It's like a group of D&D high school virgins got together and made a video game

[Varlon]

I'm sorry beforehand that I haven't read entirely all answers in this post, so, please, correct me if I'm wrong in conveying someone's thoughts, but here's what I think on the discussion.

It started with dcb talking about simplistic combat, immature jokes, inappropriate sex scenes as reasons for not liking the Witcher when the discussion suddenly turned to the fact that the game has lots of cutscenes and this appeared to be the main reason for dcb not liking the game. First, I don't see any consistency here. Second, Fable and dcb...ummm...guys have you tried to play the game or have you played like an hour? Then you understood that you don't like it and started critising it? My advice, don't start blaming the game for all mortal sins if you haven't played half of it. Starting from chapter 1, 2 and henceforth, I, for some reason, failed to see obtrusive cutscenes, etc. except for the chapter's finales' when they are absolutely necessary.

Besides, I fully agree with Xandax that I enjoy a great cutscene. Why not? If I play the game, interact with the environment 95% of the time I spend in it, why would the game be ruined if it involves 5% of cutscenes? If that's a matter of taste as it appears from your and my posts, then don't say that all games that employ cutscenes are horrible. That's pretty immature in my opinion.

As to the situation, described by Fable (about talking with the innkeeper, giving him some money to get bits of story)... if you played the game just a bit you would notice exactly this in the chapter 1 tavern. That's exactly what you do when talking with the innkeeper to get some background on a story.

As to "intelligent" dialogues in Mask of the Betrayer... I finished the Witcher and decided I'd give MoB a try. During the first hour of the game I saw that it was the same as NWN2. Intelligent dialogue turned into a number of questions I could ask an npc, which I didn't even want to ask and most conversations were over after that. Besides if I ever want to read descriptions of how I feel, or how I look, or what the walls and glyphs look like...I'd rather read a book than read all this text in-game, but that's only my opinion. Can't say the Witcher's dialogues are excellent, but they are alive as compared to MoB and at times hillarious (I'm not speaking about "dwarf cock" here) and thought provoking.

Speaking on the maturity of the game since the current discussion stemmed from its alleged lack in the Wicher (slight to medium spoilers ahead). You don't think the folloiwng situation is mature: you ask a druid to summon a storm and he refuses telling you that nature is not a toy. You then give him 500 gold and he agrees since this gold wil be used for subsequent healing of the nature (such irony). Then you have a choice of "saving" a girl, who became an expensive prostitute, from her alleged captors only to discover that she did it willingly because her elder brother wanted to marry her with an old count (typical situation for medieval). Then you meet a dwarf, who says that, yes he is non-human, and, yes, he paid all taxes and bribes and that humans made him watch the execution of other dwarfs so that he wouldn't get killed instead. That's not mature, sure. But you would expect that a peasant in a tavern who participates in fist fights would say something like this: "Sire, I have an intent to convey you my highest disregard towards your well respected mother, who appeared to have spent horrendous amount of time with a dwarf, succumbing to lowly pleasures" .Yeah, I'd expect to hear this from every peasant. Sure, you could say that these are childish attempts at portraying serious issues, but, hey that's an entertainig game, better read The Economist, I guess, if you want to fill up on acute problems.

[RiceBall]

I've heard, though, that some really important actions occur after genuine, noninteractive cutscenes, discussed in another thread. Is this true?

I wanted a link to what you referred to above. My mistake for not making it more clear.

I recently broke my vow not to buy MoB. I bought it. There is absolutely no similarity between the elaborate, intelligent dialogues in MoB and the somewhat bastardized yes/no dialogues in The Witcher.

I was comparing dialogue interaction mechanics, not the depth of the dialogue.

[fable]

Then explain why there is more creativity in writing that a character walks up to the innkeeper and that NPC tells you some "valuable" information as textual dialogue, compared to writing it and animating it as a cut-scene that the character walks up to the innkeeper and he tells you the exact same thing as dialogue?

