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

[Toyen]

Well the way I saw it (being on Iorveths path) was that it wasnt an independent Temeria fighting Nilfgaard in White Orchard but just the local soldiers and patriots left over.

Radovid went mad and decided not to send his troops there and instead stayed stationed in Oxenfurt, thus no Radenian banners on the battlefield.

And Roche does fight the Nilfgaard much further south under John Natalis even if you took Iorveth´s path. You can see it in the megascope in the side quest with Cynthia.

At the end of Witcher 2 on Iorveth´s path, when Temeria is divided between Henselt and Radovid, Roche is inspecting whether Nilfgaard is about to attack with John Natalis´s unit.

He was inspecting the border, not fighting for free Temeria.

John Natalis sent him there before the summit at Loc Muinne so he did not know what the outcome would be yet.

And as it happened, Nilfgaard did attack and Roche and his unit lost and he returned to Oxenfurt.

 

[Sam2305]

Well the way I saw it (being on Iorveths path) was that it wasnt an independent Temeria fighting Nilfgaard in White Orchard but just the local soldiers and patriots left over.

Radovid went mad and decided not to send his troops there and instead stayed stationed in Oxenfurt, thus no Radenian banners on the battlefield.

And Roche does fight the Nilfgaard much further south under John Natalis even if you took Iorveth´s path. You can see it in the megascope in the side quest with Cynthia.

At the end of Witcher 2 on Iorveth´s path, when Temeria is divided between Henselt and Radovid, Roche is inspecting whether Nilfgaard is about to attack with John Natalis´s unit.

He was inspecting the border, not fighting for free Temeria.

John Natalis sent him there before the summit at Loc Muinne so he did not know what the outcome would be yet.

And as it happened, Nilfgaard did attack and Roche and his unit lost and he returned to Oxenfurt.

Roche clearly said in W3: "I joined the III Temerian Army (not just an unit) under John Natalis orders...". This only could happen if Temeria is independent and this only happen in one ending: Anäis is given to Natalis at the end of Witcher 2. Then the Witch Hunt would begin and Henselt would die in Lormark. They can blame Saskia only because she began a revolution but no for killing Henselt.

Just for the record, I've played fourth times to AOK and in three of them I chose Iorveth Path. I' m only saying which seems logical to me. That's all.

 

[Toyen]

Yeah, you are probably right but still it can be a name of a bigger unit or part of his army! : D

But from the context in the video it sounds like Saskia is to blame for Henselt´s death.

I don´t know some things make sense some dont. Such mysteries : D

 

[whiplash27]

Honestly, I don't see why the game didn't account for the differences. I can get defaulting things to a certain way for ease of story telling, but there are really only eight major choices in TW2 (if you want you can add the EE ones in Act 3)

1. Aryan La Valette - Living or Dead
2. Iorveth #1. Stennis Lives or Dies - Default him to dead since that's what happens in Roche's path, so it makes sense to happen in both
3. Iorveth #2: Saskia or Triss
4. Roche #1: Henselt Lives or Dies - In Iorveth's path he lives, so just leave it how it currently is in TW3.
5. Roche #2: Triss or Anais
6. Roche #3: Radovid or Natalis
7. Sile - Living or Dead
8. Letho - Living or Dead

Two of the choices have the same outcome (Triss) and two you can default since otherwise they contradict across paths. That leaves you with 5 real choices to alter the script for the game for. I don't think it would have been overly crazy to do. I do get that certain things happen if you take Roche's path vs. Iorveth's path that the player never sees unless they do the other path, but I can understand that it would make things overly complicated. So merging the two different story lines makes sense. However, the major decision choices should in some way be reflected.

 

[LiarOnElmstreet]

..., but I can understand that it would make things overly complicated.

That's somehting I, as a player, will never concede. I want this extra mile. Why give me a decision and then don't account for it? If I want that, I buy a book. But I bought a game! I get that my decisions won't have an impact on the whole world, because Geralt's just a tiny wheel in all of this, but my decisions should have serious consequences for him. Each and every one! Not just some tweaks in conversations and then everything happens just the same way for every choice.
It is reasonable to expect that, and not "overly complicated"!

