IMO, BioWare handle the import really good, people only disappoint about the ending. No import and use the interactive comic, lol try to save everyone.
In contrary, CD RED doesn't put any effort in this at all, just choose the simulation when start new game (i think only Sile choice matter, cause by default she dead).
People say that the lack of continuity in the Witcher 3 shouldn't matter because "CDPR isn't Bioware" and "they didn't promise us anything". But I don't understand how that matters at all.
The Witcher games have been a series, and while the Witcher 2 didn't have a lot of W1 content - it still had some returning content and cameos to make you feel like decisions mattered. The main difference between the Witcher 1 and the Witcher 2 however, were in the story. The Witcher 1 was almost a stand alone - with the plot revolving around stopping Salamandra/Alvin and an ending that wrapped up the plot. The Witcher 2, on the other hand, was a giant cliff-hanger, a political lead up to The Witcher 3. There was no nice resolution, on the contrary, things were just getting started as the game ended. It seemed natural for those decisions to carry over to the next game.
But, weirdly enough - nothing you do in The Witcher 2, aside from a few characters, matters in The Witcher 3. Returning Characters seem to have amnesia and don't remember what you did (Roche, Zoltan, Dandelion, Phillippa). Other important characters are completely missing (Anais, Saskia, Iorveth, Dethmold, Stennis, Shilard, Natalis). Any decision that you make regarding locations is rendered inconsequential as well (Temeria, Vergen, Loc Muinne). All of this seems out of place, and is incredibly disappointing for us returning players.
So, back to the "CDPR isn't Bioware" argument. - The equivalent to what happened between The Witcher 2 and 3 would be if Mass Effect 3 had no mention of your suicide run against The Collectors. It would be if Mass Effect 3 didn't mention that you worked with Cerberus. As if Garrus never remembered that you saved his life - or that he was part of your squad. Or even further, if your entire squad from ME2 was absent from ME3, no mention of them what-so-ever.
It's a glaring hole. It's a problem. And it's a slap in the face to us returning players.
The Witcher games have been a series, and while the Witcher 2 didn't have a lot of W1 content - it still had some returning content and cameos to make you feel like decisions mattered. The main difference between the Witcher 1 and the Witcher 2 however, were in the story. The Witcher 1 was almost a stand alone - with the plot revolving around stopping Salamandra/Alvin and an ending that wrapped up the plot. The Witcher 2, on the other hand, was a giant cliff-hanger, a political lead up to The Witcher 3. There was no nice resolution, on the contrary, things were just getting started as the game ended. It seemed natural for those decisions to carry over to the next game.
But, weirdly enough - nothing you do in The Witcher 2, aside from a few characters, matters in The Witcher 3. Returning Characters seem to have amnesia and don't remember what you did (Roche, Zoltan, Dandelion, Phillippa). Other important characters are completely missing (Anais, Saskia, Iorveth, Dethmold, Stennis, Shilard, Natalis). Any decision that you make regarding locations is rendered inconsequential as well (Temeria, Vergen, Loc Muinne). All of this seems out of place, and is incredibly disappointing for us returning players.
So, back to the "CDPR isn't Bioware" argument. - The equivalent to what happened between The Witcher 2 and 3 would be if Mass Effect 3 had no mention of your suicide run against The Collectors. It would be if Mass Effect 3 didn't mention that you worked with Cerberus. As if Garrus never remembered that you saved his life - or that he was part of your squad. Or even further, if your entire squad from ME2 was absent from ME3, no mention of them what-so-ever.
It's a glaring hole. It's a problem. And it's a slap in the face to us returning players.
Honestly, speaking, I disagree with a lot of this. Geralt's DECISIONS are less important than the way the second game informed those decisions. Saskia, Iorveth, and other missing characters are not all that important necessarily because they don't necessarily have anything to do with THIS game. It's very possible Saskia and Iorveth are going to show up in the Witcher 4, which is going to happen no matter how much some people think this is "last" game.
