What about the baron? (The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt)
There is another solution to the baron's problem. In general, the game is powerful in my opinion, and it is worth playing. Although as anyone, of course.Wild Rider
"Would have killed the Spirit at the request of the Witches, the plot with the baron would have been different."
well, where is the logic) one way or another, fulfilling the order of the witches, there is a conflict in the dialogue (that is, witches have a tooth and can put their wife into consumption (yes, just out of meanness) does not fulfill the witcher's contract al no to the lamp)
but here we see just the screwed up consequences not about what.
I'm generally silent about the passage and the choice of the ending (what the witcher did is not important, but the fact that he did not play snowballs ...)
well, but he was hanged in general, there is a lot of controversy whether such a person would have fun or not (tried all the options for the death of the harrow is the most logical (for me)) options where he is alive and well, far-fetched and does not give anything (that he is alive until the lamp of the charm is not available in the future)
Shl - 1-2 parts with this was better as well as the choice and its consequences
Vyd
As a troll you are very weak, comrade Vyd). The game took place in June, then it has not passed until now .., here I remember, I don’t remember there ... Too implausible and incoherent, you succeeded - still learn and learn.
zhekazloy
"somehow fulfilling the order of the witches there is a conflict in the dialogue"
For a game based on the books of Sapkowski, this is normal just the same.
"Here we see just screwed up the consequences of nothing."
"Lesser evil" is implemented at such a level that the player himself will not know the consequences of his actions. However, as in real life.
"what the witcher did is not important, but what did not play snowballs ..."
Emphasis is placed on the relationship between Ciri and Geralt, this is just normal. I didn't like the implementation. The bad news is that the attitude towards Geralt's actions can be ambiguous, i.e. if the opinion of the player and the developers on some issues is different, this will lead to an ending that the player does not expect in any way. Although, one could have guessed that Ciri's negative reaction would result in something in the end. In any case, the save can be reloaded again if you don't like something.
"Shl - 1-2 parts with the data was better as well as the choice and its consequences"
I do not argue. And the plot in part 1 with Alvin the Master was better, as for me. But in 3, the script is elegantly executed and its very presentation looks very high quality, cinematic.
Wild Rider
"The bad news is that the attitude towards Geralt's actions can be ambiguous, ie if the opinion of the player and the developers on some issues is different, this will lead to an ending that does not expect in any way"
that's the problem, for example, it seemed to me that this was simple immoral it is actually at the commemoration of a comrade and mentor and remember to drink ... what was my surprise)
and also a jamb with the fall (do not take Emgyr's money) if you do not specifically visit the location you simply will not be given the opportunity to refuse)
No doubt the game is wonderful, but there are moments when you ask the question WHY and for what) as I said 1-2 it was smoother and more
logical)
Zy- the first passage was a very bad ending (tough but good in its own way)) but it seemed like I did it according to my conscience) like that somehow))
Enjoy your game and more positive)
zhekazloy
"and remember a drink ... what was my surprise)"
The problem is that it is not always clear what Geralt will do / say with the selected line.
"and also a jamb with the fall (do not take Emgyr's money) if you do not specifically visit the location you simply will not be given the opportunity to refuse)"
How's that? Money forcibly thrust into your hands? Who? I didn’t miss a meeting with Emgyr. On the first playthrough, I took Ciri to Emgyr for personal reasons (well, the father is real after all), the second time because I wanted to
make Spoileree an empress.
"the first playthrough was a very bad ending (tough but good in its own way)) but it seemed like I did it according to my conscience) like that somehow))"
Likewise. True, he took money from Emgyr, wanted to see Ciri's reaction, and did not restart the save, because I wanted to see how this would be reflected in the plot. But then I did not imagine how much ... The
elf aroused trust, Ciri did not allow him to play pranks, well, the meeting with the sorceresses ... did not expect that this choice would be fatal, I thought that, on the contrary, support would be needed =)
Wild Rider
"How's that? Will they force money into your hands?"
Not literally, yes, in a dialogue like, get a part of the reward for even if not entirely normal work done, the witcher only patiently kept silent about it)
Drawing up a company at a witches' meeting)) this is also a controversial point in general, Ciri insisted on the presence of the witcher and you are like "good father "is simply obliged for me to support at least by the presence here, all the currents had to be done on the dialogue already there)
Well, Emhyr impressed more than Radovit)) well, as my own father said all the same)
zhekazloy "... there in the dialogue, like, get a part of the reward for even if not quite normally performed work, .."
This is the money that Geralt receives for delivering Uma, it does not affect anything.
Only the payment received in the presence of Ciri affects, and there you can always refuse