 

[psJustDoit]

Honestly, I don't see why the game didn't account for the differences. I can get defaulting things to a certain way for ease of story telling, but there are really only eight major choices in TW2 (if you want you can add the EE ones in Act 3)

1. Aryan La Valette - Living or Dead
2. Iorveth #1. Stennis Lives or Dies - Default him to dead since that's what happens in Roche's path, so it makes sense to happen in both
3. Iorveth #2: Saskia or Triss
4. Roche #1: Henselt Lives or Dies - In Iorveth's path he lives, so just leave it how it currently is in TW3.
5. Roche #2: Triss or Anais
6. Roche #3: Radovid or Natalis
7. Sile - Living or Dead
8. Letho - Living or Dead

Two of the choices have the same outcome (Triss) and two you can default since otherwise they contradict across paths. That leaves you with 5 real choices to alter the script for the game for. I don't think it would have been overly crazy to do. I do get that certain things happen if you take Roche's path vs. Iorveth's path that the player never sees unless they do the other path, but I can understand that it would make things overly complicated. So merging the two different story lines makes sense. However, the major decision choices should in some way be reflected.

EE edition just expands not many major decisions/events almsot deafult.

1. Aryan La Valette - Living or Dead let him be DEAD ist ok
2. To weak characteristic that hes capable of changing major courses.The arrogant iam above evrything will kill him sooner or later.
3. maybe in the expansions/pack we need to wait for it CDPR always are famous for EE and more.Saskia part related not only by triss (Lodge) Sile Phillipa etc.
4. Roche #1: I cant see henselt as the King before they have butchered his legacy in Tw3 maybe hes in EXIL or DEAD
5. Roche #2: major plot twist can be the reason not to be with Dijkstra side siblings vs nemesis Dijkstra
6. Roche #3: Radovid is now a mad man i dont know how this will End (6-month passed and the northern was invaded common
7. Sile - they butchered here to on of my Fav in Tw2 maybe the expnsion pack will bring light in to the LODGE lore
8. Letho - He lives and will maybe have a greater impact he was before a geralt bro before the incident.

thats how i see it there are more concern about the politics then only the characters

 

[Waldlaeufer]

[spoilers] Probably another Roche/Iorveth continuity thread...

Hi folks,

I am doing my run through the whole trilogy and I seem to hit a wall with W2. Still, I think W3 spoiler-subsection is probably the right place to post this.

I played through W1 neutral path and it really feels like the right thing to me
- you can disregard/walkaway from the skirmish in the Vizima swamps
- the Bank thing you really can not do in a neutral way, but you can just try to talk some sense into Yaevinn and it just fails, not your fault though really
- and you can walk away from the hostage situation
- and then of course you get the neutral Old Vizima situation

The major decisions made also translate quite well into W2 import.

...given that I want some sense of consistency within the whole Trilogy, and I prefer "Empress Ciri" ending, I tried to do a more or less neutral run on Roche path...with saving Anais at the end, cause of the 'bro thing that develops with Roche, and also because in my view if Geralt stays with Roche it makes sense to take this choice as Anais was there when Foltest was assassinated and Geralt might feel an obligation to help this little child who got into this situation because he was not able to prevent the whole thing and also obviously her testimony got Geralt out of price-on-the-head situation even before the summit of Loc Muinne. But in W3 these choices do not translate well (Anais given to John Natalis specifically). Temeria is occupied by Nilfgaard no matter what and the resistance is partially connected to Redania (OK, there might be this Adda thing if she is alive in W1/W2), but it should be Anais that should in some way be a figure for the resistance. She is...just nowhere to be heard of... or is she?

From this point of view, would not it be better to take Iorveth's path in W2? Roche still stays cool with Geralt and even helps him out in Chapter 2 and what is even better is that his plot apparently succeeds as Henselt's forces are routed by Saskia and while Temeria is then split between Redania and Kaedwen, Henselt is killed (Sabrina's course stays obviously pretty active on Iorveth's path) offscreen sometimes between W2-W3. Or am I mistaken? Geralt would know little about Anais in this case, though she should get a mention in W3 in my view anyway. In the Nilfgaardian victory scenario in W3 Temeria is restored as a semi-independent realm, but who heads it? Having little Anais to appease the Temerian population would be advantageous for Emhyrr and Ciri, right?