Roche has an important role to play in the story as does the politics of Temeria. No, Anais isn't the destined savior of the land because she's a little girl and that isn't how the Witcher rolls. She's hidden somewhere and, again, might play a role in later games. However, Roche does play an important role as does the events of the Second Game in their weakening of King Henselt, the blinding of Phillipa Eilhart, the ascension of King Radovid to supremecy in the North (due to the deaths of his rival Kings--possibly including Henselt).
Yes, they pruned SPECIFICS but the GENERALITY is what's important.
Roche has an important role to play in the story as does the politics of Temeria. No, Anais isn't the destined savior of the land because she's a little girl and that isn't how the Witcher rolls. She's hidden somewhere and, again, might play a role in later games. However, Roche does play an important role as does the events of the Second Game in their weakening of King Henselt, the blinding of Phillipa Eilhart, the ascension of King Radovid to supremecy in the North (due to the deaths of his rival Kings--possibly including Henselt).
Yes, they pruned SPECIFICS but the GENERALITY is what's important.
It got sacrificed since consoles stepped in ... but honestly .. they were able to make this game because of console sales ... it turned into a legendary game ...
I will love cdpr forever for this
....But they could be important to this game. They should be.
If Roche wasn't in this game, you'd be saying that he wasn't important either - as the results at large all all that matter.
Also, those decisions in W2 do matter. You actually strengthen Henselt if you don't let Roche kill him as he gains control of Upper Aderin. - Yet, that decision is rendered meaningless. You can strengthen Radovid if you give him Anais - or you can temper Radovid if you opt to save Triss instead thus avoiding the mage massacre - Those too are rendered meaningless as Anais is practically removed and Radovid ends up going insane (for some reason) and the game retcons the events at Loc Muinne's into the massacre outcome.
Using an excuse as "That's not how the Witcher rolls" doesn't make sense. Anais was so important in TW2's epilogue that she united a nation. She made Temaria stronger than ever before. On the flip-side Saskia and Iorveth were so important that they defeated a great army and secured their own kingdom, a mecca for non-humans and humans alike. - In addition Prince Stennis could live to become King Stennis and strengthen Aedirn. Geralt even muses on this with his talk with Letho - that Letho might have inadvertently created a stronger north than ever before. These were important events and characters that all got swept under the rug and forgotten. They could and should have played a role in The Witcher 3. - How Skellige and it's Skyrim npcs matter more than revisiting Vergen with Iorveth (the deadliest Scoia'tael) and Saskia (a dragon and a ruler), I'll never know.
The GENERALITY is bland and hamfisted. It leaves The Witcher 2 as a pointless game to play. You could still advance the plot and still have returning characters and places.
Heck, you could still white-wash the big decisions and still have side quests where these NPC's return.
CDPR did neither.
---------- Updated at 01:41 AM ----------
Sacrificing quality for quantity doesn't seem like the best approach - yet, I understand the necessity. But disregarding their fan-base in the process is a huge slap in the face. They made TW3 so accessible for newcomers that they dumbed-down the plot, the politics, and removed most earlier decisions and characters.
While a great game by itself, they made playing their previous games obsolete.
If Roche wasn't in this game, you'd be saying that he wasn't important either - as the results at large all all that matter.
Also, those decisions in W2 do matter. You actually strengthen Henselt if you don't let Roche kill him as he gains control of Upper Aderin. - Yet, that decision is rendered meaningless. You can strengthen Radovid if you give him Anais - or you can temper Radovid if you opt to save Triss instead thus avoiding the mage massacre - Those too are rendered meaningless as Anais is practically removed and Radovid ends up going insane (for some reason) and the game retcons the events at Loc Muinne's into the massacre outcome.
