The Politics of the Witcher 3 or "What we liked, didn't like, and would have done differently?"

+
The Politics of the Witcher 3 or "What we liked, didn't like, and would have done differently?"

Exactly what the title says.

Nilfgaard is invading
Radovid is his last remaining opponent, having conquered Kaedwin
Roche is the head of the Temerian resistance
Emhyr is bankrupt and needs to win the war quickly
Emhyr also wants to abdicate and crown his daughter
Radovid can be assassinated and replaced by Dijkstra who turns the North, essentially, into Niflgaardania or Roche who achieves a sweet deal with Nilfgaard.

The politics are very very simple compared to AOK2.

But I don't think they're BAD per se.

They're just almost incidental to the larger story.

What would have changed? Kept the same? Re-emphasized? What sort of other options would you have done?

That sort of thing.

In general, the forum opinion has been that Henselt was wasted in carry over games, Radovid's insanity was ill-handled, and there's some controversy over the final decision of Reasons of State.

So let's try and bring something new to those subjects if they get repeated.
 
I find it it interesting that nobody ever talks about the Skellige politics, which also misses any complexity. I would have prefered if the king/queen of Skellige is decided by more than just the npc we support during one mission.
 
I'd have liked to have seen the previous political choices feeding into the epilogues at the end of the game rather than being merged with Natalis/Henselt/Stannis death, Vergen vanishing etc. Radovid not crazy, he's unlikeable enough with his mage burning in my eyes as it is.

I'd have liked it to be revealed that Emhyr is ill, hence the whole desperation to hand over his empire to his daughter. I assumed that was going to come at some point whilst playing but it didn't.
I'd have liked to have seen Nilfgaard presented in a less rosy fashion. Returning Fringilla to the Lodge as a corpse or tortured would have been good, especially given what they did to Assire in TW2.
I certainly wouldn't have resolved Reasons of state in that way. Have Anais/Adda possibly feeding into an outcome where Redania and Temeria ally against Nilfgaard without Radovid.
 
Contrary to what everyone on the forum is probably expecting, I think I would have preferred to figure out some way to keep the Neutrality of the Witcher in the game rather than have you forced into the whole business of assassinating Radovid, only to either guarantee the War's End or Victory by yourself. In a weird way, I think it would have been better to have Nilfgaard conquer Aedirn and Lyria on their own as well as Temeria and there's nothing Geralt can do about any of it rather than make it dependent on his actions.

I would have liked more emphasis on the fact that the war is, ultimately, a pointless waste of human life with "heroes on both sides." One of my favorite moments from the Assassins of Kings game was the Battle of the Pontar Valley where we heard a bunch of peasant ghosts speaking about, essentially, how this was a war against people exactly like themselves and they were all going die because Henselt wanted a bigger lawn.

I liked that and wish we'd gotten more of it.

I'm probably never going to warm to Emhyr but I think it would have been cool to have Nilfgaard, Redanian, and Temerian Resistance missions too. Things where Geralt does his best to help the various sides in a kind of "Witchers without Borders" fashion just the way Shani does with treating the wounded of both sides in the first game. Really, I think her presence would have been welcome in describing the pointlessness of the conflict too.

As such, I think the Nilfgaard come off as too evil to be happy to let win but not evil enough to actually want to smack them around. Likewise, Radovid is CARTOONISHLY evil, which is something I never want to hear about Witcher 1. He's basically Whoreson Junior and that's kind of annoying because while I can buy WSJ as a comically monstrous bad guy, it kind of renders the entire game's politics moot as it's Hitler vs. Tywin Lannister. We've already mentioned that before, though.

One thing I am glad they avoided was making it a situation where Geralt was fighting on the front lines like the Dragonborn in Skyrim. One of the stupidest elements of that game was the ill-conceived civil war missions where they amounted to, essentially, having the Dragonborn murder one side or another in their forts.
 
I am kind of sad @KnightofPhoenix won't be doing a dramatically simplified version of his Assassins of Kings business. Even if he were to trash the game, I've just finished his articles and they're masterfully done.

Yes, the politics were much dumbed down, KOP, you have convinced me even if I did like the game, this is very true.

I also am reading "The Time of Contempt" and have decided there are two missing options from Reasons of State.

Anti-Dijkstra

1. The option to threaten everyone into letting everyone else go/persuade them not to do anything stupid.

Anti-Roche

2. The "Time of Contempt" speech regarding Roche.

What is the Time of Contempt speech?

‘So Foltest crumbled,’ muttered the Witcher, breaking another twig in his fingers. ‘He struck a deal with Nilfgaard. He left Aedirn to its fate . . .’

‘Yes,’ agreed the poet. ‘However, he sent his army to the Pontar Valley and occupied and manned the stronghold at Hagge. And the Nilfgaardians didn’t march into the Mahakam pass or cross the Jaruga in Sodden. They didn’t attack Brugge, which, after its capitulation and Ervyll’s fealty, they have in their clutches. That was without doubt the price of Temeria’s neutrality.’

