Can be witcher too, and war is anyway ower before ciri decides what to do
Watch the the scene again, Radovid even says Geralt is an awkward witness. Even Shilard say "allow me to relieve the Redania execution."
To me Radovid just lost himself in his hate for sorceress to the point of fanaticism, the problem is there is no nuances in his characterizations.
Well i always tought its shilards doings cuz radovid say you can leave when summit is over
No, Radovid did not order Geralt executed and it was not clear that he was planning to. He in fact says, as Carlos says, that Geralt will be allowed to leave after the Summit. Shilard then calls Radovid naive precisely because of that.
And even if Radovid wanted to execute Geralt in Loc Muinne, it is clearly not personal. In TW3, he literally says "I will kill you because you annoy me."
In W2 he say i have nothing personal against you witcher, you shall leave after sumitt is over, that is why his reaction towards geralt in W3 seems wierd to me
I am not saying he say it out right but Radovid did not seem please with Geralt there. I agree that Radovid seem to dislike the idea of killing Geralt but it is not against it, by the way I never got the "I will kill you because you annoy me." where is that from?
I don't think he would have killed him, and Shilard didn't think he would have killed him either.
https://youtu.be/HDluqbbJpVE?t=363
I was wrong, he says "irritate me". The annoyance comes a bit later. The point remains the same. This is not the same character.
His characterization was a little off, the actions not so much. I still think his hatred for Philippa blinds him we see this in TW 2 too the way he says "they will rip your flesh in bits..." to Philippa, it comes from a high negative emotional place. He also sings a tune after Philippa torture.
Also Thaler was revived even if you let him die, Philippa turns into a bird and is under Geralt noise for the whole game because some ex-lover that hated her said so, Roche does not even mention you helping Saskia and Iorveth, Ves does not talk to you directly... etc. I am not surprised that somethings were bend to fit with the story but that happened with all the characters.
I have to say that I was very disappointed with CD Projekt's treatment of Radovid (The Lub Dub).
Lmao.
Btw, off-topic but does anyone know why the Order of the Flaming Rose is not in the game. Wouldn't they fit better as "the witch hunters" than the actual witch hunters?
Lmao.
Btw, off-topic but does anyone know why the Order of the Flaming Rose is not in the game. Wouldn't they fit better as "the witch hunters" than the actual witch hunters?
I think they were trying to avoid making the games too impenetrable to newcomers. But, honestly, it is a glaring omission.
The scene hit me like a gut punch because while I was spoiled, I never imagined the context.
1. Roche would trade Temeria's independence for helping Nilfgaard invade other lands with coin and soldiers.
2. Stabbing Lyria and Aedrin in the back.
3. Trust Emhyrs to honor his word for murdering a King when he's already betrayed Letho over the same thing.
I wanted a stronger. "What the ****, dude!?" reaction
Just shows that they really didn't put any effort in the politics of TW3
Its so dumbed down and just ridiculous (Radovids assasination), never expected something like this from the TW2 writers
Why even have politics (you can still decide who wins the war its just done in such a lazy manner...) if you are going to shit on everything that made
them great and intriguing in TW2?
I love Roche as much as anyone but I'm surprised people aren't realizing what a HORRIBLE deal this is.
i was under the impression the flaming roses were turned to witch hunters, since in w2 they were under radovids banner
Actually, I think they were incorporated into his main army. I don't remember where I read this though and it may have been another (albeit convincing) theory.
In some ways it's actually very realistic. No matter what Geralt did it didn't matter. Nilfgaard invades, and their invasion was so strong that they crushed all resistance... Just so happens that the people resisting were the people Geralt interacted with in The Witcher 2.
I'm a little disappointed by the lack of Iorveth, Saskia, Anaise, and other characters, but overall they had to make a game that stood on it's own. That meant cutting some extra fat off, even if I would have preferred to have had it. The game was still great. In fact it's the best game I've ever played, and it's hands down better than TW2. So in the end, I guess it was worth it.
I'm a little disappointed by the lack of Iorveth, Saskia, Anaise, and other characters, but overall they had to make a game that stood on it's own. That meant cutting some extra fat off, even if I would have preferred to have had it. The game was still great. In fact it's the best game I've ever played, and it's hands down better than TW2. So in the end, I guess it was worth it.
The realistic argument is a pretty lame excuse
TW is a RPG series that means you make choices that are supposed to have consequences
Who cares about realistic in that regard?
And while TW3 with all its improvements is the better game, TW2 owns it in the story department
no doubt about that