I already have, but I think we should keep issues separated in their own threads.
By having multiple same threads about same things, it's probably making it harder to present the case and catch everything.
Triss fans were smart about containing it all in one thread. This one contains everything about Witcher 2 characters in Witcher 3.
By having multiple same threads about same things, it's probably making it harder to present the case and catch everything.
Triss fans were smart about containing it all in one thread. This one contains everything about Witcher 2 characters in Witcher 3.
Personally, and after playing two times to the Witcher 3, the only logical conclusion for me is that there is only one canon path in the Witcher 2: the Roche Path where you give Anais to Natalis and Henselt is killed. Why? For several reasons:
1) First of all, if Temeria was splitted in two (between Redania and Kaedwen) the Temerian Army should be destroyed before the war with Nilfgaard or, at least, decimated. In the Witcher 3, while we speak with Roche he explained that the Temerian Army was intact and fully operational and this only works with Anais in the throne. Only an independent country (with an independent queen) could have his own army with his own banners.
2) Regardless if you killed Henselt or not, there is small mission in the outskirts of Novigrad where a mage says that Henselt was killed in the battle of Lormark (Upper Aerdin) and not in Dragon Mountains where Radovid attacked Kaedwen. This makes sense only if Henselt dies in the Witcher 2 and if you chose the Roche Path.
3) As it is said in the main post, no matter which path did you choose in the Witcher 2, in the Temerian Camp there is a guy saying that Geralt has killed kings with their commander and maybe this is not a bug. Maybe is the way that the developer has to tell us which path in the Witcher 2 is canon.
4) Giving Anais to Natalis will begin the Witch Hunt, making sense with the Witcher 3 plot.
If this is true, there is no reason for Iorveth or Saskia in the Witcher 3: they are dead. The only question should be, where is Anais? and Natalis?. Just for the record, I chose the Iorveth path, im one of those who are really disapointed with this lack of consequences in the Witcher 3, i'm only saying what is logical for me.
1) First of all, if Temeria was splitted in two (between Redania and Kaedwen) the Temerian Army should be destroyed before the war with Nilfgaard or, at least, decimated. In the Witcher 3, while we speak with Roche he explained that the Temerian Army was intact and fully operational and this only works with Anais in the throne. Only an independent country (with an independent queen) could have his own army with his own banners.
2) Regardless if you killed Henselt or not, there is small mission in the outskirts of Novigrad where a mage says that Henselt was killed in the battle of Lormark (Upper Aerdin) and not in Dragon Mountains where Radovid attacked Kaedwen. This makes sense only if Henselt dies in the Witcher 2 and if you chose the Roche Path.
3) As it is said in the main post, no matter which path did you choose in the Witcher 2, in the Temerian Camp there is a guy saying that Geralt has killed kings with their commander and maybe this is not a bug. Maybe is the way that the developer has to tell us which path in the Witcher 2 is canon.
4) Giving Anais to Natalis will begin the Witch Hunt, making sense with the Witcher 3 plot.
If this is true, there is no reason for Iorveth or Saskia in the Witcher 3: they are dead. The only question should be, where is Anais? and Natalis?. Just for the record, I chose the Iorveth path, im one of those who are really disapointed with this lack of consequences in the Witcher 3, i'm only saying what is logical for me.
Last edited:
This one: http://www.gosunoob.com/witcher-3/strangers-in-the-night/
And he is not a mage, he is a scholar from the Oxenfurt Academy. My mistake
Last edited:
She was in the same cell with Margarita. how did you missed that ? did you accidentally skipped the scene ?
No, it also affect Molly path. They are not big impacts but slighty ones. Maybe they really change Geralt's main plot but, if you allows yourself be immersed, make subtly grey the future choices. It's all up on how player feel the story: as a race to finish the game fast or stoping time to time for thinking about some behaviours.
Yeah, but some other choices in TW2 would seem a lot bigger and more important, so it is strange why you'd get to simulate or import this one and not others. But I agree, I guess it depends on your playstyle and personal preferences.
So, I did write my following points down a few posts earlier, but now I've elaborated them a bit and wanted to share it with you. Maybe people feel the same way, maybe some think I'm overreacting. But here are my two cents (And sorry if I sound too disillusioned at times. I'm actually not that badly struck):
Many many years ago, I wrote my "Diplom" (It's a german degree we had before the whole Bachelor/Master-Thing. It's somewhat inbetween both, although tending more towards the Master) about how dramaturgy in computer games works, how important it is to the players reception and how much more important good dramaturgy will get in the future.
