More Romanticism, Less Low Fantasy

[Defianc4]

There were many personal complexities that helped to make the story truly memorable, but what made the essence of Nehrim's plot great was the forces of individualism and free will defeating the forces of collective statism and determinism, as dramatized by the hero's personal quest to destroy the three hierarchies of evil: Baratheon, the Lightborn, and Fate itself.

In other words, it was the main character's (and Arkt's) choice of values and the clash of their values with the chosen values of the forces of evil that made Nehrim's script feel like something straight out of the Enlightenment.

That is Romanticism, and I would like to see more of it in Enderal. This is what brought Arkt and the main character to life, what made Narathzul such a great foil with an excellent character arc, and made moments like Baratheon's suicide and Merzul's death so impactful. I hope that the writers emphasize these parts of their upcoming narrative, by more clearly defining the values that the characters hold and contrasting them with the evil forces they may oppose, or a flawed foil such as Narathzul. I think that defining a character as good and another as evil without showing why their ideas cause them to be good or evil is what makes High Fantasy sometimes feel stagnant and uninnovative when it could be so much more. Nehrim did this rather well, and I think that Enderal is a chance to even surpass Nehrim in this regard.

Now what do I mean by less Low Fantasy? In general, I mean that you shouldn't make The Witcher. By that, I don't mean that people shouldn't have dirty faces, or that there shouldn't be bad people in the narrative, but that:

1) Your main character should have a motivation
2) Your world should at least project a potentially bright future; if it's going to be dark, provide an idea that causes it to be so evil. And please don't project a malevolent universe. Those are so boring.

In The Witcher, Geralt doesn't always have a motivation or values of any sort. He "involves" himself with a woman, for no reason. Then he kills this person because they are there. He just does, with no why. There's virtually no contrast between him and the people he's fighting except that he wins. Geralt is largely a concrete-bound personality, whose motivations aren't truly integrated with any sort of idea structure.

Also, if I have to see a world where every NPC is a brainless hunk of meat (The Witcher), I will kill somebody. I like characters that are truly alive. Nehrim may have been set in a medieval world, but it had its funny moments (Gertrude) and legitimate struggles in the right direction (The Northern Rebellion).

In other words, give your characters and worlds without a why. Give them ideas, show how these ideas conflict with the ideas of others, and keep up the excellent plotting and character development from Nehrim!

[badgesareus]

Your main character should have a motivation

I agree. However, in Nehrim, the motivation was "join us or die". Although there was much dialogue to explain the motivation of the Arcane Sanctum, there was never a point at which the main character could evaluate their explanations and choose. It would be better to have a plot where there are alternative motivations and the main character can choose one and develop from there, or perhaps later come to realize that he wanted to change paths.

How is the main character in Nehrim different from Geralt? He goes about mindlessly slaying the enemies of the Arcane Sanctum and pursuing their goals not because he is motivated by their philosophy but because he must do so or be killed by them. In the Witcher, Geralt is given no choice in his motivation, either, so he does what a witcher does. But since he has lost his memory, his motivation is to regain his memories, and one could argue that in such a circumstance there is no need to present a choice of motivations for Geralt because he is motivated to do what all of us would do, seek to regain our memories (and later, to even the score with those who caused us to loose them). Unlike Nehrim, where there is only a single plot line and no meaningful choices to be made, in Witcher 2, Geralt does have choices which affect the plot and the ending. I expect in Witcher 3 we will see even more of this. Would that Enderal give the main character as many real choices as Geralt had in Witcher 2.

[Nicolas Samuel]

Hi,

That's very interesting to hear - Thanks for your suggestion!
We'll try to keep the character development as interesting as possible and we'll also try to give characters more meaning. I'm currently playing The Witcher, and I think what you say is true - I don't really know why I'm doing what I'm doing.

Thanks for your suggestion!

Latiro

[badgesareus]

I'm currently playing The Witcher, and I think what you say is true - I don't really know why I'm doing what I'm doing.

I think that is intentional. Geralt doesn't know why he does certain things because he has lost his memory. As he slowly regains his memories, especially in Witcher 2, I think it becomes clearer why he does what he does.

In Nehrim, we have deep explanations of what motivates the main NPCs, but the only time we see whether the main character accepts those motivations for himself is at the very end of the Shadow God quest, where he chooses to keep the sword or destroy it. The End!
It would be nice if such a fundamental choice had to be made much earlier in the game and would affect the direction of the main quest, resulting in 2 (or more) alternative endings.

At one point in Nehrim, the main character chooses whether to kill the last god or spare him, but as it turns out, it makes absolutely no difference in the game. It is ironic that, in a game about thwarting Fate, the developers impose the same fate on the main character, regardless of his choice. The avatar can escape Fate in the game, but the player cannot escape the Fate imposed by the developers!

My brain hurts, I need a schnapps!