I appreciate your thorough replies, so there's no need to go on the defensive. I'm not saying my ideas are better than yours, nor that they should be on top of the list.
I'm simply elaborating why I chose them, and why I think they are a worthy candidate, that's all. Only CDPR gets to decide which ones are most suitable to work on.
I played the Roche AND Iorveth paths as well as virtually every variation of Assassin of King's choices because I thought they'd carry over from AOK so I wanted to make sure I had the maximum number of choice variants available.
You must be really disappointed then that it didn't matter at all, save knowing what happened on the other side, for the sake of lore.
But yes, I think it was one of the few mistakes of AOK that you could only do the Roche or Iorveth paths rather than both. I also think repeating that mistake with Iorveth would be a big one. It's not like it would make sense for Iorveth to deal with Dijkstra to assassinate Radovid, care about the position of Temeria (save in the general sense), or be otherwise involved in the mission just because Roche would be.
Roche and his assassination mission do not need to be removed/replaced, in order to implement Iorveth, Saskia and a mini quest of their own. They can have a quest and agenda of their own, with or without Radovid.
Except for the small issue that Temeria is, in fact, the setting of the Wild Hunt for 2/3rds of the game. Aedirn is also conquered by Nilfgaard already and Saskia wouldn't be Queen of Aedirn even if she wins the war (which she can only do in a small number of endings), she would be the Queen of Upper Aedirn.
Even if Prince Stennis dies, she doesn't possess any right to inherit his domiciles which are conquered by Nilfgaard from Cintra anyway. It's also kind of impossible for Nilfgaard to get halfway across Temeria into Velen unless they have secured Upper Aedirn as well. Which sucks but was foreshadowed by the ending.
There is no Temeria in Witcher 3. There is Velen, no man's land, a small bit of land that used to be part of Temeria, now controlled by Nilfgaard by proxy (Bloody Baron).
Both Temeria and Aedirn are under Nilfguaard now, they are pretty much in the same situation, which only further supports the idea for both paths in WItcher 2 to be supported.
I don't think Saskia would ever want to be a queen, but that is completely beside the point, as far as her being the leader of the Upper Aedirn. What we've seen in Witcher 2, Iorveth's path, is basically the purest form of Democracy, where the majority of people, be it elves, dwarves or humans, all idolize and support Saskia. Whether Prince Stennis lives or dies is irrelevant, as human nobility doesn't have the same control or power like in other kingdoms. In the end, she's the one left to lead that nation.
You are correct, Nilfgaard came through Upper Aedirn to conquer Temeria, which is why it would make sense for Saskia and Iorveth to be there, the closest logical place down the Pontar river to retreat.
Which I find sublimely tragic. Saskia is a character I'd like for them to retcon as surviving no matter what, though, as I think she's an important part of the lore and deserves to have her character arc followed up on, even if I don't think Upper Aedirn is a nation which can survive the events of AOK and WH.
The only option for its survival would, ironically, be surrendering to Nilfgaard and becoming one of its provinces like Temeria is hoping to be--which seems OOC for Saskia and Iorveth but not impossible.
I couldn't agree more. The political scene and world map in WItcher 3 are perfectly set to have them included as well, in the same, small way Temeria was with Roche, Thaller and Ves. Your fanfiction is as good as mine, although I suspect CDPR would blow us both out of the water.
BTW, Temeria is less important strategically than Upper Aedirn? Really? The most powerful important nation in the North? Your bias is showing.
Upper Aedirn and Pontar Valley are the gate to all the North, hence having a bigger strategic importance than Temeria, who lost that importance with Cintra. Also, Redenia always was bigger and stronger than Temeria, especially after the civil war Foltest incited over his children in Witcher 2. There is no bias here, these are the facts from the books.
Not really. I want more Eredin content but you suggested that somehow the biggest problems with Wild Hunt's plotholes would be fixed with more Wild Hunt content when I feel the biggest issues in the game are with Geralt's nakama.
But Eredin is the main part of the main plot in Witcher 3. He is that important. His motives, obviously changed from the books, his reasoning, his plans, none of this was explained or shown, so we can draw our own conclusions. He's literally like Bowser from Super Mario, simple and EVIL, muahahaha!
By not building up on him more during the game, they've lessened our victory over him.
The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings is named after Letho's group but I think Roche and Iorveth are actually more important characters to follow up on.
Yes, but Letho is by far one of the most complete and interesting characters CDPR created from scratch, without taking anything from the books. His history, motives, plans, conversations and fights with Geralt are all top notch.
What they did with Eredin is a complete opposite, except for the battle at Kaer Morhen, but even that was not Eredin as much as the Wild Hunt.
Is he supposed to be the most difficult opponent Geralt has ever faced? I thought what they were going for was Eredin badly underestimated Geralt and was completely dominated by him in battle.
That, at the end of the day, the King of the Wild Hunt was just a man (or elf) in a mask.
Eredin is the best fighter and leader of the most elite force of Ann Elle, a nation that obliterated every other on their and other worlds as well. The only reason Geralt even got close to him is due to immense help from everyone else.
Furthermore, Eredin knows Geralt, knows how he fights, moves and thinks. Afterall, Geralt even rode with the Wild Hunt for a while, and before that he fought the Hunt with Letho.
So, I can see why Eredin would be taken by surprise that he fell into a trap due to inside knowledge from Avallac'h, but there is no way he'd be surprised with Geralt.and his skill in fighting.
There are griffin and drowner battles that lasted longer and offered a harder challenge than the fight between Eredin and Geralt. Especially since Imlerith already prepared us for the teleporting trick. The element of surprise was gone, and the whole pace of the most anticipated fight in game was bland, without a high note.
Because romance, one of the guiding forces in literature, is so much less mature than stabbing pixels.
I kid, I kid, I love your posts and don't disagree with the fact we need more Iorveth and Saskia and Eredin. I just want more content in general with everyone and politics about Nilfgaard and the Nordlings.
I think the driving force in Sapkowski's literature is parenthood of Geralt and Yen over Ciri. Romance is there, but as a secondary force. I think relationships in general should be considered before romances, to be honest.
But I agree with you, politics in Witcher 3 is subpar to the previous two games, and especially the books. Emhyr and Radovid are both considered a let down. I don't see this being an easy fix though, not without overhauling the whole game and every chapter.
Given Geralt's love interest is Ciri's mother or stepmother, I'm not sure how we can separate the two, especially since quite a few of my suggestions for the romance arc are about how Ciri is affected by Geralt's romance choices.
I agree, we can't and shouldn't separate Yen from Ciri, even if players chose Triss. There is a serious lack of Ciri and Yen content, but also Geralt, Yen and Ciri together. Much more.
Great convo, Cheers!
