Originally Posted by Sozz
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Sozz
I think the confusion is from what can't be translated from a video game to a movie, or book.

Anything written down in a script or a novel isn't incidental, even if it's purpose is purposelessness(x5). But because the script of a video game splines out, atemporally sometimes, you get incidental dialoguel couple that with a character unmoored to the story being told, you can actually have meaningless dialogue.

"I'm sworn to carry your burdens" That's so vague it could be used after giving her a sweet roll, or it could be after fighting a pack of werewolves. For Tav, you're partaking in conversations that other characters have more meaningful dialogue to say, but Tav gets, [Baldurian] Yes, I've heard of you or [Baldurian] No, I haven't. After which, because these options are made to be so vague, the following dialogue doesn't even need to account for which you choose. If that happened in a novel or script, it would be considered poor writing, but because it happens in a video game, we get threads on forums about what the nature of character customization is.

Does the ability for Geralt to change his hair cut and grow out his beard make him the same as Commander Shepard. It seems like putting a wig on it is all that is required.

The problem here is that the script for a video game is even more complex than the script for a movie, or an outline for a novel. The reason being that in a novel or a movie, the consumer of the media isn't making any choices at "flashpoints" in the story, but instead, those choices are made by the author. If Player 1 always chooses Path A for any "flashpoints", points in the story where a choice must be made, then they're going to get one story, while Player 2, that always chooses Path B will get another one. The main story will always progress to the "Ultimate Goal", but the way it's arrived at can vary, according to choices made along the way.

These outcomes can have significant weight, who survives to get to the "Ultimate Goal", or be largely insignificant, [Baldurian] dialog choice or not. But in a novel, or a movie, it's always going to come out the same way, regardless of what the consumer may want, because the outcomes are predetermined by the author. Each branch of the story, Path A, Path B and any other Paths that may exist, have to have their outcomes determined, along with what happens if Player 3 is all over the place, and Player 4 is also all over the place, but is choosing the exact opposite of Player 3. This is the complexity of having just 2 choices at the Flashpoint, what if there are 4? It also ignores Player 5, who is also all over the place, but in a different way from all the other players, and you can carry that out for a long way, depending on how many choices are available at each flashpoint.

What choice can I make at the beginning of the Witcher games that makes Geralt other than Geralt of Rivia? Meanwhile, Shepard can be Earthborn, a Spacer, or a colonist. All three change the game. They change dialog at the very beginning, and add unique quests to the game, that you won't get on the other Origins. Where are these "origin" options for Geralt? Then, there are 3 separate service records you can choose from. Where are these for Geralt? Is there an option to remove the Butcher thing? No. Geralt is predefined and will always have the exact same past when you load in to play. So when I say "I don't want Tav to be Geralt of the Forgotten Realms", it's what I mean. I don't want Larian telling me who Tav is, I want to decide that for myself. If I want to play a predefined character, I can choose one of the Origin characters.
What's the problem? Having different outcomes for different input is related to the point I'm making, but with regards to a origin and non-origin characters, we're talking about how these characters interact with those choices. The [Baldurian] dialogues are an example of the illusion of choice that becomes worse in a game where you can have a character who isn't written to the story and one who is.
Let's take your example of Geralt. Now if The Witcher were BG3, you'd have Geralt, Triss, and Dandelion on a quest to find a cure for the tadpole...and Jan Kowalski he's the leader of the group, he doesn't have any connection to the Absolute (who's Jennifer in this scenario) but he will be taking the lead in any dialogue between her and Geralt.

As for Shepard, so these three backgrounds for Shepard makes him totally different from Geralt? The three childhoods Shepard can have are a fun, they come in a few times in the story, but they hardly constitute a dramatic difference from a character like Geralt. Most people didn't even play the first two Witcher games, so you might as well treat them as the three backgrounds for Geralt (not that 3 didn't do fuck all with them)

The point that was being made about Geralt and Shepard is that they were predefined characters, with personalities and points of view, as opposed to Tav, The Dragonborn, etc.

...and that was my point. You claim there's some confusion about how this works, so I demonstrated that there's no confusion, on my end, by laying out exactly how it works. The confusion comes in with your comparison of Geralt and Shepard, which tells me everything I need to know. Thanks?