Seeing as it is apparently according to you much more creative the former then the latter, when it is the same writing which is used. You claim that it is de facto more creativity involved when it comes to writing when it is for text, then when it is for animation. That's basically the jist of it.

In answer to your first paragraph, I already did:

My players interact with our mythical innkeeper, who has a lot of subjects for discussion, and a variety of responses depending upon character profession, sex, status, reputation, etc. And of course, the responses that the innkeeper receives. The idea is to make the experience as rich as possible for the player, so that they come away feeling that this is one deep NPC indeed, and one that will show still more sides if they play again.

This requires a lot more creativity than a single noninteractive piece of film that doesn't take into account any of the factor (skill, profession, gender, age, etc) checks, nor include a rich dialog tree. To do a simple prewritten one-off script conversational cutscene is inherently much easier than creating conversational NPCs that use a rich dialog tree and lots of skill checks to make the dialog seem more "real."

And as I wrote earlier:

Who said text was telling it? If I wasn't clear before, the player would have to find a character and speak with them, then work through a dialog tree with a variety of responses. If it were the same thing as the cutscene, I'd expect to pick up a piece of paper that had the entire plot-as-shown-in-the-cutscene on it. I don't. My players interact with our mythical innkeeper, who has a lot of subjects for discussion, and a variety of responses depending upon character profession, sex, status, reputation, etc. And of course, the responses that the innkeeper receives. The idea is to make the experience as rich as possible for the player, so that they come away feeling that this is one deep NPC indeed, and one that will show still more sides if they play again.

My point being that that a good dialog tree, a good dungeon, and providing reasonable challenges to sneaking through a house to steal something all innately require a higher investment of creative energy than a movie clip that cuts away from those interactive activities and reduces them to passive watching. The former group is interactive. A cutscene is by definition non-interactive, and the information you get from the former may be considerably different from the information you get doled out without effort from the latter. As I wrote:

Whether it's text, or a cave you design that the player must excavate to find a clue, or a person the player must play at a game to win a clue, or a quest you must run to get something for somebody who has told you they'd provide you with a clue, it amounts to the same thing: it's interacting with the gameworld. There's no question about that. A cutscene doesn't. There's no question about that, either.

To succeed in building a good, solid dungeon with challenges in just the right places to get your clue is clearly more complex and demands a higher level of creativity than putting in a cutscene in which we can do nothing but watch your character climb over boulders, fight a dirty big spider, jump over a minor cave-in, etc. The former demands effort to creatively challenge the player at just the right level and make them feel that they've been through something really interesting. The latter requires only that they sit and watch the screen instead of going for a toilet break. This doesn't mean the team that avoids cutscenes is going to be very creative in finding solutions. Only that they must find more creative ones to succeed in the interactive world of gaming.

That is why I dismissed your statement, and simply using "MMO for 4 years" at some undefined game, at some undefined period in time as an argument really doesn't cut it. Because there is simply nothing in your argument which supports such a blanket statement.

Then you clearly didn't read what I wrote, or you would have realized I was stating my background in passing only in reference to how we dealt with situations demanding creativity. I could have left it out, but then you would have wondered what I was talking about when I referred to the creative solutions we applied.

What if - hypothetical situation which easily could be true - the writer didn't know that the developers would animate the innkeeper telling the information as a cut-scene type to convey the information, but he thought it would be used only for textual information?
Would that automatically detract from the creativity used by the writer, because the mechanics of displaying and conveying the information to the player apparently has influence on the process of the writer writing said information.

Leaving aside the fact that the writers are part of the development team, if its a cutscene, then it's not going to have any interactive dialog, sneaking, jumping, fighting, etc. It's going to be a method of conveying information without any effort by the player. So the writer-developer will have wasted a lot of creative effort considering all the other questions a player might or might not ask, and how some might arise, or be closed off, during a natural-seeming dialog that includes the use of player-generated questions containing keywords (as in the Wizardry series). Or how the player might choose to fight a creature, or where they might sneak, or which traps they might choose to risk, etc.

