My choices from TW2 and their consequences (SPOILERS)

[Gerudon]

I get that CDPR isn't Bioware, but for them to have absolutely no fan service for their customers is pretty insulting.

So you would rather have an arbitrary point system deciding the ending for you? TW3 is already a big game and trying to implement all the different world states from TW2 would have meant to take ressources and stuff out of the game to create parts, that only a few players (PC player, who played TW2 AND actually made certain decisions) would ever see or recognize.

So CDPR made the sensible choice NOT to work on stuff, that only a few players would ever see but instead work on content, that EVERY player can experience. How dare they!

 

[Jou05]

So you would rather have an arbitrary point system deciding the ending for you? TW3 is already a big game and trying to implement all the different world states from TW2 would have meant to take ressources and stuff out of the game to create parts, that only a few players (PC player, who played TW2 AND actually made certain decisions) would ever see or recognize.

So CDPR made the sensible choice NOT to work on stuff, that only a few players would ever see but instead work on content, that EVERY player can experience. How dare they!

So why even give us choices then? Screw that lets just scrap what basically makes TW and RPG's in general

I get that they wanted to appeal to new players with TW3 but its still disappointing that they shitted on our TW2 decisions like this
Nothing mattered

 

[Toyen]

Thanks!
I´m gonna add that line with Henselt reference to story breakers because if you hear someone say it no matter which path you took, it is rather a story breaker than a consequence that would result from your choice to let Roche kill Henselt.

 

[sarkocreme]

So you would rather have an arbitrary point system deciding the ending for you? TW3 is already a big game and trying to implement all the different world states from TW2 would have meant to take ressources and stuff out of the game to create parts, that only a few players (PC player, who played TW2 AND actually made certain decisions) would ever see or recognize.

So CDPR made the sensible choice NOT to work on stuff, that only a few players would ever see but instead work on content, that EVERY player can experience. How dare they!

Or they could have appropriated resources relative to number of players who played the previous game. It's also not just PC players. That's the whole point of the save state creator option, which as it turns out, is pretty pointless other than Letho (and arguably Sile).

You seem to think that people disappointed in the impact of decisions from TW2 want this radical new game from TW3. That's not true (for the most part..some people are unrealistic). Not only do TW2 choices affect almost nothing, there are cases where your choices are treated like you did the exact opposite.

 

[LukanTW]

So you would rather have an arbitrary point system deciding the ending for you? TW3 is already a big game and trying to implement all the different world states from TW2 would have meant to take ressources and stuff out of the game to create parts, that only a few players (PC player, who played TW2 AND actually made certain decisions) would ever see or recognize.

So CDPR made the sensible choice NOT to work on stuff, that only a few players would ever see but instead work on content, that EVERY player can experience. How dare they!

You made a strawman argument. No one is advocating a "point system".

Tell me, Did you even play The Witcher 2 or are you a new player, a console player?

Because if you had played the previous Witcher games, the fact that they went ahead and disregarded 90% of that game and what it was leading up to is pretty insulting. It's insulting that absolutely none of your decisions matter. It's insulting that they removed major characters from the game (Iorveth, Saskia, Dethmold, Stennis, Siegfried). It's insulting that practically no one remembers any events from TW2.

It's honestly one of the worst sequels I've ever played. Because as it stands now, it can barely be called a sequel.

So, it shouldn't be surprising that people that spent hundreds of hours playing the previous games would be upset by the total exclusion of characters, decisions, and locations in this game.

- Again, did you play the Witcher 2? They created an entire 2nd act that was different based on prior decisions. There were events in the 3rd act that were completely different, that only a smaller portion would see. CDPR built its base of support off of decisions that mattered that only a portion of the players would see.

 

[ekrolo]

Witcher 3 did indeed ignore 2 basically in almost every way possible but I honestly didn't mind it, why? Well because a super computer with the brain power of 20 Lex Luthors and 30 All Star Supermen after thousands of decades of hard, endless work couldn't properly calculate just how little a damn I give about basically anything in the Witcher 2. The sledge hammer you over the face humans vs non-humans, the politics constantly thrown around about countries it failed to make me give one iota of a f**k about shown through characters it failed to make me care about.

I 100% understand why a lot of people are annoyed by this, even down right furious about it. But I can't type here and pretend like I feel the same way. I didn't like either of the first or second game, and the third one IE the only one I consider good out of the series thus far ignoring them is a-okay by me.

 

[Gerudon]

You made a strawman argument. No one is advocating a "point system".

Tell me, Did you even play The Witcher 2 or are you a new player, a console player?

Because if you had played the previous Witcher games, the fact that they went ahead and disregarded 90% of that game and what it was leading up to is pretty insulting. It's insulting that absolutely none of your decisions matter. It's insulting that they removed major characters from the game (Iorveth, Saskia, Dethmold, Stennis, Siegfried). It's insulting that practically no one remembers any events from TW2.

It's honestly one of the worst sequels I've ever played. Because as it stands now, it can barely be called a sequel.