And to really get a hold on that topic I did some interviews with people in the industry and editors of a gaming magacine. And they all said one thing you should never take away from the player, because that's what defines a game itself and let's it develop it's own dramaturgy: It's the players choice. You can't decide for him. And you can't undermine it. (Granted, that's a ludic approach, there is also a narrative one, but we're talking games here, not books.)
And now, I'm irritated by the indifference this specific thread is experiencing in this forum (compared to, let's say, the Triss Thread)! There is this (in my eyes) big lack of impact for my decisions in TW3 (Decisions in the game itself as well as impact of former decisions in it's predecessors. Here is a good reddit post that analyzes it - Sorry, if repost: http://www.reddit.com/r/witcher/comments/37czo8/analyzing_the_importance_of_choice_in_and_between/ ). CDPR undermined almost all of my choices.
But why do only so little people feel like CDPR took the decision away from them? Or at least why do only so little people say it? Why do only so little people care? Why does it seem like people are okay with that? I feel like everyone is affected by it. I couldn't attune this with my work.
So I've been thinking and I came up with three possible explanations, which equally frighten me:
1) There are more people who have only played TW3, than people who have played the former games. They can't know how much value CDPR took away from our decisions. In that case I feel like I've lost a company to the EA/Ubi-mainstream-focus, that was one of the last to really fulfill my needs as a mature, sophisticated and ambitious player and recipient (or at least a game, that I was so anxious about). Because that would mean that they gave disproportionately more focus on attracting the masses than on adressing their existing fans.
2) Times have changed and most people don't value choice that much anymore but thrilling storytelling. Or they would rather trade choices and consequences for thrilling storytelling. That would be something I could even understand. But it also makes me sad, because that would mean I won't get many games in the future that will give me good choices with distinctive consequences.
3) Most People are really convinced that Games in general, and especially this one, have become so big, that you can't hold up that much freedom, consequence and coherence anymore. In that case I feel like I've lost another company to the undemandingness and that the industry even convinced a lot of players to not expect somehting like that. Most sad possibility, if you ask me.
Many many years ago, I wrote my "Diplom" (It's a german degree we had before the whole Bachelor/Master-Thing. It's somewhat inbetween both, although tending more towards the Master) about how dramaturgy in computer games works, how important it is to the players reception and how much more important good dramaturgy will get in the future.
And to really get a hold on that topic I did some interviews with people in the industry and editors of a gaming magacine. And they all said one thing you should never take away from the player, because that's what defines a game itself and let's it develop it's own dramaturgy: It's the players choice. You can't decide for him. And you can't undermine it. (Granted, that's a ludic approach, there is also a narrative one, but we're talking games here, not books.)
And now, I'm irritated by the indifference this specific thread is experiencing in this forum (compared to, let's say, the Triss Thread)! There is this (in my eyes) big lack of impact for my decisions in TW3 (Decisions in the game itself as well as impact of former decisions in it's predecessors. Here is a good reddit post that analyzes it - Sorry, if repost: http://www.reddit.com/r/witcher/comments/37czo8/analyzing_the_importance_of_choice_in_and_between/ ). CDPR undermined almost all of my choices.
But why do only so little people feel like CDPR took the decision away from them? Or at least why do only so little people say it? Why do only so little people care? Why does it seem like people are okay with that? I feel like everyone is affected by it. I couldn't attune this with my work.
So I've been thinking and I came up with three possible explanations, which equally frighten me:
1) There are more people who have only played TW3, than people who have played the former games. They can't know how much value CDPR took away from our decisions. In that case I feel like I've lost a company to the EA/Ubi-mainstream-focus, that was one of the last to really fulfill my needs as a mature, sophisticated and ambitious player and recipient (or at least a game, that I was so anxious about). Because that would mean that they gave disproportionately more focus on attracting the masses than on adressing their existing fans.
2) Times have changed and most people don't value choice that much anymore but thrilling storytelling. Or they would rather trade choices and consequences for thrilling storytelling. That would be something I could even understand. But it also makes me sad, because that would mean I won't get many games in the future that will give me good choices with distinctive consequences.
3) Most People are really convinced that Games in general, and especially this one, have become so big, that you can't hold up that much freedom, consequence and coherence anymore. In that case I feel like I've lost another company to the undemandingness and that the industry even convinced a lot of players to not expect somehting like that. Most sad possibility, if you ask me.
Last edited:
Thank you for sharing and I can't agree enough. From the sales of the TW3 alone, I would say that point 1 is the most accurate unfortunately. I would practically beg for TW2 DLC, or any added content that show that they actually care about past players and not about making top dollar.