[Denethorn]

I
My players interact with our mythical innkeeper, who has a lot of subjects for discussion, and a variety of responses depending upon character profession, sex, status, reputation, etc. And of course, the responses that the innkeeper receives. The idea is to make the experience as rich as possible for the player, so that they come away feeling that this is one deep NPC indeed, and one that will show still more sides if they play again.

I was considering arguing against your point of cutscenes. I thought back to the old benchmark of Baldur's Gate II and was about to point out that many of the more memorable parts were the cutscenes/dream sequences and such like.

However you raise that point and I remember that those 'cut scenes' or extended dialogues did incoporate player choices and input, which in retrospective close examination are indeed a valuable ingredient to quality and pleasure of such sequences.

[Xandax]

<snipped long text>

And that is why you do not address what I state.

There is interaction in The Witcher, dialogue playing out in cut-scene. You talk to the innkeeper, but whether you do so via text or animated cut-scenes does not alter the concept or creativity required.

You can still interact with the innkeeper, select the (limited) dialogue options however, instead of just seeing text, you see the character talk and the innkeeper reply.

My players interact with our mythical innkeeper, who has a lot of subjects for discussion, and a variety of responses depending upon character profession, sex, status, reputation, etc.

Yes, and whether this is via text or a cut-scene they ask and answer that question has no bearing on the "creative process" with which you think up the scenario.

The idea is to make the experience as rich as possible for the player, so that they come away feeling that this is one deep NPC indeed, and one that will show still more sides if they play again.

Also possible to the exact same degree with animated dialogue instead of just text. In fact, having visual guidence makes it easier to convey emotions, nuances etc, then just plain old text.

<snip>
Leaving aside the fact that the writers are part of the development team, if its a cutscene, then it's not going to have any interactive dialog, sneaking, jumping, fighting, etc. It's going to be a method of conveying information without any effort by the player. So the writer-developer will have wasted a lot of creative effort considering all the other questions a player might or might not ask, and how some might arise, or be closed off, during a natural-seeming dialog that includes the use of player-generated questions containing keywords (as in the Wizardry series). Or how the player might choose to fight a creature, or where they might sneak, or which traps they might choose to risk, etc.

It all comes down to the writing and not the mechanics used to convey the writing. Yes, some companies misuse cut-scenes, however one does not automatically eliminate the other. You can have deep dialogue conveyed via animated cut-scenes.

You can easily have interactive dialogue in the cut-scenes, it just means the cut-scenes are divided into more "scenes", that's my entire point. Where you then blanket dismiss it with "no", and that textual conveying of information is much more creative by default then the other.
Hence my reaction that you are wrong.

There is more to cut-scenes then just non-interactive playing of a scene. A cut-scene can depict part of a dialogue, you then react - interactive - to that scene, and another scene plays. This is not less creative by default then if it was displayed via text instead of animation.

[Claudius]

I'm just a bystander but I am aroused to post. I was listening to the discussion of gameworld and cutscenes and I had an opinion. Actually a few. I don't know if any of this is relevant to the witcher.

First of all I think that placing 'pieces of the puzzle' throughout the environment to tell a story is enjoyable. It is more thinking and hunting for clues where you get that 'cool' flash that you have discovered something. For a brief moment you feel like a genius. I think that is what fable is trying to give his gamers in his game he made...that they are discovering a world where you are uncovering clues (thats my phrase to describe it) rather than having a programmed cutscene say after you clear out the orc cave you see a movie of the ambassador talking to the king (and you didn't sneak next to the door to hear them or hide a magic tape recorder in the room). So in that respect I hear what fable is saying. Of course I apologize if it sounds like I am putting words in his/her mouth when saying my piece. Thats just how it sounds to me.

