way telling Helselt to get a bettter adviser and reaquantance himself with his men, before going of to continue the search for kingslayer and Triss on my own

I will admit to this being a very well crafted story and a beautiful game to look at, but because of the fact of the console design and the rigidness of the story you chose to follow, I can IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER call this an RPG.

A nice (and fun in parts) game (notwithstanding the control design), but not an rpg.

you can choose not to kill the king. i'm not sure about dethmold, but i'm pretty sure you can ignore roche when he asks you to help him take down dethmold.

so i'm not sure what you're wailing about.

Yeah, you don't have to kill Henselt; and in Chapter 3 you can save Triss instead and it is unclear if Roche successfully kills Dethmold or not (he does rescue Foltest's daughter though).

Though yes, you do have a point that Roche is being very much vengeful for his fallen comrades rather than being rational about the situation. Not that I can fault him for that though, I think. You can see that there is a bond between Roche and his men (and Ves) and that all of his men are killed seriously hurts him. After that he really is hell bent on vengeance, and it is sort of lucky for him that Foltest's daughter (who he cares about because he is still loyal to his dead king) is being held by Dethmold, so he can kill two birds with one stone.

It is? My game just gave me some options.. I never saw anything explicitly telling me which choices were "righteous" and which weren't.. I thought the whole intrigue of the plot comes from the fact that almost none of the characters you encounter are truly objectively evil - you mention Henselt, for example - he is an asshole, yes, but that comes with being a king and maintaining power - killing him will satisfy Roche, but aid the people you have been chasing the entire time - like soldiergeralt says, you don't have to kill Henselt.

And I loved Roche as a character, even though I agree he does seem kind of like a thug.. I think your following and aiding him can be explained rather easily.. he believed you weren't the kingslayer, helped you escape from prison, and is helping you track down Letho and clear your name.. I think it would be rather boring if Roche was some kind of one-dimensional pinnacle of morality and reason.

Thaler's messenger in Act. i did mention that Roche can be an asshole at time but he is very loyal. And Ves did mention Roche mother was a whore to keep feeding her family. Roche also mentioned that his squad is like his family. Combined with his terrible childhood you can't blame him having thug mentality,

I was also dissapointed by the lack of choice on that part.
I quite liked Deathmold and killing him was something I certainly would not have done.
I suppose there is still the choice to go Triss, tho the ending where I return the princess to Temaria and spare Deathmold would have been the perfect one for me.

I can't really see the problem. Or to better word it: I think the problem is your mentality.
Characters aren't supposed to be nice, rightful, noble and such. They are supposed to be complex and believable.

Roche is a thug? Well, maybe he is. I'm fine with that.

That's why I didn't side with Roche. As soon as he made that peasant drink the beer off the floor, I knew he was a jerk.

I always though Iorveth was a lot more noble.

Yes, killing women and children is quite noble.

It's still an RPG no matter how many console comments and ridiculous troll statements someone makes.

you raise some valid points OP but if there's one thing i hate more than Nilfgardians it's ploughing Kaedwenis!

I don't know about you guys but I really bonded with the Blue Stripes. Dying in battle is one thing, but to be tricked and be hanged like that really made me mad! >:(

Roche might be a thug but he's a patriot. For Temeria!

That's a bit redundant.

Heh, the thing is what I like about this game despite being linear RPG... all the characters have vices and virtues. Only this game shows alot of vices...

Ps. OP was there a written guideline about criteria for game to be called RPG?

A few things...

- I was under the impression that Foltest and Roche schemed to destabilize Henselt by sowing seeds of discontent among the nobles. I didn't think they were trying to kill him.

- Yes Roche is a thug. Foltest said as much during the prologue when Roche went to interrogate a prisoner. But I suppose as "special forces" he's more more Rambo than Bond. I found it odd they'd send a loose cannon to destabilize Henselt, but they didn't say Foltest was a smart king... :)

- I saw Roche's desire to go on a warpath as simple vengeance, not righteousness.

So I didn't have a problem with Roche in this part of the story. However, I did have a problem with Geralt's motivation, or more specifically a lack of conversation options detailing his motivation. He mentioned going after Sile and finding Foltest's killer, but at that point my Geralt had already established in the elven ruins that he wanted to regain his memory and settle down with Triss. My Geralt is a lover but there was a lack of continuity in Act 2 regarding that.

OP your point about pronounciation of Roche's name made me laugh

Are we the reader really expected to plough on through the rest of your ranty waffle when you have immediately identified yourself as a total nitpicker?

Anyway, that's how they pronounce it in Temeria!

;-)

you have your right to your opinion of Roche. But, to call this game and its story by your way is so hollow to me.

Think of Mass Effect and its silly story of an invasion of a machine race or Dragon Age or even Oblivion where I see no deviation from the main plot that you could take except free ramming around like a duck !

In act 3, at the beginning, we'll have the debate between Roche and Gerald. Our hero has a mind of his own. Following Roche path doesn't make you his follower.

Look like you haven't been at act 3 yet