There are minor changes that really added to my enjoyment. Not sure whether these have already been pointed out but I'm going to bring out the SMALLER changes that Witcher 2 choices made (note that I transferred my PC save file because of which they may not be present on console versions):
- In Witcher 2 in Flotsam you meet two scientists (cannot recall their names). They ask you to drink some potion. In Witcher 3 in Oxenfurt you can find a letter the scientists wrote stating that the potion was intended to restore geralt's fertility. And that they hired a stalker to see whether the girls Geralt slept with got pregnant.
- In Flotsam if you got drunk with the Blue Stripes and got the tattoo on your neck and didn't remove it, then you still have it in Witcher 3. (Really really cool little thing).
- When meeting a Mage (from Povis I think )in Novigrad he casually mentions that although he doesn't like politics, he really took interest in the summit of Loc Muinne and noted that a particular witcher was aiding The Dragon Slayer. (hinting that I was supporting Pontar valley in witcher 2)
- (Not really a choice but one of the greatest moments in the game - when talking to Elihal in Novigrad (the crossdresser) he mentions that Kalkenstein from Witcher 1 was almost burned at the steak. But he killed himself turing into hundreds of little pieces of paper saying: "Radovid sucks flacid cock!")
These are the first ones that jumped into my head. They seem too specific to be permanent things in the world. They may not be game changing but these little differences thanks to my choices in Witcher 2 really do make me smile. Anyone else know of smaller not game changing differences?
- In Witcher 2 in Flotsam you meet two scientists (cannot recall their names). They ask you to drink some potion. In Witcher 3 in Oxenfurt you can find a letter the scientists wrote stating that the potion was intended to restore geralt's fertility. And that they hired a stalker to see whether the girls Geralt slept with got pregnant.
- In Flotsam if you got drunk with the Blue Stripes and got the tattoo on your neck and didn't remove it, then you still have it in Witcher 3. (Really really cool little thing).
- When meeting a Mage (from Povis I think )in Novigrad he casually mentions that although he doesn't like politics, he really took interest in the summit of Loc Muinne and noted that a particular witcher was aiding The Dragon Slayer. (hinting that I was supporting Pontar valley in witcher 2)
- (Not really a choice but one of the greatest moments in the game - when talking to Elihal in Novigrad (the crossdresser) he mentions that Kalkenstein from Witcher 1 was almost burned at the steak. But he killed himself turing into hundreds of little pieces of paper saying: "Radovid sucks flacid cock!")
These are the first ones that jumped into my head. They seem too specific to be permanent things in the world. They may not be game changing but these little differences thanks to my choices in Witcher 2 really do make me smile. Anyone else know of smaller not game changing differences?
Where is this mage? In the outskirts of Novigrad? Is the one of the quest "Strangers in the night"?
Might very well be. But the videos I googled about the quest didn't have that dialog line that I remembered. Though they were talking about the war, Henselt and the Dragon slayer. But cannot recall exactly where. The mage though looked ike the one I remember (but that character model is used frequently in the game).
Mistakes made with the main plot
There is a serious problem with the storyline of The Witcher 3 if there are so many threads in this forum adressing missing content, plot holes, poor writing and other stuff that basically damaged the story quality.
Not only there is missing content from The Witcher 2 (Saskia, Iorveth, Anais) there are huge plot holes left open in the third act of TW3 (not enough characterization of the main villains of the Wild Hunt). What do i mean by "plot holes"? For example the White Frost which is not entirely explained (Why, When, Where, How), than we have the underdevelopment of the main antagonists like the Wild Hunt generals who are poorly written and unexplained in the game. We don't need tea time with Eredin to get to know what's going on as the game proceeds, but the whole characterization of the villains feels so shallow and empty that you don't even develop any feelings for them (positive or negative). Hell you don't even get in the position to form a proper judgement about their motives. I know they want to harm Ciri and invade Geralts world, but its portraited so colourless that many players don't even start hating them for example.
The end content of TW3 is rushed and everything ends so abruptly that it's nearly impossible to get a proper closing of the story. Avallach was a character that left a lot to desire for, Triss got neglected nearly half the game after the Novigrad quests.
Don't get me wrong, TW3 is definitively one of the best games out there, and it beats every other RPG in comparison, but there were made mistakes with the plot writing that can't be neglected. There are so many threads out there that state these serious problems and i believe that everyone of you had the same strange feeling in act 3 that everything's happening too fast to get a grip and mold your fate when you are heading towards the end of Geralts legend.