Using an excuse as "That's not how the Witcher rolls" doesn't make sense. Anais was so important in TW2's epilogue that she united a nation. She made Temaria stronger than ever before. On the flip-side Saskia and Iorveth were so important that they defeated a great army and secured their own kingdom, a mecca for non-humans and humans alike. - In addition Prince Stennis could live to become King Stennis and strengthen Aedirn. Geralt even muses on this with his talk with Letho - that Letho might have inadvertently created a stronger north than ever before. These were important events and characters that all got swept under the rug and forgotten. They could and should have played a role in The Witcher 3. - How Skellige and it's Skyrim npcs matter more than revisiting Vergen with Iorveth (the deadliest Scoia'tael) and Saskia (a dragon and a ruler), I'll never know.
The GENERALITY is bland and hamfisted. It leaves The Witcher 2 as a pointless game to play. You could still advance the plot and still have returning characters and places.
Heck, you could still white-wash the big decisions and still have side quests where these NPC's return.
CDPR did neither.
---------- Updated at 01:41 AM ----------
It got sacrificed since consoles stepped in ... but honestly .. they were able to make this game because of console sales ... it turned into a legendary game ...
I will love cdpr forever for this
Sacrificing quality for quantity doesn't seem like the best approach - yet, I understand the necessity. But disregarding their fan-base in the process is a huge slap in the face. They made TW3 so accessible for newcomers that they dumbed-down the plot, the politics, and removed most earlier decisions and characters.
While a great game by itself, they made playing their previous games obsolete.
LOL Yeah because nothing beats having the Triss romance shoved in my face and having Adda written out for Anais.
Then nothing beats having the Yen romance shoved in my face and Triss marginalized - While fading Adda and Anais out completely.
CDPR should have learned from the rough transition from W1 to W2. Instead they kept up the tradition of horrible continuity.
Last edited:
Funny, Last time I checked, you can continue your romance with Triss, by default she got better treatment then Shani ever did.
Again CDP has proven why I despise the importing gimmick. It never works and it always backfires. Also does not help that CDP was always hush hush on importing (which should have told everyone that this was going to be bad) It's impossible for me to even feel anything for this poor continuity when I was already suspecting it from the start thanks to TW>TW2.
The problem is a lot of fans are confusing what they THINK the games said with what the games actually said. Anais' fate is one of three things.
1. She successfully becomes Duchess of Temeria underneath King Radovid.
2. She becomes Ward of John Nataliss who is going to TRY to use her to rally the nobility.
3. She's on the run with Roche.
In none of these endings, is she Daenerys Targaryen. She's a political pawn and the game ENDS on Nilfgaard's invasion, which has the potential to render all of this moot.
Hell, King Henselt, rapist piece of **** that he is, is the ONLY King who recognizes what's REALLY going on that all of this is side-show to Nilfgaard's imminent attack.
People think Anais is important and she may be in Witcher 4 but AoK is VERY clear that Letho's plan at the behest of Nilfgaard is WHAT'S IMPORTANT. That the assassination of Foltest is the end of Temeria's threat to their invasion and the entirety of Wild Hunt's war plot is built on that.
Letho SUCCEEDED in defeating Temeria. AoK made that clear. It may rise again with Anais but Nilfgaard beat it before the game began and that's all In AOK.
That's all fine. Yet, none of that gives any reason why Anais, Saskia, Iorveth, Vergen, Dethmold, etc. are completely removed from the game. All are important characters. All of them could play a roll after Nilfgaard invades. All of those characters and locations could still work with or around the setting. For instance, the lack of scoia'tael in the game is disheartening - Iorveth would be a perfect resistance fighter. If Roche could do it, there's no reason for Iorveth not to as well.
And to your main point, in 3/4ths of AoK ending's Temeria is in shambles - so what you're saying would hold true. It is NOT in shambles, however, if you save her. Temeria is united.
If you're saying the only thing that matters from TW2 is that Nilfgaard invades, then I disagree. A lot more matters and should, in some way, be included in TW3.