So, it shouldn't be surprising that people that spent hundreds of hours playing the previous games would be upset by the total exclusion of characters, decisions, and locations in this game.

- Again, did you play the Witcher 2? They created an entire 2nd act that was different based on prior decisions. There were events in the 3rd act that were completely different, that only a smaller portion would see. CDPR built its base of support off of decisions that mattered that only a portion of the players would see.

You said, Bioware did it better, when in ME3 most of the decisions from ME 1 and 2 only resulted in slightly different points added to the war score.

And yes, I play on PC and I actually played TW 1 and 2 again close before the release of TW 3.

Having your choices matter in TW3 WOULD be really great. But CDPR has to work with limited time and a limited budget and they had to cut a lot from TW3 already.

So tell me: Where would you start with cutting corners to actually finish your game. Would you rather cut out content that every player will see or would you rather cut content, that only a part of the players will ever see or care about?
You simply don't develop games with unlimited money and time and those permutations from previous games are always the first stuff that has to be abandon or let it me make simple: Having the decisions from TW2 matter more would have meant other stuff would have to be cut.

You seem to think that people disappointed in the impact of decisions from TW2 want this radical new game from TW3. That's not true (for the most part..some people are unrealistic). Not only do TW2 choices affect almost nothing, there are cases where your choices are treated like you did the exact opposite.

You can't have TW3 with all its content PLUS additional content so that TW2 matters more. If TW2 decisions would matter more in TW3, the rest of TW3 would have to be smaller, since there would be less ressources available.

 

[Inariele]

You can't have TW3 with all its content PLUS additional content so that TW2 matters more. If TW2 decisions would matter more in TW3, the rest of TW3 would have to be smaller, since there would be less ressources available.

i think what he ment is like this: in tw 1 some ppl killed thaler of but surprisingly he returned to life in tw3, that is in my eyes a major oversight. I play the iorvethsave, but the game threats it as if i played the roche part. its wierd and would have been easily fixed with different talkoptions, no major resources needed.

 

[Gerudon]

i think what he ment is like this: in tw 1 some ppl killed thaler of but surprisingly he returned to life in tw3, that is in my eyes a major oversight. I play the iorvethsave, but the game threats it as if i played the roche part. its wierd and would have been easily fixed with different talkoptions, no major resources needed.

Honestly I don't see the problem with Roche. Even in TW2 Roche helps you a lot during Act II, even risking his life when you need to get to Henselt. It is not like he became your enemy, when you chose to go with Iorveth.

Again: Would I've loved to see TW 1 and 2 worldstates really well implemented into TW3? Yes, as much as anyone else in this thread, but I can understand why it didn't end up that way and it is the core problem that a lot of "your choices matter" games face, Mass Effect or the Telltale games among them.

 

[sarkocreme]

You can't have TW3 with all its content PLUS additional content so that TW2 matters more. If TW2 decisions would matter more in TW3, the rest of TW3 would have to be smaller, since there would be less ressources available.

Sure. That's clearly true that you can't have ALL of the content from TW3 and choices that matter more from TW2, but where do you draw the line? At what point is the next contract, the next NPC, the next secondary quest equal to an impactful event originating from TW2? At what point do you cut out that extra area with a monster nest and guarded treasure and add a new scene with some spoken dialogue? TW3 has plenty of content, enough that the vast majority players won't see remotely close to all of it. There's plenty of room for TW2 decisions to matter more in TW3.

 

[Eruvadhor]

That's what makes the game great in a sense. It has a quality from it's quantity. It already has a strong framework for adding new content at minimal cost. It has vast room for improvement. History tells us we will probably see that from the devs.

 

[Yeiiow]

PLEASE CONTRIBUTE TO COMPLETE THIS LIST OF CHOICES, CONSEQUENCES AND STORY BREAKERS.

I only played the game once so I cannot possibly know all the consequences and I´d be very glad if you shared what you found : )

Good list! Keep up the good work!
I really hope they fix those....

Spoiler

There is also the issue with Thaler: even if he died in The Witcher 1, you get a note from him at the start of The Witcher 2 in Flotsam, and he appears alive nevertheless in The Witcher 3.

 

[OutgoingHermit]

To be fair, I can't even fathom why someone would have been silly enough to kill Thaler in TW1.

 

[kl4user]

Did you just forget Loc Muinne? You basically decided the fate of entire countries sadly it was all rendered meaningless and simplified to attract more players

Right now, I am thinking the people who can't see how big of a deal that our choices don't matter can not be reasoned with.

I get that CDPR isn't Bioware, but for them to have absolutely no fan service for their customers is pretty insulting.

You are right about the stuff you were saying, but this is not about fan service. It is about good storytelling and respecting the intelligence of your audience, something along these lines. Having Saskia, for example, play a part, even if minor, in TW3 is not fan service, not optional. It is required. Right now, Philipa and Geralt don't even remember that maybe there is a dragon somewhere that could be useful, a possible ally in case Geralt freed her or a leader against Nilfgaard or a pet for Phillipa.