One problem I find with an interactive environment is that sometimes it is so difficult to uncover the plot that you have to consult a gamebanshee walkthrough just to get somewhere. Now I remember time as a kid spending 3-4 days wandering around looking at the same puzzles in puzzle games totally stuck. That was frustrating. These days with the internet I just consult the walkthrough after 1-2 hours stuck. And once I get hooked on the walkthrough its a total spoiler. Of course if you have enough clues and interaction points that sort of funnel you around (rather than having 100 townspeople who all say the same thing like in olden days) it can work.

However I agree with Xandax that cutscenes are creative too. It is just a different beast. Now you can like them or not. Heck I can't sit still through a 2 hour movie. I don't like heavy metal. I like watercolor painting because the color is radiant. But it would be foolish for me to say that only watercolor painting is creative and that cooking or animating is not. What fable is doing might be harder in some sense but that doesn't mean it is more creative. I don't correlate greater difficulty with more creativity. For example Zen circles are a spontaneous expression of your being. In one sense it is difficult to express yourself spontaneously but in another its easy. Everything has difficulties and creativity is very tantalizing...you cannot pinpoint what it is!

[fable]

And that is why you do not address what I state.

I think those paragraphs answer your remarks directly. If you can show me how you didn't get an answer from them, I'll be happy to do my best to provide one.

There is interaction in The Witcher, dialogue playing out in cut-scene. You talk to the innkeeper, but whether you do so via text or animated cut-scenes does not alter the concept or creativity required.

I've already stated three times above that if the camera angles are merely switched during a dialog, it doesn't constitute a cutscene. And I've stated what a cutscene is at least half a dozen times--not my personal definition, but the way the word in general is applied--as from Answers.com:

A cut scene or cutscene is a sequence in a video game over which the player has no control, often breaking up the gameplay and used to advance the plot, present character development, and provide background information, atmosphere, dialogue and clues. Cut scenes can either be animated or use live action footage.

You can still interact with a Witcher NPC in what you describe above. Is that correct? Because if you can, then it isn't a cutscene, since a cutscene is non-interactive. If you can't interact, youi're only watching a movie. There are far fewer opportunities to be creative in the sense of game design if you only have to watch a person moving through a dungeon, rather than playing that person going through the dungeon. Would you agree with this? This also applies to making a short animated film about a piece of linear dialog instead of developing an elaborate dialog tree that will delight the player, or make a piece of video showing a character sneaking through a house to steal something, rather than allowing the player to do that, going where they will, when they will, and choose what to take. The creativity in my opinion lies in making the game more pleasurably and memorably interactive, rather than using cutscenes. Where the creativity is that of the motion picture, not the game.

Please let me know if what I wrote isn't clear. Now, I did request this of you, previously:

So, tell me of several cutscenes that swim against the tide, that allow you to interact to the level of specificity and detail that I've described, and I'll agree with you.

...and I'd like to do so, again, since I haven't received a reply. If you're saying is that cutscenes might be creative if someone did something with them, but nobody has, then we can mutually shrug this argument to a conclusion. If that's not the case, then please point me to extremely creative examples of typically noninteractive cutscenes.

[Xandax]

<snip>
A cut scene or cutscene is a sequence in a video game over which the player has no control, often breaking up the gameplay and used to advance the plot, present character development, and provide background information, atmosphere, dialogue and clues. Cut scenes can either be animated or use live action footage.<snip>

Which is vague enough to make any animated sequence, despite length, fall into the category. Hence - problem solved.

<snip>
You can still interact with a Witcher NPC in what you describe above. Is that correct? Because if you can, then it isn't a cutscene, since a cutscene is non-interactive. <snip>

Pose a question - cut-scene with dialogue playing. Post another question, a cut-scene with question plays out. That falls neatly into your posted definition.