‘Ciri was right,’ whispered the Witcher. ‘Neutrality . . . Neutrality is always contemptible.’

‘What?’

‘Nothing. But what about Kaedwen, Dandelion? Why didn’t Henselt of Kaedwen come to Demavend and Meve’s aid? They had a pact, after all; they were bound by an alliance. But even if Henselt, following Foltest’s example, pisses on the signatures and seals on documents, and the royal word means nothing to him, he cannot be stupid, can he?

Doesn’t he understand that after the fall of Aedim and the deal with Temeria, it will be his turn; that he’s next on the Nilfgaardian list? Kaedwen ought to support Demavend out of good sense. There may no longer be faith nor truth in the world, but surely good sense still exists. What say you, Dandelion? Is there still good sense in the world? Or do only contemptibility and contempt remain?’

Dandelion turned his head away. The green lanterns were close. They were surrounding them in a tight ring. He hadn’t noticed it earlier, but now he understood. All the dryads had been listening in to his story. ‘

You say nothing,’ said Geralt, ‘which means that Ciri was right. That Codringher was right. You were all right. Only I, the naive, anachronistic and stupid witcher, was wrong.’
 
I am kind of sad @KnightofPhoenix won't be doing a dramatically simplified version of his Assassins of Kings business. Even if he were to trash the game, I've just finished his articles and they're masterfully done.

Yes, the politics were much dumbed down, KOP, you have convinced me even if I did like the game, this is very true.

Thank you for saying so, it is much appreciated.

I wish TW3 had inspired me to write about it, but sadly it didn't and it would be too much of a hassle to force myself to do so. But I'm sure your own articles will be of much use and interest to those who liked the game.
 
I find it it interesting that nobody ever talks about the Skellige politics, which also misses any complexity. I would have prefered if the king/queen of Skellige is decided by more than just the npc we support during one mission.

I agree, the Skellige politics were a joke. Your choices were basically between establishing a hereditary monarchy with a guy you know noting about vs the children of your dear friend. And between those it wasn't a real contest either. Cerys was the clear rational choice that seemed to have no drawbacks whatsoever, while Hjalmar came across as some rash brat that was more interested in battle glory than in politics. While I honestlly really like Cerys, I would have liked to see some more drawbacks to her rule, maybe have her hint that she would try to make peace with the Nilfgaardians in order to focus on bettering life on the isles or something that would have been equally controversial. Just saying the fangs of yore were duled is not really impactful.

Are we sure that Emhyr wants to resign quickly? Is this clearly mentioned? Somehow missed this bit.

Now that you mention it, Emhyr actually never directly talks about that, does he? It's Morvran Voorhis who seems to be convinced that Emhyr will crown her as soon as possible to calm both the troubled regions in the North and his domestic enemies.

Since I love some good old-fashioned intrigue I actually wold have prefered to see more of that, more parties trying to involve Geralt in their schemes with him being able to choose wheter to act or not. Maybe the Nilfgaardian opposition trying to convince Geralt to hand them Ciri instead of sending her to Emhyr, so that you'd have a choice wheter to topple him or not get involved. That could also have been one of those "Ciri will remember this" moments.

However, I guess the problem is that this was supposed to be more of a story about the salvation of Ciri and thus the world than a game about politics. Because of that a lot of the interesting world building is only hinted at or used as window dressing. The only reason I got involved in any of it was because I don't want to see mages and nonhumans burn and I happen to like most Nilfgaardian characters.
I was really disappointed in Novigrad, because the prologue did a really good job of making the politics in White Orchard seem important (inn owner being caught between taking down the lilies for safety or leaving them (also for safety)/ the captain having all these notices about seminars on the new laws/ the child singing the nursery rhyme and getting chewed out/ the dwarf and his burnt down forge) Yes, the Nilfgaardians came off as too good, but at least it made me care.
(Man this game needs some good fanfiction so I can get my intrigue fix)
 
Last edited:
The whole Radovid assassination plot was a terrible idea.
I didn't want to take part in it but took the quest anyway because I thought I'd missing out otherwise. I wasn't wrong.

First Thaller got reintroduced and his quest was superb. Great voice acting, overall funny dialogues with him and the Trolls and I also found it kinda amusing he held the Geralt Gwent card.

Then Reasons of State came arround and it was really good. There was some suspense going to Radovid's ship and risking your neck trying to convince him to leave. The whole scene leading up to his death was very exciting, the soundtrack was spot on and Philippa's revenge was amazing.

But when you put everything into perspective it just looks wrong. Geralt has no business killing or conspiring to kill Kings. He criticizes the Cat School for their reputation by saying they basically turned hire assassins. Geralt wasn't only setting himself up to be the assassin (if Philipa hadn't shown up) he conspired with the plotters since the very beginning, even though he was kept out of the loop most of the time.

From now on I'm just breaking Dikjstra's leg during Phillipa's rescue and staying out of trouble. Yea Radovid will win the war and Emhyr will die but none of it will really be Geralt's doing, I'll stay neutral, that's what witchers are supposed to be anyway.
 
One thing is sure, the player influence on the possible political outcome make no sense and should have been much more nuanced and/or built much more upon.
 
One thing is sure, the player influence on the possible political outcome make no sense and should have been much more nuanced and/or built much more upon.

I think the developers wanted the game to stand on its own but a lot of people were actively wanting it to tie all together.

It's kind of like Game of Thrones.

Many people LIKE the whole geneology and House dynamics.

Others just want the stabbing and betrayal.
 
I think the developers wanted the game to stand on its own but a lot of people were actively wanting it to tie all together.

It's kind of like Game of Thrones.

Many people LIKE the whole geneology and House dynamics.

Others just want the stabbing and betrayal.

Ok? Then expand upon it.
Have 3-4-5 optional quests for either path. Remove Dijkstra who just ruins things.

Player could choose like Voorhis or Radovid, each has you do such and such to influence the war.
 
Dijkstra is awesome!

I really think they could have done the game in a way which had a larger focus on the politics but they could have ALSO done it in a way which was focused entirely on Ciri with the politics in the background.

The problem is that it's doing the middle path, satisfying no one.
 
Player could choose like Voorhis or Radovid, each has you do such and such to influence the war.
We needed more Voorhis anyway. Grew to like that guy even despite his completely suggestive, 'An Empress needs an Emperor' comment right to Geralt's face.

The problem is that it's doing the middle path, satisfying no one.
I wouldn't say that no one was satisfied. I wish there was more politics, a ton more politics, but at least I got the little that was offered. That being said, while I was satisfied after my first playthrough, going through my second, and knowing how it would end, I did wish for more depth. And yes, Dijkstra is amazing. Really short changed in the game, but that's a whole other topic.
 
Dijkstra is awesome!

I really think they could have done the game in a way which had a larger focus on the politics but they could have ALSO done it in a way which was focused entirely on Ciri with the politics in the background.

The problem is that it's doing the middle path, satisfying no one.

Dijkstra is good as long as it makes sense. The ending with him going awol sux. Plus siding with him leading to a victory after you killed Radovid is sort of a ? thing.
In the Radovid ending slides it says Redania lost because his "military genius" was invaluable or somesuch. Now Dijkstra leading to the same outcome right after a Regicide? Uhm.

---------- Updated at 12:54 AM ----------


We needed more Voorhis anyway. Grew to like that guy even despite his completely suggestive, 'An Empress needs an Emperor' comment right to Geralt's face.
Yes, in the end I couldn't help but like him. Polite and charming, in a weird way. Accent is interesting.
 
On my end, I can't help but think they could have done a lot more with the Sidequests and Witcher Contracts tying into the War and the War Effort. The Sidequests are well done but they don't really do much different than, say, Skyrim or other games where "monster is imperiling village, go deal with it."
You could have also have them done by characters we know.

Scoia'tael sidequests given by Iorveth.
Temerian Resistance sidequests given by Ves.
Cynthia gives Nilfgaard sidequests.
And so on and so on.

Dijkstra is good as long as it makes sense. The ending with him going awol sux. Plus siding with him leading to a victory after you killed Radovid is sort of a ? thing.
In the Radovid ending slides it says Redania lost because his "military genius" was invaluable or somesuch. Now Dijkstra leading to the same outcome right after a Regicide? Uhm.

Dijkstra is every bit as capable as Radovid.

Of course, that's another plot hole as I wouldn't have killed Radovid if it meant Nilfgaard winning.

But Geralt never brings up any effect of a regicide.
 
Dijkstra is every bit as capable as Radovid.

Is this from the books? Radovid is allegedly unrivaled in his skill according to the game.
Plus Dijkstra apparently does not openly give orders, he just pulls the strings from the shadows or some other vague bs. Even ceteris paribus surely that'd count for effectiveness and morale (down to 0 due to Regicide)


Of course, that's another plot hole as I wouldn't have killed Radovid if it meant Nilfgaard winning.

From Dijkstra's pov?
But Geralt never brings up any effect of a regicide.
What do you mean?
 
Is this from the books? Radovid is allegedly unrivaled in his skill according to the game.
Plus Dijkstra apparently does not openly give orders, he just pulls the strings from the shadows or some other vague bs. Even ceteris paribus surely that'd count for effectiveness and morale (down to 0 due to Regicide)

We only get to meet some of Redania's soldiers and quite a few of them seem to hate Radovid. But yes, Dijkstra was part of the Regency counsel and universally respected, if loathed by many as well.

History also shows that when a king is killed, it can also galvanize people to victory rather than defeat.
 
Top Bottom