---------- Updated at 03:39 AM ----------
Marginalized does not mean removed. If you think that I'm the only one disappointed in the handling of the Triss romance, there's an expansive thread on the subject. The importing "gimmick" doesn't always backfire. Inquisition did a pretty good job at implementing it, imo. CDPR, however, has again completely failed. And it's bothersome because they brought back some characters but not others.
I never realized it was this bad as my TW2 playthrough that I imported actually lined up quite perfectly with TW3's canon.
In TW2:
Chose Roche's path.
Let Henselt live.
Saved Anais.
Gave Anais to Radovid (Adda was also alive and Radovid's wife).
Roche decided to serve Radovid.
Spared Letho.
When I started TW3 I really enjoyed seeing how my decisions shaped the world in TW3, or so I thought. I never realized that it's the same for everyone regardless of your TW2 decisions.
In TW2:
Chose Roche's path.
Let Henselt live.
Saved Anais.
Gave Anais to Radovid (Adda was also alive and Radovid's wife).
Roche decided to serve Radovid.
Spared Letho.
When I started TW3 I really enjoyed seeing how my decisions shaped the world in TW3, or so I thought. I never realized that it's the same for everyone regardless of your TW2 decisions.
Why? Especially if Roche's Path is canon then Iorveth would have left Vergen already before Nilfgaard invaded (no need to stay in a country which is occupied by Henselt). He has the same reason to be in the game as Roche to fight in the underground against Nilfgaard after their betrayal against the Scoiatel. And unlike Saskia he couldn't get killed at the end of TW2.
He could get killed during TW2 or left in a vegetative state.
On Roche's path unless you explicitly save him during the siege of Vergen he dies.
Fight Nilfgaard? For who exactly? The soon to be Northern Empire under Radovid the Stern who will butcher non-humans soon? He has a hell lot more reasons to like Nilfgaard then the North since although Nilfgaard hung the elven officers out to dry and they aren't permitted to move into the Valley of Flowers it does at least treat non-humans a whole far better then the North does.
There is no justifiable reason why Iorveth or the Scoia'Tael as a whole would get involved. They'd stay the hell out of the war quietly hoping that Nilfgaard wins. The Scoia'Tael you meet in the game are all incidentally in Velen. Controlled by Nilfgaard.
That or the elves of the Scoia'Tael, including Iorveth, actually ESPECIALLY Iorveth, would join the Wild Hunt on their invasion.
Last edited:
But you just don't get to know what happens to him if you don't save him during the battle or if Triss doesn't help him. I mean you don't see a corpse or get a note that he is dead. Or did I miss something?
There is no point for Iorveth to fight Nilfgaard. For what? A free north? It was the north he fought against in the second nilfgaard war. He wouldn't want a north to return because it would put them back in the situation before the war. There would be still hatred towards the elves and dwarfs and any one who is different and sometimes even pogroms. They would win nothing in restoring the old north.
There are no allies left for freedom fighters like Iorveth. Their only hope was Vergen. But as Nilfgaard had overrun whole Aedirn and half of Kaedwen I don't see any chance for a free Vergen. Nilfgaard wouldn't tolerate it I assume.
That leaves Iorveth homeless more than any other character. The only thing I could imagine what Iorveth can do is retreat to the Blue Mountains
like many other Aen Seidhe already did.
If you save him on Triss's path if once he becomes a vegetable she makes it clear it will take very long for him to recover.
As for Roche's path the journal states Geralt just saved his life, don't need confirmation for what happens if you don't since it's pretty obvious, but the comments by Scoia'Tael in TW3 suggest he was indeed killed if you didn't save him there. I did and didn't get any comment.
As for Roche's path the journal states Geralt just saved his life, don't need confirmation for what happens if you don't since it's pretty obvious, but the comments by Scoia'Tael in TW3 suggest he was indeed killed if you didn't save him there. I did and didn't get any comment.