The cut-scenes plays out the dialogue you chooses - *exactly* like the text from "your" innkeeper would be presented, and then it is both a cut-scene according to the above definition, but it is also interactive, because which scene plays is depending on your choice prior in the dialogue or the game.

However that is only a side issue.
Your argument has continuesly been that writing by default, as a definition, is a more creative process if the writing is displayed as text in the game, compared to if the writing is displayed as a cut-scene. Even if the exact same writing was used.
That is my beef with your statement.
My argument is that it comes down to the writers and the writing done, and not the media which present it, which you then have dismissed with your "four year of MMO" experience.... but see, that only fits right into my argument, because it actually came down to the writers on that MMO, and not the media you choose to present it. However your blanket statement is unsupported except by your subjective experience from that MMO, which you then spread out as a benchmark to suit all other games and situations. That is why I said you were wrong.

We have through the history of gaming seen horrendous and uncreative writing in many a game presented via text. Don't tell me the "dialogue" in Diablo is creative for example, and would be tought up via a less creative process if it had been presented as cut-scenes.
And that goes for many games.
And then we have a game like the Witcher which presents good cut-scenes, both used to further the story, give flashbacks, and as sequences of a dialogue. It is incredible arrogant of you to simply dismiss all cut-scenes as less creative then if it were textual presented (even if the dialogue was the same) in my view.

[fable]

Xandax, since you continue to refuse to even deal with my responses, deny accepted definitions of terms we're using, and refuse to supply examples yourself as repeatedly requested, this conversation's finished.

[Xandax]

Actually - I've addressed them quite well and denied no "accepted definition".

I simply do not understand how you can make a blanket statement claiming de facto state of more creativity when the same writing appears as text, then compared to if the exact same text appears as a cut-scene, especially when it in my view is down to the people doing said writing.

But alas, if you wont back that statement up, I see no reason to provide additional "response" to your points either.

All the situations of writing you've presented can be conveyed by usage of animated cut-scenes as defined your own posted definition, and that the writing then - by your statement - would magically be the result of a less creative process, only because of it now being a cut-scene.

[fable]

I recently broke my vow not to buy MoB. I bought it. There is absolutely no similarity between the elaborate, intelligent dialogues in MoB and the somewhat bastardized yes/no dialogues in The Witcher.

The latter has always been the bane of RPGs. Veteran programmer Chris Crawford (who invented several modern gaming genres back in the 1980s), puts forth the theory that with levels of autism significantly higher in Silicon Valley than elsewhere in the US (he cites a study; I don't recall it), it makes sense that programmers would be better at relating to objects than to people. This is deliberately provocative stuff, obviously, but Crawford's been a gadfly attempting to sting US programmers into creating more human-seeming elements in games for years. Bad dialog trees are one of his bete noirs.

As I recall, the Sirtech folk of Wizardry fame tried the solution of parsing player-entered sentences for key phrases, which triggered responses from NPCs and made the whole thing seem more casual and less linear. I wish something like this was more common in action-based RPGs, but I haven't seen it, yet. I'm impressed by the visual imagery and object manipulation within these games, but (for me) so much founders when the character I'm speaking with only wants a "Yes, I'll help you," or "No, go away!" reply. I could forgive that in Morrowind, because some of the mods were so inventive in getting around that and simulating character out of dialog. On the other hand, Oblivion's "official" idea for making NPCs real was that horrific faux background coniversation. I could almost hear Crawford laughing in the distance.

[fable]

I was considering arguing against your point of cutscenes. I thought back to the old benchmark of Baldur's Gate II and was about to point out that many of the more memorable parts were the cutscenes/dream sequences and such like.

BG2 gave me pause for a moment. Then I remembered that the seemingly animated bits weren't cutscenes at all, but interactive scripted events. Some were clever, and one in particular--where a certain party NPC, if you had him, would briefly steal the interaction away from you--struck me as a very creative idea with a delightfully dark and off-kilter implementation. I would love to see more of that in future RPGs, but we both know it's unlikely to happen. Possibly Age of Decadence or The Broken Hourglass. We'll have to wait and see.

