Davcron: I Agree with you as far as the "turning your back on your choices", but for example i didn't choose to help Henselt, I chose to go with Roche to find the Kingslayer and save Triss. and because i i went with Roche to save Aniase to help Tamaria become stable, i should still be able to save Triss and kick some Nilfgaurdian arse. that wouldn't change the outcome of my choices.
Anyway seems to me they rushed me through to the end way too soon.
Yeah I know what you mean. The whole third act, no matter which side you're on, is about personal choices vs greater good. While the idea is brilliant, and very much in the style of the witcher books, it's execution could've been better; i.e. no clear reason was given why you can't have both. Moral choices and dillemmas are great in a game only if the player knows beforehand enough to understand the gravity of the choices and inevitability of the outcome. If we had a real reason to know that after saving one saving the other would not be possible, the choice would be much more meaningful.
this is a bit of a storytelling dilemma I often encounter while hosting pen-n-paper RPG sessions: how much information do you give the players for making a choice, how much do you steer them through fate and "coincidences", how much do you rely on their choices to push the plot forwards, and make them suffer the cosequences. Because, in all honesty, players love to suffer consequences, because they make stories interesting, unique, and give them total immersion due to te fact that they get the feeling that what their character does matters and the plot revolves arround them. On the other hand you can't give them too much so that you can have minor choices make big changes - the unforseeable is also fun! Still if you make those consequences appear out of the blue, in wrong moments, or too often, then it makes it feel "unfair" and spoils the mood. Very tricky to pull off in any interactive medium.