Politics in TW3

+
Politics in TW3

Personally, I am disappointed with the politics of the game. TW2 is ignored, and most of what happened there is as if they never happened. And instead, we get a generic, simplistic, streamlined portrayal.

I was very upset to see this. I was not expecting something on TW2's level, which is a masterpiece in the portrayal of politics, but this is way worse than what I had expected.
 
Personally, I am disappointed with the politics of the game. TW2 is ignored, and most of what happened there is as if they never happened. And instead, we get a generic, simplistic, streamlined portrayal.

I was very upset to see this. I was not expecting something on TW2's level, which is a masterpiece in the portrayal of politics, but this is way worse than what I had expected.

I actually found the politics in W2 Boring, over-the-top and hard to keep up with. So much information and politics was thrown at you at any given time that it became over-powering. Information over-load and not much reason to care about any of it. I think they have got the balance just right in the W3.
 
Last edited:
Btw I found the politics in W2 Boring, over-the-top and hard to keep up with. So much information and politics was thrown at you at any given time that it became over-powering. I think they have got the balance just right in the W3.

And to the OP
I agree with you the politics were very lame and simplistic in TW3 (turning Radovid into a joke/cartoon, Henselt dying no matter what, who cares about Anais, whitewashing Nilfgaard etc. I could go on and on)

In TW2 they were very complex, I really missed that in TW3
I get that this is supposed to be a personal story but to just railroad all the different endings and possibilities was very disappointing, not to mention the laughable writing in that part of the game (Radovid)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a discussion forum man deal with it, I love the game too but its not perfect

And to the OP
I agree with you the politics were very lame and simplistic in TW3 (turning Radovid into a joke/cartoon, Henselt dying no matter what, who cares about Anais, whitewashing Nilfgaard etc. I could go on and on)

In TW2 they were very complex, I really missed that in TW3
I get that this is supposed to be a personal story but to just railroad all the different endings and possibilities was very disappointing, not to mention the laughable writing in that part of the game (Radovid)

I actually thaught this thread was a reply in another I was posting in, I have edited the beginning :p Still stand by my opinion though that W2 threw too much information and Politics at you for you to not only struggle to keep up with, but care about. Each to their own, this is why I hate politics in general ;)
 
I actually found the politics in W2 Boring, over-the-top and hard to keep up with. So much information and politics was thrown at you at any given time that it became over-powering. Information over-load and not much reason to care about any of it. I think they have got the balance just right in the W3.

I can understand that they are hard to keep up with, but they were not over the top. The portrayal was complex, believable, and realistic.

But I am not self-absorbed. I know enthusiasts of politics and diplomacy are not the main consumer base, and I understand that the game needs to appeal to people who are not interested in such things.

I simply wish the transition wasn't done in such a half-assed and insulting way. It was a slap in the face, even to someone who didn't expect much.

I should note however that I have not played the game, but I have watched playthroughs and discussed it with several people who have played it. And what I heard and saw was very disappointing.

It goes to show that they wrote something brilliant in TW2, but had absolutely no idea on how to take it over to the next game. In that, I am sorry to say even Bioware did a better job in Mass Effect (importing choices that is). As it stands, TW3 acts more like a standalone game, and TW2 is rendered irrelevant, and some of its characters butchered (Radovid) while others are as if they never existed (Saskia, Iorveth, Henselt).
 
Last edited:
(Post has been moved from another thread to here)

- And moved again as it now has spoilers.
 
Last edited:
Good to see KnightOfPhenoix. Your blog about the politics of the Witcher is what made me buy the series and I loved it. I agree with what you are saying and it seems the Witcher 3 is more derived from the books than Witcher 2. It would have been extremely hard to count for all the world changing decisions of the Witcher 2 in 3 and it seems the Devs had planned 3 to be a more personal journey for Geralt rather than another geopolitical struggle and they have said so from the very beginning, that the Witcher 3 will have less politics than Witcher 2.

I agree however that Radovid character was totally butchered. He was turned from a brilliant strategist to a mad fanatic in the Witcher 3.
 
Last edited:
Good to see KnightOfPhenoix. Your blog about the politics of the Witcher is what made me buy the series and I loved it. I agree with what you are saying and it seems the Witcher 3 is more derived from the books than Witcher 2. It would have been extremely hard to count for all the world changing decisions of the Witcher 2 in 3 and it seems the Devs had planned 3 to be a more personal journey for Geralt rather than another geopolitical struggle and they have said so from the very beginning, that the Witcher 3 will have less politics than Witcher 2.

Thank you, I am glad my articles encouraged you to get TW2.

I understand that, and not only did I accept the fact that TW3 was going to be a more personal story, I thought it SHOULD be. I was one of those who supported the idea that TW3 should have less politics.

But this? There is a difference between less politics, and bad politics.