However you raise that point and I remember that those 'cut scenes' or extended dialogues did incoporate player choices and input, which in retrospective close examination are indeed a valuable ingredient to quality and pleasure of such sequences.

Interaction with the player adds an extra level of creative potential to any sequence. It's a challenge: to do it right, you have to do so much more than if you're showing a movie, or using a voice-over to narate events. But if you do interaction right, you bring the player into the environment, making the game feel more alive and reactive to outside stimuli.

It takes longer, of course. That's the bane of modern game development, when companies are no longer working to their own deadlines while doing their day jobs. So you contract to produce the title on Day X, and if it isn't ready on Day X, for whatever reason--good, bad, indifferent--the publisher that funded your project pulls the title, and releases it anyway. You get blasted by the reviewers: KotoR2, anyone? The moral is to aim low, get the job done on the assembly line quickly, without much effort or creativity, and turn it in on time to rapt appreciation by the kiddie critics who wet their pants.

But for me, reasonable opportunities for creative interaction in RPGs are an essential ingredient if they're to keep their souls, and not become an environment of cookie cutter products like the March of the RTS Clones. Just my opinion.

[Loki[D.d.G]]

Lady Dragonfly

I recently broke my vow not to buy MoB. I bought it. There is absolutely no similarity between the elaborate, intelligent dialogues in MoB and the somewhat bastardized yes/no dialogues in The Witcher.

Please try not to compare a top class game such as MotB with The Witcher. Luckily I did not purchase the game and managed to get a preview from an unlucky friend who had bought the game .

Maybe the producers should have taken more time developing the game and writing its story. Follow the lead of Prey's producers. Patience is very rewarding, especially in the gaming industry.

By the way, Chris Avellone rules.

[Disturbation]

Maybe the producers should have taken more time developing the game and writing its story. Follow the lead of Prey's producers. Patience is very rewarding, especially in the gaming industry.

The Witcher certainly doesn't have Oblivion's level of polish, but I don't see how you can comment on that if you haven't even played the game.

By the way, Chris Avellone rules.

Sure, but you should be thanking Kevin D. Saunders and George Ziets for MotB. MCA had a rather minor role in its development.

[Loki[D.d.G]]

The Witcher certainly doesn't have Oblivion's level of polish, but I don't see how you can comment on that if you haven't even played the game.

I have played it with the aforementioned friend. Or rather watched him play long enough for me to lose all interest.

Sure, but you should be thanking Kevin D. Saunders and George Ziets for MotB. MCA had a rather minor role in its development.

Wasn't only referring to MotB. Avellone has managed to come up with a couple of other masterpeices. Still kudos to Kevin D. Saunders and George Ziets for a fantastic game.

[Celos]

It's not Oblivion.

You people seem to have edged away from the topic at hand. Like Xandax, I would also like to see examples of the aforementioned pop-culture references and modern cuss-words.

As mentioned before, the whole "mature" point is invalid from the get-go. The game's rating is mature, because it contains strong language, sex and adult humor. The game itself is aimed toward a more mature audience because it touches the more darker side of life. Racism, dirty politics and so forth. End of discussion, really.

Then why don't you play educational games if you want realism? Sorry, but I don't see a world of elves, dwarves, and magic where the protagonist cuts down thousands of foes, sleeps with two dozen women without fear of disease or impregnation, and travels through a world where "dwarf cock" and "balls itch" are common phrases represents realism.

I just had to reply to this. In what world do you live in? People do not have random sex? "Cock" is not a common phrase? Balls do not itch (I'm scratching mine this very moment)?
The setting might be different (elves, dwarves and magic), but most of the issues tackled in the game are very valid and therefore "represent realism" quite well.

e: In a hurry so I'll leave my post at that for the moment. I would like to say that I agree with the chopped dialogue part. I had a conversation with Thaler that ended with him asking "Is that a problem?" and my replies being "Yes". "They're all safe" and "Farewell." I have no idea what i should have a problem with or what should be safe even though i followed all of his previous lines. Just an example.