Seeing how they handled Henselt, most likely Saskia died anyway. How Thaler would say: abso-fucking-lutely amazing. There really is no excuse. These characters did not even to be seen ingame, but should still play a part in it.

To be fair, I can't even fathom why someone would have been silly enough to kill Thaler in TW1.

You mean silly CDPR for giving us this choice.

 

[sarkocreme]

You are right about the stuff you were saying, but this is not about fan service. It is about good storytelling and respecting the intelligence of your audience, something along these lines. Having Saskia, for example, play a part, even if minor, in TW3 is not fan service, not optional. It is required.

Why is Saskia required to be in game? There is plenty lacking for C&C, but Saskia is one of the least offensive. If you free her, she's reasonably assumed to have gone elsewhere. If you don't free her then Philippa tells you she loses control and doesn't know where Saskia went, and if you kill her...well she's clearly dead. Why does Saskia care at all about what's going on in Valen and Novigrad? She's just been mind controlled and is plenty happy being away from people for a while.

It would be cool and all to see Saskia or learn more about her current state, but the Loc Muinne and Roche/Iorveth decisions need by far the most attention.

 

[CTPhipps]

Why is Saskia required to be in game? There is plenty lacking for C&C, but Saskia is one of the least offensive. If you free her, she's reasonably assumed to have gone elsewhere. If you don't free her then Philippa tells you she loses control and doesn't know where Saskia went, and if you kill her...well she's clearly dead. Why does Saskia care at all about what's going on in Valen and Novigrad? She's just been mind controlled and is plenty happy being away from people for a while.

It would be cool and all to see Saskia or learn more about her current state, but the Loc Muinne and Roche/Iorveth decisions need by far the most attention.

Because she's an important character. It's like Han Solo not getting rescued in Return of the Jedi.

 

[Geraltie-Poo]

A smaller sidequest, but a rather massive outcome.

There's a quest in Witcher 2 where a Viziman alchemist approaches you in Flotsam and asks you to drink a potion for a long-term research project. If you drink it, this happens:

Spoiler

http://i.imgur.com/klaJA3q.png

NOTE: I myself play on console and only saw this on imgur, so I'm not sure if there are any immediate effects (like getting a whore pregnant or something), but this seems like a massive outcome from such a small quest.

 

[kl4user]

Why is Saskia required to be in game? There is plenty lacking for C&C, but Saskia is one of the least offensive. If you free her, she's reasonably assumed to have gone elsewhere. If you don't free her then Philippa tells you she loses control and doesn't know where Saskia went, and if you kill her...well she's clearly dead. Why does Saskia care at all about what's going on in Valen and Novigrad? She's just been mind controlled and is plenty happy being away from people for a while.

It would be cool and all to see Saskia or learn more about her current state, but the Loc Muinne and Roche/Iorveth decisions need by far the most attention.

I don't think she needs to be seen in game, but she should play a role in it. This Phillipa loses control is as much bullshit as Henselt being killed anyway if we don't kill him. It is even insulting.

Oh, you did not kill Henselt? No problem, we kill him now. Ah, I see you killed Thaler, so what about we revive him? Take this player.

If you side with Iorveth and free Saskia, we should hear about them and their fight against Nilfgaard. If Roche can do guerilla, so does Saskia. It is not a stretch to think CDPR ignored her because how dumbed down are the politics in this game. All those who could and should have a role, who could affect the outcome of the war far more than killing or not the madman (you see, the guy who was not ignored just went batshit nuts). Henselt, Saskia, Anais, Adda are gone.

Only in the case where she is dead that is understandable she would not have a role in the game.

 

[CTPhipps]

I would have handled it this way:

* If you sided with Iorveth then freed Saskia then she is running a campaign against Nifgaard in the South.

* If you sided with Iorveth then didn't free Saskia then she is ruling Upper Aedirn as a governor allied with Nilfgaard.

* If you killed Saskia then the region is thoroughly under the command of Nilfgaard.

* If you gave Anais to Radovid then he controls much of Temeria. You can see her on his boat.

* If you gave Anais to Natalis, she was captured by Nilfgaard and is currently a guest of the Emperor. You can see her in the palace.

* If Roche has Anais then you'll find her in his camp.

* If you didn't kill Henselt then Henselt has allied with Radovid and married a cousin of his, expecting his first child. Radovid has been bribing many of his noblemen, though, and they expect a Civil War if Redania and Kaedwin win.

AND almost all of this could have been handled in the speech with the General.

I'd also throw in a couple of choices during the haircut scene regarding Geralt and the Witcher 1.

1. Did you kill Adda or cure her?
2. Did you help the Flaming Rose or Scoiatael?

 

[Yeiiow]

To be fair, I can't even fathom why someone would have been silly enough to kill Thaler in TW1.

Me neither, but the choice was there nevertheless, so it should have been respected.