The portrayal in this game is bad, and it ignores TW2 almost compltely. Anais is not mentioned, Iorveth and Saskia are as if they never existed, the struggle between Nilfgaard and the North, where dozens of factions were involved, is reduced to Nilfgaard vs Redania (because somehow Radovid insanely decided to conquer all the North and succeeded because of supposed "tactical genius" that we never see. Because we al know that being a tactical genius makes insane idiotic strategies work *roll eyes*)

From my stand point, this is just a lazy way out. They could have kept the political struggles complex, and yet not explore them much. Leave it to the background, and I would have been satisfied. Instead, we got this.
 
I can understand that they are hard to keep up with, but they were not over the top. The portrayal was complex, believable, and realistic.

But I am not self-absorbed. I know enthusiasts of politics and diplomacy are not the main consumer base, and I understand that the game needs to appeal to people who are not interested in such things.

I simply wish the transition wasn't done in such a half-assed and insulting way. It was a slap in the face, even to someone who didn't expect much.

I should note however that I have not played the game, but I have watched playthroughs and discussed it with several people who have played it. And what I heard and saw was very disappointing.

It goes to show that they wrote something brilliant in TW2, but had absolutely no idea on how to take it over to the next game. In that, I am sorry to say even Bioware did a better job in Mass Effect (importing choices that is). As it stands, TW3 acts more like a standalone game, and TW2 is rendered irrelevant, and some of its characters butchered (Radovid) while others are as if they never existed (Saskia, Iorveth, Henselt).

They did cover the basics at the start, and you do meet up with charachters and do quests from W2 so there is some sort of following on from W2. Politics? Well each to their own, I still found the Politics in W2 too much to handle, at least in W3 they are not just creating back-story, but you feel as though you are part of the World that CDPR have created. Play it and you will see.
 
And to the OP
I agree with you the politics were very lame and simplistic in TW3 (turning Radovid into a joke/cartoon, Henselt dying no matter what, who cares about Anais, whitewashing Nilfgaard etc. I could go on and on)

In TW2 they were very complex, I really missed that in TW3
I get that this is supposed to be a personal story but to just railroad all the different endings and possibilities was very disappointing, not to mention the laughable writing in that part of the game (Radovid)

TW2 was all about politics. TW3 is a personal story exactly as CDPR promised.

If under "whitewashed" you mean "turned from a cartoonish BIG EVIL empire into more historically realistic" it is only for the better. I am sick of subhuman LOTR Mordor-type invading armies with no agency and purpose. Now at least it is a real choice between Nilfgaard and the North.

We got hints about Radovid's personality and mental state already in TW2. The war was a crisis, and accelerated his descent into madness. Not something I expected, but it was not completely out of the blue.

Concerning all these different endings of TW2: I think it would be virtually impossible to accommodate all of them. Still, in my opinion, CDPR did very well, and what we got is not inconsistent. But, obviously, other people may think differently.

I simply wish the transition wasn't done in such a half-assed and insulting way. It was a slap in the face, even to someone who didn't expect much.

Huh???
 
Last edited:
I can understand that they are hard to keep up with, but they were not over the top. The portrayal was complex, believable, and realistic.

But I am not self-absorbed. I know enthusiasts of politics and diplomacy are not the main consumer base, and I understand that the game needs to appeal to people who are not interested in such things.

I simply wish the transition wasn't done in such a half-assed and insulting way. It was a slap in the face, even to someone who didn't expect much.

I should note however that I have not played the game, but I have watched playthroughs and discussed it with several people who have played it. And what I heard and saw was very disappointing.

It goes to show that they wrote something brilliant in TW2, but had absolutely no idea on how to take it over to the next game. In that, I am sorry to say even Bioware did a better job in Mass Effect (importing choices that is). As it stands, TW3 acts more like a standalone game, and TW2 is rendered irrelevant, and some of its characters butchered (Radovid) while others are as if they never existed (Saskia, Iorveth, Henselt).

Its because TW3 is more a sequel to the books than TW2 so they decided to simplify the politics (basically lazy writing) and make it so our decisions don't matter
Its a shame I was hoping for politics AND a personal story instead we got a few secondary lame politics quests (I can only imagine what you will think about them if you play the game)

btw I liked your analysis of the politics in TW2 too,it made my second playthrough even better
 
I agree however that Radovid character was totally butchered. He was turned from a brilliant strategist to a mad fanatic in the Witcher 3.

That did annoy me.

See, I never thought Radovid should be portrayed as a "good guy." I never thought he should be presented as the ideal, or even best ruler. And I did think that he was flirting with fanatical beliefs in TW2, and that it might continue in TW3, and it would make sense to.

But to make him into a raving lunatic?

Yes, Radovid would have been pressured, with all the weight on his shoulders. Yes, he would probably get a bit paranoid, be even more ruthless than before, and rely too much on the fanaticism of the Eternal Fire to secure his rule. But he was always a cold calculating politician, not a madman. He may not make the wisest policies, but he makes them for reasons of state. He had absolutely no hint of lunacy in TW2. Obsession with Philippa, yes. But not madness, not to this degree. But now, he is portrayed as Loredo 2.0.

Why? to make it obvious that people should hate him? This is almost Meredith level.

Radovid would have been hated anyways. He supports the extermination of mages and anything nonhuman. He represents the violence of the birth of the modern state. He didn't need to be made into a madman out of nowhere.

And since when was the Witcher content with showing only one aspect of someone's rule? That all Radovid does is fanaticism and mass murder? Why not make it nuanced, and present a complex picture? Remember that scene describing Henselt as an amoral son of a bitch, but who makes Kaedwen prosperous? Where did that go?

In both characterization and the structure of the political situation, TW3 was mediocre at best.
 
I agree completely. It was bothersome that Anais gets no mention what so ever, and Radovids queen Adda is completely absent as well. Also invading a foreign realm (Kaedwean) to strengthen your own makes absolutely no sense on short term bases ( On a long term base sure it could strenghen your realm, but we are talking about a hostile empire waiting for your slightest misstep to devour you) Subjugating another realm will just make you weaker and drain your resources while Nilfgaard is breathing down your throat. Add to that the nonsensical Radovid assassination plot it would seem that politics has been swept entirely to the sidelines in the Witcher 3. My own analysis on why CDPR took this route is as follows: They were deeply afraid to alienate new player-base and those whom weren't familiar with the Witcher 2. Remember that the Witcher 2 however brilliant it is, could be could be considered a niche game to the mainstream Witcher 3 ( I heard the witcher 3 sold 608% more than Witcher 2) They wanted a clean state as much as possible and thus the different political paradigms of the Witcher 2 was shoved aside for a more simplistic plot that will not alienate new comers. On a bright note, their is always the enhanced edition, maybe CDPR would implement some of the witcher 2 politics in it?
 
We got hints about Radovid's personality and mental state already in TW2.

I disagree completely. There is a difference between cracking under pressure, and becoming Loredo.

And evidently, the portrayal of Nilfgaard as a believable entity is not the problem, as I am sure you know what I meant. If anything, I wish Radovid was portrayed with the same nuance.

And not being able to accommodate all endings is an excuse. They could at the very least mention Iorveth and Saskia, and not piss on 50% of the content of their previous game. If they had put effort into it, they could have done at least the bare minimum.
 
Yeah, i think the politics were significantly dumbed down and streamlined :/

-Temeria
-Redania
-Kaedwen
-Aedirn
-upper Aedirn/Lormark/Saskia's Realm / Not Mentioned -.-
-Scoia'tael / Not mentioned -.-
-Nilfgaard

Are all turned into Redania vs Nilfgaard + vassal state of Temeria
 
Last edited:
And not being able to accommodate all endings is an excuse. They could at the very least mention Iorveth and Saskia, and not piss on 50% of the content of their previous game. If they had put effort into it, they could have done at least the bare minimum.

Well, I hope we can see Upper Aedirn in some expansion. But for Iorveth I simply do not see any role in TW3 but being a die-hard antagonist. What Saskia offered in TW2 was the best he could hope for under those circumstances, but WH actually can wipe out humanity from this world, not just compromise. Given how radical Iorveth is, he would have allied with them, hunt Ciri and try to stop Geralt at all costs. There won't be anything appealing about his motives, which wold be a global genocide. I doubt Iorveth fans would be happy.
 
Well, I hope we can see Upper Aedirn in some expansion. But for Iorveth I simply do not see any role in TW3 but being a die-hard antagonist. What Saskia offered in TW2 was the best he could hope for under those circumstances, but WH actually can wipe out humanity from this world, not just compromise. Given how radical Iorveth is, he would have allied with them, hunt Ciri and try to stop Geralt at all costs. There won't be anything appealing about his motives, which wold be a global genocide. I doubt Iorveth fans would be happy.

I would expect to find Iorveth being on the run or in hiding in some way... Maybe with Saskia. Geralt choosing to help him in some fashion against people who are trying to hunt him down. Talking to him about what happened after TW2 where before they could really do much in Aedirn, Nilfgaard invaded. It doesn't need to be long. Even something similar to the Letho quest. Can play him in Gwent, whatever.
 
I find it a double edged sword. On one hand I like what they did with Nilfgaard and I expected Radovid would become a Mad King (however in terms of warfare, he is still on his game, even more dangerous) How they handled the other lands tho is what rubs me the wrong way and how Adda is ignored(again) Anais and Saskia. Really hope CDP fixes this later. So I semi agree with you KoP :p
 
Top Bottom