[Xandax]

<snip>
e: In a hurry so I'll leave my post at that for the moment. I would like to say that I agree with the chopped dialogue part. I had a conversation with Thaler that ended with him asking "Is that a problem?" and my replies being "Yes". "They're all safe" and "Farewell." I have no idea what i should have a problem with or what should be safe even though i followed all of his previous lines. Just an example.

Yeah - that one puzzled me too, but I think it is part of a broken quest or something more so then just chopped dialogue.

[cielaqu]

If you're referring to conversation with Thaler in tavern I don't think it's broken. The all glorified dialog tree checked for requirements and the result was failure. That is just my opinion because I haven’t seen scripts, but it’s likely explanation. And as for “They’re all safe” I think it should be “They’re all well” (at least it would be more accurate translation). Just a small talk and farewell.

This lengthy discussion is an academicals one. The superiority of Christmas Tree above Easter Eggs .
You can say that cutscenes in Witcher throw you out of the game world (and dialogs too), but only if you’re playing in camera mode different than OTS. Have you seen sky, clouds, stars, ceiling, been wondering why have you died (without using dodge)? No? Than start playing with OTS camera. Cutscenes in Witcher are less interactive than in the other games because YOU ARE THE WITCHER. Even if you have lost all your memory, you have many years of rigorous training, countless battles, discrimination, hatred behind you. Its like catching a ball thrown at you, you don’t start to think why and how, you just do it. If you were for instance Leo, character we know nothing of, game would be completely different. The choose of main character limits the game, but for anyone who enjoys it, it doesn’t matter.

[Ulfang]

Well clearly it's not a game for everyone. I've played RPG's since before there were any CRPG's and have to say this is one of the best I've played but that doesn't mean it's the only one I like. Just because a persoan doesn't like this game doesn't make it a bad game. It may be a bad game in one person's opinion and a good game in the other so who is right? It's all down to opinion and much as I respect other people's opinions I don't respect people posting insulting remarks about games just because they don't like the game. Fair enough if you don't like it but why make childish remarks?

I can't stand the Dungeon Siege games. Terrible as RPG's (which they barely are) but I don't feel the need to insult the game or its developers. I'm quite happy to just say for me the game is poor. I'm quite aware that there are plenty of people who do like the games and that's quite all right. There are plenty of games I like that other people don't and plenty I hate that otehr people love!

I'm also a NWN fan and have MotB and as much as I like the game it's not as immersive as The Witcher and the storyline isn't as good. NWN & NWN2 are best as MP games. Their single player campaigns are fine but nothing special.

[Jurosementalistile]

I'm still fairly eary in the game but on the whole I have to agree with the original post. I, like the others in this thread who are complaining, do not have a problem with sex, violence or naughty langauge, but that is not what we're complaining about. The problem is the "adult" elements seem to have been thrown in simply for the sake of making the game more adult, and are so poorly done that they have the opposite effect from the intention of making the world more real.
Overall, however, I still find something quite likeable about the atmosphere of the game. My biggest disappointment so far is with the RPG elements: it seems like one of those games that gives only the illusion of choice and customisation. Sure you get lots of choices of skills and abilities when you level up, but based on the number of skill points you get to distribute, it seems like it's gonna be one of those games where eventually you'll get to take just about every ability you could want, and everyone's character will turn out almost identical in meaningful terms.
And the descriptions of the spell effects smell suspiciously as though the big bosses are going to be immune to them, which will make them mostly useless in the most important and most fun battles.
I wish RPG makers would stop making the same silly mistakes
Of course it could turn out I'm wrong, but it's looking very unlikely. And most of that was off-topic so I'll now go and rant to myself in the corner...