Your point? They still didn't care for our choices
I mean why even have all those different endings?
I'm saying the Witch Hunt of the second game isn't related to the Witch Hunt of the third.
Your point? They still didn't care for our choices
I mean why even have all those different endings?
Thats why TW3 fails hard as a sequel to TW2
Its worse than what Bioware did with ME3, CDPR completely shitted on our choices that much is a fact
---------- Updated at 05:35 PM ----------
Your point? They still didn't care for our choices
I mean why even have all those different endings?
The Witcher 3 is an excellent game. It is also a terrible sequel. The choices you make in the first and second Witcher should play a much larger role than they do.
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 ....
LOL Yeah because nothing beats having the Triss romance shoved in my face and having Adda written out for Anais.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.
LOL Yeah because nothing beats having the Triss romance shoved in my face and having Adda written out for Anais.
Funny, Last time I checked, you can continue your romance with Triss, by default she got better treatment then Shani ever did.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.
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.
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.
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.
it's bothersome because they brought back some characters but not others.
They brought back characters that made sense in the context of their story.
Saskia and Iorveth have no place whatsoever in the story of TW3. Especially Saskia.
unlike Saskia he couldn't get killed at the end of TW2.
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.
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.
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.