Maybe we will be lucky and the EE will turn out the directors cut edition this game deserves so much.
There is a serious problem with the storyline of The Witcher 3 if there are so many threads in this forum adressing missing content, plot holes, poor writing and other stuff that basically damaged the story quality.
Not only there is missing content from The Witcher 2 (Saskia, Iorveth, Anais) there are huge plot holes left open in the third act of TW3 (not enough characterization of the main villains of the Wild Hunt). What do i mean by "plot holes"? For example the White Frost which is not entirely explained (Why, When, Where, How), than we have the underdevelopment of the main antagonists like the Wild Hunt generals who are poorly written and unexplained in the game. We don't need tea time with Eredin to get to know what's going on as the game proceeds, but the whole characterization of the villains feels so shallow and empty that you don't even develop any feelings for them (positive or negative). Hell you don't even get in the position to form a proper judgement about their motives. I know they want to harm Ciri and invade Geralts world, but its portraited so colourless that many players don't even start hating them for example.
The end content of TW3 is rushed and everything ends so abruptly that it's nearly impossible to get a proper closing of the story. Avallach was a character that left a lot to desire for, Triss got neglected nearly half the game after the Novigrad quests.
Don't get me wrong, TW3 is definitively one of the best games out there, and it beats every other RPG in comparison, but there were made mistakes with the plot writing that can't be neglected. There are so many threads out there that state these serious problems and i believe that everyone of you had the same strange feeling in act 3 that everything's happening too fast to get a grip and mold your fate when you are heading towards the end of Geralts legend.
Maybe we will be lucky and the EE will turn out the directors cut edition this game deserves so much.
I think is this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm4Ayd705Yk
When I did this small quest I had no reference to the Dragonslayer but, in my case, the mage also said that Henselt died in the battle of Lormark during the events of the Witcher 2. For me, it's a way that the developers have to say which path of AOK is canon (Roche's path). It's the same as when we received a letter from Thaler in The Witcher 2: in the canon version, Thaler could not die.
Just for the record: the NPC looks like a mage but he is a scholar from Oxenfurt Academy.
Last edited:
Yeah found it and added it to my thread. Which path did you take?
Well, as long as we can import our saves or get asked questions in Vizima, everybody has a different canon. Some canons just matter a bit more than others : D
I certainly do not see Roche´s path as Canon at all. You meet insignificant characters (Dethmold, Henselt) that do not matter in W3 at all.
On Iorveth´s path you at least meet Philippa, very important character. If you go with Roche, you never meet her and you have no idea who she is.
Also Roche says that he went to fight with John Natalis´s army and he only does that at the end of W2 if you went with Iorveth. (You can see him in the megascope being ordered to inspect with John Natalis´s men whether Nilfgaard is about to attack or not).
Well, as long as we can import our saves or get asked questions in Vizima, everybody has a different canon. Some canons just matter a bit more than others : D
I certainly do not see Roche´s path as Canon at all. You meet insignificant characters (Dethmold, Henselt) that do not matter in W3 at all.
On Iorveth´s path you at least meet Philippa, very important character. If you go with Roche, you never meet her and you have no idea who she is.
Also Roche says that he went to fight with John Natalis´s army and he only does that at the end of W2 if you went with Iorveth. (You can see him in the megascope being ordered to inspect with John Natalis´s men whether Nilfgaard is about to attack or not).
Last edited:
I did both paths but, the one I chose for the potrayal, was the Iorveth Path. It's my favourite and I'm one of those who are complaining about the lack of political consequences. As I said before, (in another post) Roche can fight under Natalis order only if Temeria is independent. As everyone can see in the battlefield of White Orchard, it was the Temeria Army who fought and lost that battle. If you sided with Iorveth in AOK, Temeria should be splitted in two and his army would be decimated. For me, the path who fits better with the story of W3 is the one where you support Roche and Anäis is given to Natalis. Also, there is a soldier in the Temerian Camp who always says that Geralt kills kings with their commander (this only could happen if you follow Roche's path).
This way, everything makes sense in The Witcher 3: an independent Temeria fought against the black ones and the lost and Kaedwen conquered Upper Aedirn but, without his king, his army fell into chaos, putting the things easier to Nilfgaard. Also, if Anäis is saved, the Witch Hunt will begin.
On the other hand, you are completely right about Philippa but, for me, this could another hole in the plot. Also, you could meet her anyway because Philippa, Yen and Triss were companions in the Lodge.
Last edited: