Letho, I presume.
My epilogue ended up with a chat with our good man, vodka drinking, then each going their separate ways.
It was the shortest and most non-violent ending I experienced in any game.
It also happens to be one of my absolute favorites.
My epilogue ended up with a chat with our good man, vodka drinking, then each going their separate ways.
It was the shortest and most non-violent ending I experienced in any game.
It also happens to be one of my absolute favorites.
I loved having the option to walk away, and it was my first game ending, but on subsequent playthroughs I decided that it really did bother me that he killed off people like Cedric, so I let Geralt treat him like a highly interactive training dummy. Still, the option is brilliant.
We also shouldn't forget that we are shown in the epilogue the consequences of our choice, should we elect to notsave Triss, in the process damning the mages alon gside the Lodge. We see the Witch hunt in progress.
Consequences shown and not told. "This I like!"
Plus it's awesome to see Letho saving Triss, for little reason (seemingly) other than helping out an old friend.
Consequences shown and not told. "This I like!"
Plus it's awesome to see Letho saving Triss, for little reason (seemingly) other than helping out an old friend.
I thought the epilogue had a fantastic atmosphere, of sadness, regret, pain, relief... all together. I think it is more of an interactive final moments of the game, the game I didn't want to end...
I faced the consequences of my actions and not just read about them. As mentioned above, the ability to choose *not* to kill the man who caused everything, who made you come all the way here, is just... amazing! That is what The Witcher is about: nothing is necessarily good or evil. We just have ourselves and our decisions. And finally, in the end, we meet with our ladybugs
I faced the consequences of my actions and not just read about them. As mentioned above, the ability to choose *not* to kill the man who caused everything, who made you come all the way here, is just... amazing! That is what The Witcher is about: nothing is necessarily good or evil. We just have ourselves and our decisions. And finally, in the end, we meet with our ladybugs
To be honest I can't do anything but let out a sigh of contentment come the epilogue, we face the magnificent bastard who almost single handedly brought the northern kingdoms to their knees and we share a drink and talk of what has gone before and what will be. We aren't railroaded into non sensical bossfights with idiotic two dimensional puppets, we are given a choice and treated like intelligent discerning adults.
This is what games should be striving to achieve in the modern era, the witcher 2 stands head and shoulders above the competition because of its respect for the characters in the story, the player and the players choices that shape the world around them.
In the end Geralt fails to stop the assassins of king, but I felt so far removed from failure because the choices I made shed light in the dark world of the witcher and they mattered.
To qoute wayne and garth: Cdproject we're not worthy.
This is what games should be striving to achieve in the modern era, the witcher 2 stands head and shoulders above the competition because of its respect for the characters in the story, the player and the players choices that shape the world around them.
In the end Geralt fails to stop the assassins of king, but I felt so far removed from failure because the choices I made shed light in the dark world of the witcher and they mattered.
To qoute wayne and garth: Cdproject we're not worthy.
The epilogue was brilliant. It emphasized the moral ambiguity of the game. After my first fight with Letho I was convinced that he wasn't the real villain. Their conversation during the fight sums it up:
"Why do you pursue me?"
"They think I killed Foltest."
"It's your own fault for playing soldier boy."
Both Letho and Geralt are on the same level morally. Letho is the ruthless killer of Foltest and Cedric, but if you think about it that's no worse than Geralt's assistance to an equally ruthless king and his war fought for reasons of personal trifles. Geralt has a lot in common with Letho, and this is why they drink, talk and even why they fight the way they do.
Whether or not to fight Letho is complex decision, rooted deeply in where you as the main character see the real evil in the game's world. Hardly any character in the game is truly fits the description of "evil". Even Dethmold's point of view makes sense if you think about it. The main source of tragedy is the kings and the politics of rivalry built around them. I couldn't help thinking of Henselt as a true scumbag when he insisted he was innocent of rape and that every woman would consider it an honour to be "ploughed" by a king, but he was also right when in his defense he said he was good for Kaedwen. A good king who if it weren't for Geralt would have expanded his realm further. And so the real evil is the society of the people involved. The rivalry of monarchs. Getting the other guy before he gets you. And the hierarchical structure of society itself.
By killing Letho you may be avenging your own name, but you're also affirming this nasty state of things. By sparing him you're opening yourself up to his deception, but at the same time at least you're not giving in to monarchic society.
I spared Letho in my first playthrough, but then later I had to see what happens when you kill him, and his death was genuinely sad. The music added to the effect a lot, and when he finally fell I felt as if he was another casualty of these pointless wars and, in some sense, of human nature.
I really hope that other game manufacturers take notice of this game. This is how it should be done.
"Why do you pursue me?"
"They think I killed Foltest."
"It's your own fault for playing soldier boy."
Both Letho and Geralt are on the same level morally. Letho is the ruthless killer of Foltest and Cedric, but if you think about it that's no worse than Geralt's assistance to an equally ruthless king and his war fought for reasons of personal trifles. Geralt has a lot in common with Letho, and this is why they drink, talk and even why they fight the way they do.
Whether or not to fight Letho is complex decision, rooted deeply in where you as the main character see the real evil in the game's world. Hardly any character in the game is truly fits the description of "evil". Even Dethmold's point of view makes sense if you think about it. The main source of tragedy is the kings and the politics of rivalry built around them. I couldn't help thinking of Henselt as a true scumbag when he insisted he was innocent of rape and that every woman would consider it an honour to be "ploughed" by a king, but he was also right when in his defense he said he was good for Kaedwen. A good king who if it weren't for Geralt would have expanded his realm further. And so the real evil is the society of the people involved. The rivalry of monarchs. Getting the other guy before he gets you. And the hierarchical structure of society itself.
By killing Letho you may be avenging your own name, but you're also affirming this nasty state of things. By sparing him you're opening yourself up to his deception, but at the same time at least you're not giving in to monarchic society.
I spared Letho in my first playthrough, but then later I had to see what happens when you kill him, and his death was genuinely sad. The music added to the effect a lot, and when he finally fell I felt as if he was another casualty of these pointless wars and, in some sense, of human nature.
I really hope that other game manufacturers take notice of this game. This is how it should be done.
Thothistox, thanks for that thoughtful and interesting analysis of the ending.
Well, I'm glad someone liked it. I'll add briefly that the epilogue fits in perfectly with the rest of the game. The surly reality of warfare and repression -- invasion and pogroms -- resonates all too precisely with the Polish history that almost certainly inspired it. What amazes me is that in this chaos there is also incredible beauty. The forest of Flotsam. The NPCs going about their daily lives. The mountains of Vergen and that nearly photorealistic partly cloudy sky -- these things express a joie de vivre by going beyond the requirements of the story. It's as if to say that as bad a life as it is it's still worth living, and that is noble indeed.Corylea said:
There's some time I've played the ending of the game. So I ask: Where did the third chapter end and the epilogue start? Some says the entire 3th chapter is the epilogue, but in here (forums) they seem to be separated.
For me, the Epilogue totally redeemed the atmosphere of the Witcher 2 in my eyes. Don't get me wrong, it's doubtlessly one of the best RPG's to hit the PC, but throughout the game I kept comparing it to its predecessor. And I just felt more emotionally connected with the first game. However, the Epilogue simply put the ending of the first Witcher to shame, it was a perfect example of why every story shouldn't end with the big, bad fight between the good guy and the bad guy. Quite simply because there is rarely a "good" or "bad" person, just people with their own grey characters, sometimes swaying towards the light, other times - to the dark.
When Letho told me his story, I couldn't help but tell myself: "He's in this because of ME". Think about it, if he and his company had just left Yennefer behind - they had no reason or obligation to look after her - they would never have been captured. They would never have been sent to the Northern Kingdoms. His willingness to look after her proves that Letho is, in his way, a man of his word. He owed Geralt his life and he repaid him, even when Geralt was no longer in a position to force him to return the favour.
Even after that, when he fought with Geralt and decided to spare his life. Letho said he owed him, but did he really? He had already done his part by looking after Yennefer as long as he could, in the first place. And yet, he left Geralt live. Finally, if you chose that path of course, he ends up saving Triss. Why? What more does he owe to Geralt? He already looked after one sorceress, spared the Witcher's life and now saved another of his lovers. To me, this is an obvious indicator that the man is not completely lost. Yes, he did a lot of harm - he killed a lot of people, but if you look at it that way - did Geralt not do the same?
Because we play as Geralt, he is the main character in this story, it is only human nature to sympathise with him more. We associate with him and we assume that his way is the right way. And yet, when we look at it - the Outskirts of Vizima, the assault of the La Valette castle, the pogrom in Flotsam (which is one possible outcome, but still), the the battle of Vergen (if the mist had just stayed there Henselt would have no choice but to turn back) and, in the end, Loc Muinne. Some of this is not directly connected to his actions, but Geralt's overall meddling did stir up a lot of problems. In a way, depending on the player's actions, he could potentially cause just as much harm as Letho did.
And let's not forget the motive. Letho didn't do this for gold or glory, or some other such. He did it for his School and, ultimately, that is what moved me. Witchers are a dying breed, if one is trying to restore a part of what was lost, who am I to get in his way? More so, with so few of them left, isn't it criminal for them to murder each other? For no particular reason, aside from the fact that they got caught in the major powers' political ploys?
When you think about it, Letho and Geralt are not that different. They are social outcasts, rejected by society for whom they are. And each of them is trying to make his own way in the world, doing this that may not always be classed as good or honourable. In the end, both are trying to make the two ends meet, using their unique skillset; only when politics enter the mix do they fuck things up as usual.
When Letho told me his story, I couldn't help but tell myself: "He's in this because of ME". Think about it, if he and his company had just left Yennefer behind - they had no reason or obligation to look after her - they would never have been captured. They would never have been sent to the Northern Kingdoms. His willingness to look after her proves that Letho is, in his way, a man of his word. He owed Geralt his life and he repaid him, even when Geralt was no longer in a position to force him to return the favour.
Even after that, when he fought with Geralt and decided to spare his life. Letho said he owed him, but did he really? He had already done his part by looking after Yennefer as long as he could, in the first place. And yet, he left Geralt live. Finally, if you chose that path of course, he ends up saving Triss. Why? What more does he owe to Geralt? He already looked after one sorceress, spared the Witcher's life and now saved another of his lovers. To me, this is an obvious indicator that the man is not completely lost. Yes, he did a lot of harm - he killed a lot of people, but if you look at it that way - did Geralt not do the same?
Because we play as Geralt, he is the main character in this story, it is only human nature to sympathise with him more. We associate with him and we assume that his way is the right way. And yet, when we look at it - the Outskirts of Vizima, the assault of the La Valette castle, the pogrom in Flotsam (which is one possible outcome, but still), the the battle of Vergen (if the mist had just stayed there Henselt would have no choice but to turn back) and, in the end, Loc Muinne. Some of this is not directly connected to his actions, but Geralt's overall meddling did stir up a lot of problems. In a way, depending on the player's actions, he could potentially cause just as much harm as Letho did.
And let's not forget the motive. Letho didn't do this for gold or glory, or some other such. He did it for his School and, ultimately, that is what moved me. Witchers are a dying breed, if one is trying to restore a part of what was lost, who am I to get in his way? More so, with so few of them left, isn't it criminal for them to murder each other? For no particular reason, aside from the fact that they got caught in the major powers' political ploys?
When you think about it, Letho and Geralt are not that different. They are social outcasts, rejected by society for whom they are. And each of them is trying to make his own way in the world, doing this that may not always be classed as good or honourable. In the end, both are trying to make the two ends meet, using their unique skillset; only when politics enter the mix do they fuck things up as usual.