KnightofPhoenix said:
I will get pissed off tremendously if the Anais and Henselt choice become irrelevant.
Please consider this. The choice to side with Roche or Iorveth splits The Witcher 2 in two different directions. This is a choice that matters and the result is relevant.
It's quite obvious that Anais and Henselt choices would have a huge impact. For TW3 to consider these choices seriously, it would mean 4 totally different games. Consider the implications for TW4. Do I hear exponential?
One way to avoid this situation is to isolate the sequel as much as possible from serious consequences of your choices and make only vague references or cameo appearances of relevant characters. For example I don't see TW3 story happening in Kaedwen or anyway near. Player choices will be acknowledged but minimized close to being irrelevant.
The story can also be conceived in such a way that the impact of your choices is minimal on the world. This is what BioWare does so well in ME and even they blew it in ME3. Is killing the king of Kaedwen such a choice for the Northern Kingdoms?
In conclusion, choices not becoming irrelevant means:
1. Choices that will not have a real impact on the world but will affect player (ME style). For example Geralt may or may not encounter a whore who remembers him from Flotsam.
2. Isolate the sequel as much as possible from previous choices with significant consequences. But even if TW3 happens in Nilfgaard, it would be difficult to minimize the impact of the Henselt lives or dies choice.
Uh oh, and I even didn't mention Letho.