[SPOILERS] The lack of Witcher 2 decisions and content in The Witcher 3.

[sv3672]

Does it hurt just to sign it?

Of course it does not, my point was that if changes are not made, then it is not because the developers do not know about the complaints (they probably read enough of them over the 13 months since the game was released) or that no one cares.

 

[octavian123]

I feel this has always been a problem in the series but it is much worse in TW3 because TW2 had so many unresolved plot threads. You didn't notice this in TW2 because TW1 was a complete, self-contained story. Almost all of its plot threads were resolved in the game while TW2 ended with many important but unfinished stories which were not resolved in TW2 The shift in world design meant that many things had to be simplified such as:

The game rarely has more than two dialogue options and the story is basically "find this person so you can find that person so you can find that other person so you can find Ciri". After I find Ciri, the game expects me to just care about her but I can't because she is such a gigantic Mary Sue. The game expects me to care about her just because Geralt does. I really don't see her appeal, can someone explain?

The game doesn't care if you killed Henselt or not, does not care if you supported Saskia or not and Roche acts like nothing happened if you chose Iorveth (who doesn't appear at all in the game). Why the vast majority of people don't notice this is really beyond me. Maybe it's because CDPR is the new sweetheart developer who can do no wrong...

I'm going to say something completely heretical but I wasn't all that impressed with the story in this game.

 

[BladeRunnerBlues]

Why the vast majority of people don't notice this is really beyond me. Maybe it's because CDPR is the new sweetheart developer who can do no wrong...

I'm going to say something completely heretical but I wasn't all that impressed with the story in this game.

Many people who played The Witcher 3 probably didn't get around to the first two parts until now, if at all. CD Projekt RED played its cards right, they came at a time when AAA developers have become unabashedly greedy and arrogant with their DLC policies, so simple slogans like "we put players first" and a handful of free DLCs were all it took to convince many disenchanted players that they are the new studio to believe in. The massive graphical downgrade, surprisingly weak main story and utter lack of respect for the previous game's characters (most of them created by CD Prokejt RED itself) is apparently easily forgiven if you want to idolize the studio. I don't mean to say that The Witcher 3 is not a respectable accomplishment in its current state, but I completely agree that the blind adoration of CD Projekt RED is misplaced and probably counterproductive in the long run.

 

[sv3672]

The game doesn't care if you killed Henselt or not, does not care if you supported Saskia or not

The game offers convenient explanations to both:
- if Henselt does not die in TW2, he still does anyway after the ending in the battle for Lormark
- if you do not lift Philippa's spell from Saskia, then (if not killed in the dragon fight) she still breaks free from it on her own shortly after the end of TW2

and Roche acts like nothing happened if you chose Iorveth (who doesn't appear at all in the game).

It does make a small difference: if you sided with Iorveth, then a guard will try to stop you when entering Roche's camp for the first time, and you have to fight or use Axii on him. Otherwise, Roche intervenes (calling Geralt an "old friend") and the camp can be entered without any resistance. But that is about it, no other interaction with Roche is affected later in the game.

Why the vast majority of people don't notice this is really beyond me. Maybe it's because CDPR is the new sweetheart developer who can do no wrong...

The majority of the sales were on the consoles, so most players were new. This was probably anticipated during development.

 

[octavian123]

The game offers convenient explanations to both:
- if Henselt does not die in TW2, he still does anyway after the ending in the battle for Lormark
- if you do not lift Philippa's spell from Saskia, then (if not killed in the dragon fight) she still breaks free from it on her own shortly after the end of TW2



It does make a small difference: if you sided with Iorveth, then a guard will try to stop you when entering Roche's camp for the first time, and you have to fight or use Axii on him. Otherwise, Roche intervenes (calling Geralt an "old friend") and the camp can be entered without any resistance. But that is about it, no other interaction with Roche is affected later in the game.



The majority of the sales were on the consoles, so most players were new. This was probably anticipated during development.

1. That's still a pretty poor resolution. For such a big decision as killing a king you should face some repercussions like some quests are completely different or some characters appear while others do not. Killing a king is a big deal but TW3 acts as if henselt's death is irrelevant.

2. That's even lamer. It basically says that my decision is irrelevant because she is still freed. Reminds me of the Rachni queen clone in ME3.

3. Yeah...SMALL difference, as in very small.

4. Good point.

---------- Updated at 10:19 AM ----------

Many people who played The Witcher 3 probably didn't get around to the first two parts until now, if at all. CD Projekt RED played its cards right, they came at a time when AAA developers have become unabashedly greedy and arrogant with their DLC policies, so simple slogans like "we put players first" and a handful of free DLCs were all it took to convince many disenchanted players that they are the new studio to believe in. The massive graphical downgrade, surprisingly weak main story and utter lack of respect for the previous game's characters (most of them created by CD Prokejt RED itself) is apparently easily forgiven if you want to idolize the studio. I don't mean to say that The Witcher 3 is not a respectable accomplishment in its current state, but I completely agree that the blind adoration of CD Projekt RED is misplaced and probably counterproductive in the long run.

