I've noticed something about The Witcher franchise

You know how a lot of reviews and advertisements talk about the complex moral choices? And you also know how Fallout and Elder Scrolls have multitudes of different organizations or factions to join?

Throughout the books and video games, The Witcher franchise had three wars waged between the Northern Kingdoms, the Nilfgaardian Empire, and the Scoia’tael. And, all three of those main factions represented either order (Nilfgaard), chaos (Scoia’tael), or a balance of both (Northern Kingdoms). Hell, their three wars were so massive in scale, that there’d be an entire card game based on those wars called Gwent!

And then came The Witcher 1 and 2, where you sided with either the Northern Kingdoms, the Scoia’tael, or neither, not so much because Geralt believed in their political viewpoints or ideologies, but rather to solve a series of mysteries in each of the first two installments.

By the time The Witcher 3 comes around, the Nilfgaardian Empire replaces the Scoia’tael as the Northern Kingdoms’ main enemy. Once you assassinate King Radovid V in Chapter III, you would eventually decide between siding with Sigismund Dijkstra in order to fight back against Nilfgaard, or siding with Vernon Roche to surrender to Nilfgaard in-exchange for Temeria. In other words, you were either siding with the Northern Kingdoms or Nilfgaard, the same way in the first two games where it was either the Northern Kingdoms or the Scoia’tael.

However, while the moral choices were heavily advertised, apparently siding with either the Northern Kingdoms, Nilfgaardian Empire or Scoia’tael in the entire video game trilogy is not as heavily advertised as, say, picking factions to side with in the Elder Scrolls and Fallout franchises. So why advertise moral choices in The Witcher series, if you’re not going to advertise the three different factions to pick between?

I've noticed something about The Witcher franchise