Politics in TW3

+
I stated over in the Imperialism thread that there's really no choice for the "Old World" as Change or Die is a theme of the Witcher series, both games and books. If The North wins, it becomes a Redanian-led modernized industrial state which is almost identical to Nilfgaard. It may burn witches and have a state religion but, either way, it's modernized.

Still, I choose Dijkstra by inaction. I didn't WANT the Citadel Council to die but I did let them die so to speak.

In the end, Geralt couldn't get behind any treaty with Nilfgaard which let them have the South North. He also wasn't about to get involved in a fight between Dijkstra and Roche.

So he just left.

I sided with Roche because, as firmly bashed over the head through all of Witcher 2, 99.9% of the people from the North are bastards so anything that annoys them gets my seal of approval. I was sad to see Dijkstra bite the dust or rather get chopped right in half during the fight but Emhyr proved himself the smartest and least dickish of the three choices for control over the North.
 
I sided with Roche because, as firmly bashed over the head through all of Witcher 2, 99.9% of the people from the North are bastards so anything that annoys them gets my seal of approval. I was sad to see Dijkstra bite the dust or rather get chopped right in half during the fight but Emhyr proved himself the smartest and least dickish of the three choices for control over the North.

For me, I'm just satisfied he's dead. Now we just need to deal with Phillipa and Ciri is free.

---------- Post merged on 05-06-2015 at 01:03 AM ----------

I admit, the Roche ending isn't the end for the North either.

The treaty they signed is for Temeria, Lyria, and Aedirn.

Redania and the other lands are still present and may someday liberate their fellow lands from Nilfgaardian control.
 
To anyone who can see the politics in TW3 are shit: Can we brainstorm how to make it better? how to revamp it without requiring a new game? even if only partially and for some endings of The Witcher 2? Perhaps CDPR could implement some changes or in a more realistic approach, such changes would become a mod for the game.

I think after CDPR changed the logo of the game and requested people to call it The Witcher: Wild Hunt, they should have removed the imported saves "feature" because it is a joke. It only upsets longtime fans. At least for me, it would be easier to digest so much bullshit if I knew my actions and my choices from previous games don't matter. For example, this lunatic "tactical genius" is a Raddovid from an alternate reality where he mixed his daily dose of fisstech with another thingy.

I feel alienated because the game ignores what I did and breaks my immersion. And I did not even made all the "wrong choices".

Boot up the first game (which I love very much), never sleep with Triss nor care about her and romance Shani. Kill Thaler. Save Adda. Wake up in the second game with Triss because Geralt's relationship with Shani ended because he wanted to follow Foltest to the La Valettes and he needed someone (ignore that you can tell Foltest you want to leave with Triss right in the prologue and that this info about Shani was patched in later). Foltest dies and his daughter Adda, the same one who wanted the throne in the first game and had dealings with Salamandra, now married to Raddovid, simply does not give a shit anymore about the throne and her legitimate claim to it. Why? The game makes it seem because some people claim she may become a stryga again or because she is married to a redanian. So what? And Raddovid does not seem keen on using his wife's claim for anything either...

Whatever, let's say you side with Iorveth (Saskia wins) and you save Triss (mages are not butchered) but again, no romance . What happens? Yennefer says a lot of bullshit because you were never with Triss except one time when you had sex with her in a tent because you were too sad. Mages are hunted down anyway because Raddovid is crazy now, the same craziness that made him try and beat Henselt and Kaedwen (because he is actually a fucking military genius and it seems Dijkstra is not far behind). Lovely Philippa Eilhart forgot she has a pet dragon, just like Geralt. And it seems Iorveth took a lot of arrows and died or so says some random elf. Ah, Thaler is actually alive and etc..

In some regards, someone who never played the previous games before will have a much better time with this one than me.
 
Last edited:
Can we brainstorm how to make it better? how to revamp it without requiring a new game?

At the very, very least. Like the absolute least effort required I'd like to see them rewrite the end of Reasons of State. Let us talk it out. No Dijkstra going out of character and attacking the Witcher he knows can kill him in the blink of an eye.

None of the people involved are unreasonable. Dijkstra, Roche and Thaler can all be reasoned with so let us have a debate or negotiation. Let Dijkstra try to convince them that his way is the best and let them try the opposite. Geralt can interject or stay out of it. If it does come to blows and it should be able to if you make poor decisions then don't have Dijkstra fight, let us beat him down again, break his ankle again and force him to either sod off or agree to Roche's terms.

If they want to do more then a split quest chain where we side either with Dijkstra or Thaler and Roche would be good. Maybe split after the Kaer Morhen battle and provide a solid quest chain throughout the final Novigrad sections.
 
I'd like to see King Radovid not actually insane and instead a cunning manipulative, but thoroughly evil bastard. I'd also like him to be completely evil and ALSO TREAT GERALT WELL. I'd like to put the players in an uncomfortable position, for example, of having Radovid's patronage while he's completely amoral.

For example, I'd like for you to be able to speak with King Radovid on his boat anytime you want and have him as someone you can ask questions about and talk to him about his invasion plans.

1. Why are you supporting the Witch Burnings in Novigrad?

I don't support the persecution of nonhumans or witch-burnings, actually, Geralt. I pushed the Eternal Fire into doing what they did because I had to. The Conclave is something I intend to resurrect to its previous glory and that's not possible with groups like the Lodge. Every wizard, mage, and sorcerer in the North is coming to me for refuge because of the Eternal Fire's actions. I've also eliminated the one place they could all flee to stay out of the war. Now, they have to side with me against Nilfgaard or expose themselves as traitors. When Novigrad is mine, the Eternal Fire will be...chastined.

2. Do you really intend to restore the old borders?

Oh yes, that's how I convinced Kaedwin and Temeria's nobility to support me. Of course, that doesn't mean we can just keep things the way they were. Nilfgaard has shown itself to be too powerful to continue the old way. Instead, we're going to restore the Old Borders under a permanent military alliance with a single head of state. All of the lands will have their kings but they will answer to me as High King and we will maintain an existing standing army to enforce order and guard against the Black One's aggression."

3. What do you intend to do to Triss and Yennefer?

They are both members of the Lodge of Sorceresses but I have a simple enough offer to you, Geralt. Bring me the head of Phillipa Eilhart and I will give pardons to both your lovers. The Lodge must be exterminated and its ashes scattered for the death of my father but you will find me most generous to my friends.

There would be a questline where you could then assist Radovid in hunting down Phillipa Eilhart and killing her, or you can choose to side with Phillipa and kill Radovid. If you do the former then Radovid's forces will back you up against the Wild Hunt and if you do the latter then Phillipa will back you up with her Nilfgaardian friends.
 
Last edited:
At the very, very least. Like the absolute least effort required I'd like to see them rewrite the end of Reasons of State. Let us talk it out. No Dijkstra going out of character and attacking the Witcher he knows can kill him in the blink of an eye.

None of the people involved are unreasonable. Dijkstra, Roche and Thaler can all be reasoned with so let us have a debate or negotiation. Let Dijkstra try to convince them that his way is the best and let them try the opposite. Geralt can interject or stay out of it. If it does come to blows and it should be able to if you make poor decisions then don't have Dijkstra fight, let us beat him down again, break his ankle again and force him to either sod off or agree to Roche's terms.

If they want to do more then a split quest chain where we side either with Dijkstra or Thaler and Roche would be good. Maybe split after the Kaer Morhen battle and provide a solid quest chain throughout the final Novigrad sections.

Noted. I've seen others complain about this quest as well and I agree with you.

There would be a questline where you could then assist Radovid in hunting down Phillipa Eilhart and killing her, or you can choose to side with Phillipa and kill Radovid. If you do the former then Radovid's forces will back you up against the Wild Hunt and if you do the latter then Phillipa will back you up with her Nilfgaardian friends.

I'd really like to kill Phillipa or even better, watch Raddovid torturing and murdering her. I say good riddance. I can't understand Geralt being so friendly with her. And, as it stands, it could be a chance to have an alternate quest to killing Raddovid.

And ignoring all the rest, as a player, it makes little sense to not accept the quest of killing Raddovid. It gives XP, achievement, loot. There should be a compelling alternative.
 
Last edited:
Noted. I've seen others complain about this quest as well and I agree with you.

The quest is framed so that Geralt is abandoning Roche and Ves because he doesn't want to get involved, which is not how I wanted to do it. I don't want to be a part of any treaty involving Nilfgaard getting one of the largest countries of the North and Saskia's old territory but I don't want to backstab people either. I'd have preferred an option simply to help Roache escape.
 
I just read that Sebastian Stepien (the lead writer for TW2) wasn't involved in TW3, could this be a reason for the dumbed down and terrible politics in TW3?
 
I just read that Sebastian Stepien (the lead writer for TW2) wasn't involved in TW3, could this be a reason for the dumbed down and terrible politics in TW3?

Either way, it's obvious the writers had very different ideas about the kind of story they wanted to tell.
 
I'd like to see King Radovid not actually insane and instead a cunning manipulative, but thoroughly evil bastard. I'd also like him to be completely evil and ALSO TREAT GERALT WELL. I'd like to put the players in an uncomfortable position, for example, of having Radovid's patronage while he's completely amoral.

For example, I'd like for you to be able to speak with King Radovid on his boat anytime you want and have him as someone you can ask questions about and talk to him about his invasion plans.

1. Why are you supporting the Witch Burnings in Novigrad?

I don't support the persecution of nonhumans or witch-burnings, actually, Geralt. I pushed the Eternal Fire into doing what they did because I had to. The Conclave is something I intend to resurrect to its previous glory and that's not possible with groups like the Lodge. Every wizard, mage, and sorcerer in the North is coming to me for refuge because of the Eternal Fire's actions. I've also eliminated the one place they could all flee to stay out of the war. Now, they have to side with me against Nilfgaard or expose themselves as traitors. When Novigrad is mine, the Eternal Fire will be...chastined.

2. Do you really intend to restore the old borders?

Oh yes, that's how I convinced Kaedwin and Temeria's nobility to support me. Of course, that doesn't mean we can just keep things the way they were. Nilfgaard has shown itself to be too powerful to continue the old way. Instead, we're going to restore the Old Borders under a permanent military alliance with a single head of state. All of the lands will have their kings but they will answer to me as High King and we will maintain an existing standing army to enforce order and guard against the Black One's aggression."

3. What do you intend to do to Triss and Yennefer?

They are both members of the Lodge of Sorceresses but I have a simple enough offer to you, Geralt. Bring me the head of Phillipa Eilhart and I will give pardons to both your lovers. The Lodge must be exterminated and its ashes scattered for the death of my father but you will find me most generous to my friends.

There would be a questline where you could then assist Radovid in hunting down Phillipa Eilhart and killing her, or you can choose to side with Phillipa and kill Radovid. If you do the former then Radovid's forces will back you up against the Wild Hunt and if you do the latter then Phillipa will back you up with her Nilfgaardian friends.

Well...this would be a very good Radovid.
 
I think after CDPR changed the logo of the game and requested people to call it The Witcher: Wild Hunt, they should have removed the imported saves "feature" because it is a joke. It only upsets longtime fans. At least for me, it would be easier to digest so much bullshit if I knew my actions and my choices from previous games don't matter. For example, this lunatic "tactical genius" is a Raddovid from an alternate reality where he mixed his daily dose of fisstech with another thingy.

Wouldn't change a damned thing whether we have imports or not. Imports aren't the issue, but rather the fact they have the same characters as in previous games but being ruined.
 
I just read that Sebastian Stepien (the lead writer for TW2) wasn't involved in TW3, could this be a reason for the dumbed down and terrible politics in TW3?

Yeah, probably this is why not only politics, but the entire Act 3 sucks.
Well, at least he's working on Cyberpunk, I can expect it will be better than TW3 mess.
 
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 am with you, man - seeing as we are both poli sci majors.
I loved the politics in the W2, and I loved TW2 all the more because of it but most people hated that aspect of the game.

And I have read and re-read your treatises on the TW2 politics multiple times - you should consider publishing a booklet about that as an addition/supplement to the game merchandise by the way with CDPR/Andrzej Sapkowski getting the royalties of course...

No mention of Saska
No mention of Dethmold
No Iorveth
No mention of Stennis
Henselt is dead either way....
 
I am with you, man - seeing as we are both poli sci majors.
I loved the politics in the W2, and I loved TW2 all the more because of it but most people hated that aspect of the game.

And I have read and re-read your treatises on the TW2 politics multiple times - you should consider publishing a booklet about that as an addition/supplement to the game merchandise by the way with CDPR/Andrzej Sapkowski getting the royalties of course...

No mention of Saska
No mention of Dethmold
No Iorveth
No mention of Stennis
Henselt is dead either way....

Don't forget the way they handle Kaedwen is laughable, and how they turn 'the master strategist and tactician' into a one-dimensional lunatic. Also, outside of a couple contracts and subtle hints, and some minor interactions, the Nilfgaardian side of things is also very poorly exhibited. They basically took the entirety of the build up and suspense from Witcher 2 (which they even built up further in the enhanced edition), presented it as an exquisite and intricate wooden carving to describe the situation, took a knife and whittled it down to near nothing and then presented that as the incoming political situation on the continent in the start of the game.
 
Last edited:
And I have read and re-read your treatises on the TW2 politics multiple times - you should consider publishing a booklet about that as an addition/supplement to the game merchandise by the way with CDPR/Andrzej Sapkowski getting the royalties of course...

Haha thanks for the compliment, but no, would be too time consuming without much benefit.

But CDPR did link my articles on facebook. Hopefully that helped a few to appreciate the genius of TW2, a genius which remains sadly unique and unreplicated.
 
I just read that Sebastian Stepien (the lead writer for TW2) wasn't involved in TW3, could this be a reason for the dumbed down and terrible politics in TW3?

Don't know where you read it, but it's not true. He was heavily involved, although not through whole production process (at some point he moved on to Cyberpunk).
 
There are a number of ways how the entire affair could've been handled differently:

- Temeria was an ally of Redania at the end of W1. In W2 there is an option for player to help rescue Anais La Valette. Regardless of choice Temeria would join Redania, either as an ally, protectorate or to be incorporated. In all cases it makes sense for Temeria to coordinate its actions with Redania and it is reasonable to expect Redania to come in to assist when Nilfgaard force marches through Yaruga unprovoked. In all cases I could see Natalis to be acting on Anais' behalf until she comes of age.

- If Henselt is defeated (and Free Pontar state is formed) then he'd too weak not to seek cooperation with Radovid in order to secure himself. If he has won in W2, then he should seek to preserve his influence in Aedirn and not let it fall into Nilfgaardian hands (as they surely wouldn't respect peace treaties between Kaedwen and Aedirn). He can't win alone and there would be a major struggle for who'd be to lead the coalition (Radovid or Henselt, who in W2 claims to be the most powerful king of them all due to his conquest of the Pontar Valley).

- If Henselt is dead, then Kaedwen should seek Redania's assistance and it's possible for Radovid to dominate the decision making (thus leading to Redania being leader in a coalition of forces.

- Aedirn's fate matters little in the end. Either Free Pontar State is formed and annihilated by Nilfgaard or Kaedwen gains it. It can be also easily overwhelmed by another war (and it had serious problems fighting off even Kaedwen alone, in W2).

Making Radovid invade Kaedwen and effortlessly incorporate it is over the top. He doesn't even have to invade. In any scenario. Even if all kings are dead (except for him) he could just as well claim himself to be a "Savior of the North", claim to restore the borders and let the common folk flock under his banners. That's why invading Kaedwen (as explained by the Emperor's diplomat in Visima) is ridiculous. Politics looks half-baked in W3, and it's looking even worse after how deep it was in W2. Why they even went through making all these different endings in W2 if we start with what we start in W3?
 
Top Bottom