That's exactly what I think.

 

[Sam2305]

I feel this has always been a problem in the series but it is much worse in TW3 because TW2 had so many unresolved plot threads. You didn't notice this in TW2 because TW1 was a complete, self-contained story. Almost all of its plot threads were resolved in the game while TW2 ended with many important but unfinished stories which were not resolved in TW2 The shift in world design meant that many things had to be simplified such as:

The game rarely has more than two dialogue options and the story is basically "find this person so you can find that person so you can find that other person so you can find Ciri". After I find Ciri, the game expects me to just care about her but I can't because she is such a gigantic Mary Sue. The game expects me to care about her just because Geralt does. I really don't see her appeal, can someone explain?

The game doesn't care if you killed Henselt or not, does not care if you supported Saskia or not and Roche acts like nothing happened if you chose Iorveth (who doesn't appear at all in the game). Why the vast majority of people don't notice this is really beyond me. Maybe it's because CDPR is the new sweetheart developer who can do no wrong...

I'm going to say something completely heretical but I wasn't all that impressed with the story in this game.

I'm totally agree with you. I imagine that, from CDPR's perspective, the money of console players have resolved all this unfinished plots

---------- Updated at 11:07 AM ----------

Many people who played The Witcher 3 probably didn't get around to the first two parts until now, if at all. CD Projekt RED played its cards right, they came at a time when AAA developers have become unabashedly greedy and arrogant with their DLC policies, so simple slogans like "we put players first" and a handful of free DLCs were all it took to convince many disenchanted players that they are the new studio to believe in. The massive graphical downgrade, surprisingly weak main story and utter lack of respect for the previous game's characters (most of them created by CD Prokejt RED itself) is apparently easily forgiven if you want to idolize the studio. I don't mean to say that The Witcher 3 is not a respectable accomplishment in its current state, but I completely agree that the blind adoration of CD Projekt RED is misplaced and probably counterproductive in the long run.

I couldn't have said it better

 

[BladeRunnerBlues]

I would see the necessity to provide low-budget resolutions to a few decisions, such as King Henselt's ultimate death for production reasons - as lazy as that solution may seem, at the very least it makes some sense.

The same cannot be said about Roche ignoring Geralt's potential alliance with Iorveth and having a whopping extra sentence for him, in case he sided with the Blue Stripes in The Witcher 2. Not to mention the complete lack of the elven resistance and Iorveth from the story. They were such integral parts of the story leading up to the Witcher 3 that anyone who happened to play the Assassins of Kings will scratch their head over their absence.

CD Projekt could have made at least symbolic gestures towards long-term fans. Throw in a Vran Armor for those with a save and have a few small dialogues about the fates of Anais, Natalis after the battle, etc. The Ambassador could have cleared almost everything up for Geralt before the player gets access to the open map and assumes their search after Ciri. It would have been the cost of one voice actor having a few extra lines in several different languages - hardly more than all the marginal quests released via DLC later.

It simply baffles me that CD Projekt doesn't seem to care enough about their own story and lore to address loose plot points at least in the laziest possible way - a few explanatory dialogues or journals - they explain half the Wild Hunt and White Frost lore through written material, and those are central to the story.

In connection to Iorveth, it has been said by the devs that they won't shoehorn anything into the game if they can't do it properly. So their way of properly addressing Iorveth and maybe the other Witcher 2 characters' fates will be....through including them in the standalone Gwent card game? At this point, I'm pretty skeptical about the studio's future with complex storytelling.

The studio may have millions of new fans now, but they are an idolized triple-A company today only because of those who were there during The Witcher 1 and 2, buying their games and spreading the hype. The Witcher 3 seems to be unnecessarily pointing a middle finger to most of them with its utter neglect and disinterest for what CD Projekt must have known will bother fans.

 

[Sam2305]

The studio may have millions of new fans now, but they are an idolized triple-A studio today only because of those who were there during The Witcher 1 and 2, buying their games and spreading the hype. The Witcher 3 seems to be unnecessarily pointing a middle finger to most of them with its utter neglect and disinterest for what CD Projekt must have known will bother fans.

It's just an excuse. It's not a matter about making justice to some characters. They simply don't want to change a game that is already working well among new players, which was they primary objective. That's all

 

[BladeRunnerBlues]

It's just an excuse. It's not a matter about making justice to some characters. They simply don't want to change a game that is already working well among new players, which was they primary objective. That's all

I see the point in this cynical assessment and find it likely to be the truth, yet one would simply think that the studio that gave us two great RPGs with Enhanced Editions on top of it in previous years would handle its own story with more love. I am all in for companies treating their returning customers with a cold shrug, that's how it rolls - I just hoped it wouldn't happen to The Witcher series to the extent it did, or that they would be willing to address some of the frequent story complaints beyond waifu simulation. My mistake.

 

[Draconifors]

I am not going to read through 89 pages, so I'm probably repeating things others have said.

I was really excited to start a Witcher 3 game with a Witcher 2 Iorveth's path save, because I thought Roche might have an entirely different reaction. Alas, the only thing that changed was having to Axii/fistfight the Temerian guerrilla at their hideout entrance. Lame.

Killing/sparing Aryan la Valette has a much more interesting consequence in TW3, despite it being a much less significant choice than Roche vs. Iorveth.

Fun(?) fact: I've never played TW3 without importing a TW2 save game, and I never kill Letho in TW2. Until today, when I watched a let's play video I hadn't known what the monsters in Dolores' family manor would be. I assumed they'd be Ghouls, since that's what Letho says, but turned out they werent.

All in all, I feel that importing a TW1 save to TW2 has a much more noticeable impact than a TW2 save import/simulation with TW3.

 

[sv3672]

I see the point in this cynical assessment and find it likely to be the truth, yet one would simply think that the studio that gave us two great RPGs with Enhanced Editions on top of it in previous years would handle its own story with more love.

They may see the expansions as a replacement to an enhanced edition: they add significantly more content, and are also paid so they directly bring revenue. Additionally, TW3 has better patch support than the previous games, with more and larger patches. So, I can imagine the management of the company seeing this approach as a better alternative to making an enhanced edition. But even the enhanced editions of the first two games were not so much about changing the story, TW2:EE basically added two new secondary quests and a number of new or improved cutscenes, while TW:EE fixed bad voice acting and other production quality issues.

Not that I necessarily agree with the above view, but admittedly a large AAA developer not making changes to the story of a game that won hundreds of awards more than a year after the release would not be very surprising. Especially when they have major new projects now that need the resources.

It would have been the cost of one voice actor having a few extra lines in several different languages - hardly more than all the marginal quests released via DLC later.

Actually, there are more than 700 voiced dialogue lines in the free DLCs, which could even be as much or more than all the content devoted to the save import. But the DLCs were probably a planned part of marketing the game.

Killing/sparing Aryan la Valette has a much more interesting consequence in TW3, despite it being a much less significant choice than Roche vs. Iorveth.

It is possible that at first the save import was planned to be better than how it ended up in the final game, but later it got prioritized down when time or resource constraints became an issue. That would explain the inconsistent quality of the implementation.

 

[Sam2305]

I am all in for companies treating their returning customers with a cold shrug, that's how it rolls

I'm not agree with you at this point. In fact, it's not what I've seen. Normally, old players have been treated with much more respect in other games. Believe me, I've never seen in any other RPG where developer tells you that a character is going to appear and then, after sixt month, they told you that he isn't. I've never seen that the fate of some character (not necesarily Iorveth) are not even mention when the played a key role in the previous game. Really, I understand that companies and studios have to move forward but that doesn't mean that you leave behind a important part of your supporters.

Man, not even a diaologue speaking about the fate of Iorveth, Anais, Natalis, Adda... Sorry, but I can't be "all in" with this treatment

 

[BladeRunnerBlues]

Man, not even a diaologue speaking about the fate of Iorveth, Anais, Natalis, Adda... Sorry, but I can't be "all in" with this treatment

That was slightly cynical. I agree with you, from a storytelling perspective this is not something that any fan of the series should overlook - it should have definitely been in the game. As sv3672 said, however, they have very little incentive to add content at this point - it could probably only happen out of the devs' own desire to improve on the end of their Witcher saga. Sadly, that will seems to be lacking.

And you're right, they did state explicitly well before the game's release that Iorveth and the player's decisions will have an impact on the narrative. Most of that obviously had to be axed in favor of other priorities (700 voiced lines in DLCs or smuggler barrels around the world, I presume?), after which they ignored the narrative inconsistencies alltogether. Which was relatively easy, I imagine, due to the game's commercial and critical success.

 

[ilayoeli]

I'm going to say something completely heretical but I wasn't all that impressed with the story in this game.

I don't think that this statement is all that heretical. I believe most long running series fans feel the same.

Being heretical is stating, like I do, that TW3 is very badly written

 

[Triss.Hasengold]

Hmmmm...... the Witcher story is not bad, I really liked it.

The only disappointing thing was that Eredin and the others from the Wild Hunt were ELVES, cute little Elves ..... no undead reapers from Valhalla swinging a burning sickle, or hellish demons eating souls for dinner - no, just a quad of four cute elves with black armors.
Maybe they even play their flutes and cuddle with deers when no one is watching, who knows.

But everything else, opposite that little fact the Wild Hunt were Elves instead of hell-demons from an evil dimension who need to constantly cool their burn-wounds with liquid nitrogen, the story is awesome. The crowns, the bloody Baron, the Ciri Story, Trail of Treats, the love affairs, Skellige, a brilliant main game story.

 

[Antonsky07]

I don't think wild hunt being elves is a problem (and it of course it is thing from books so there shouldn't be any problem). The problem with wild hunt and mainly Eredin is that we as players don't interact with them that much, the main antagonist, king of aen elle has 12 f***ing lines in the whole game (yes I know we have a specific thread for this). I think that Wild Hunt had so much potential to become the best antagonist of all 3 games but it all went to hell.

 

[sv3672]

I've never seen that the fate of some character (not necesarily Iorveth) are not even mention when the played a key role in the previous game.

The same happened to Shani in Witcher 2, she played a major role in TW1, but until that journal note was added in the enhanced edition, she was not even mentioned in TW2. However, unlike in the case of Iorveth, I am not sure if it was ever promised that she would appear, and at least she was brought back in Hearts of Stone (which even includes a kind of simulated save import that affects a handful of dialogues). For Iorveth, it seems we get the card game, but who knows what might be in future games.

Yaevinn also got about the same treatment in W2 as Iorveth in W3, although the latter obviously resulted in much more complaints because Iorveth was made a more important character and of course he has a lot more fans.

All in all, I feel that importing a TW1 save to TW2 has a much more noticeable impact than a TW2 save import/simulation with TW3.

The save import in TW2 is also only a small amount of content, although the situation in TW3 may seem worse because the game is much larger, is open world (so the reactions to the imported choices can more easily be missed), and it would need to react to more imported choices. At least the import in the second game works decently when it comes to Siegfried's and Adda's fate, but the Scoia'tael path was again not given good treatment, I think Yaevinn is only mentioned once in a conversation with Iorveth.

I don't think wild hunt being elves is a problem (and it of course it is thing from books so there shouldn't be any problem). The problem with wild hunt and mainly Eredin is that we as players don't interact with them that much, the main antagonist, king of aen elle has 12 f***ing lines in the whole game (yes I know we have a specific thread for this).

It may be nitpicking, but Eredin actually says more than that in the game: if I counted right, he has 16 lines of "story" dialogue, 8 lines of voice set (mostly taunts), 4 combat lines that are specific to the final battle, and 6 lines of cut content (the first half of the scene where Crach is killed). But the problem is that within the framework of the existing story in TW3, there is simply no reason for Eredin and Geralt or Ciri to talk to each other, all encounters with the Wild Hunt lead to combat. That is why most of the information about them that is important from Geralt's POV is told through dialogues with other NPCs (Avallac'h, Ciri, etc.), while lore (generally, information that lets the player understand the Wild Hunt better, but Geralt himself already knows or would not care much about) is provided in the journal, books, and other readables.

There is a similar issue with Dettlaff in Blood and Wine, although he is somewhat more talkative than Eredin, but that is partly because he is not always an enemy. Still, we learn much about him in conversations with Regis.

 

[Antonsky07]

But the problem is that within the framework of the existing story in TW3, there is simply no reason for Eredin and Geralt or Ciri to talk to each other, all encounters with the Wild Hunt lead to combat.

Yes there is no reason for them to speak to each other but I think that could be easily changed if the story focused a bit on Geralt being part of wild hunt. It is only mentioned that Ciri freed Geralt and that he remembers Imlerith. So why not show us those events. Show us Geralt killing innocents (or whatever he did with wild hunt), how he felt about it, his interactions with other wild hunt members (Imlerith, Eredin). Then those events could lead to some dialogues with wild hunt.

 

[sv3672]

Yes there is no reason for them to speak to each other but I think that could be easily changed if the story focused a bit on Geralt being part of wild hunt. It is only mentioned that Ciri freed Geralt and that he remembers Imlerith. So why not show us those events. Show us Geralt killing innocents (or whatever he did with wild hunt), how he felt about it, his interactions with other wild hunt members (Imlerith, Eredin). Then those events could lead to some dialogues with wild hunt.

There was in fact a planned quest where Geralt would have temporarily infiltrated the Wild Hunt, but it was cut for whatever reasons. That would have allowed for more interaction with them.

 

[ilayoeli]

Hmmmm...... the Witcher story is not bad, I really liked it.

Of course, I didn't expect people to agree with me, otherwise my statement wouldn't have been heretical.
I can explain why I think so but it's obviously a matter of opinion