I really thought that my latest W2 Roche playthrough would be my "canon" one, but I am not quite sure that the choices translate that well (after all that Geralt goes through in Chapters 2 - 3 of W2). I mean Henselt ends up dead anyway, there is no mention of little Anais (even as a symbolic figurehead of Temerian resistance)... I mean Roche-path choices should have direct bearing on the world-state of W3 (if imported). And they do not have, do they? Iorveth-path choices have frankly little bearing on the world-state of W3 as they concern area outside realms W3 takes place in (Upper Aedirn), so there is less potential for eventual discrepancies.

What is your take on this?

Thx

 

[whiplash27]

That's somehting I, as a player, will never concede. I want this extra mile. Why give me a decision and then don't account for it? If I want that, I buy a book. But I bought a game! I get that my decisions won't have an impact on the whole world, because Geralt's just a tiny wheel in all of this, but my decisions should have serious consequences for him. Each and every one! Not just some tweaks in conversations and then everything happens just the same way for every choice.
It is reasonable to expect that, and not "overly complicated"!

If TW2 didn't have to completely different branching stories, then I could agree that every decision you make should have an impact. However, to think that they'd have to account for Loredo lives/dies, Vergen winning/losing, Geralt knowing whether Saskia was a dragon (don't know this in Roche's path), Philippa getting her eyes taken out (we don't see this in Roche's path), Geralt Killing Serrit and Auckes (doesn't happen in Ioveth path), Ambassador Shilard living/dying, I'm sure I may be missing others. It's a lot of stuff to account for. I'd be happy if they just accounted for the big decisions in Act III... They didn't even do that.

 

[LiarOnElmstreet]

If TW2 didn't have to completely different branching stories, then I could agree that every decision you make should have an impact. However, to think that they'd have to account for Loredo lives/dies, Vergen winning/losing, Geralt knowing whether Saskia was a dragon (don't know this in Roche's path), Philippa getting her eyes taken out (we don't see this in Roche's path), Geralt Killing Serrit and Auckes (doesn't happen in Ioveth path), Ambassador Shilard living/dying, I'm sure I may be missing others. It's a lot of stuff to account for. I'd be happy if they just accounted for the big decisions in Act III... They didn't even do that.

I see where you're coming from. But I'm kind of sick of hoping for some breadcrumbs and making excuses for Developers. They do what they think is reasonable to produce a game and make profit and I'll see if I buy it (And I had fun with TW3, to make that clear.). But I as a customer don't see why I should scale down my expectations for them. Sure, it's a lot of stuff to account for, but instead of undermining, or making it somewhat same for all paths, they should acknowledge them and give them some meaning. That's what I want and the fact that it is a lot of work doesn't make me not want it all over sudden.

Edit: Please don't read that in an angry tone. It's not meant like that.

 

[Toyen]

Okay so:

The fate of Loredo - who cares. He is an insignificant character and Flotsam is an insignificant location. No need for any consequences of that in Witcher 3.
Although it would be cool to see him in Novigrad if he is alive spending his money he got from selling Flotsam at Passiflora : )

Vergen winning/losing (Iorveth/Roche side) - this should have had the biggest impact.
If Saskia wins, there is an entirely new state created as big as/or even bigger than Dol Blathanna, all the nonhumans start moving in there and yet, nobody talks about it and Nilfgaard allegedly just destroyed it as the ambassador said that there was no resistance which does not make sense with so many rebellious freedom fighters in the area + Saskia said she expected Nilfgaard to attack if you free her so its not like they took her by surprise.

So this was a big let down.

If you went with Roche, Henselt gets the area and then Nilfgaard can pretty much annex it. So that makes sense.

Philippa´s eyes - You dont even know who she is on Roche´s path so you can assume anything could have happened to her during W2. No big deal that you don´t see Radovid blinding her in the dungeon. If you went with Roche, she´s just a cool new character for you in W3.

Serrit and Auckles dead - They die on both paths. Síle kills them.

Shilard - Although we don´t see him dying if we don´t free Triss, the emperor had plans to kill him so we might as well assume him being dead.

 

[Waldlaeufer]

OK, so after reading through the relevant threads here, it seems like indeed the Roche path is more W3 world-state friendly, as Sam notes that:

Roche clearly said in W3: "I joined the III Temerian Army (not just an unit) under John Natalis orders...". This only could happen if Temeria is independent and this only happen in one ending: Anäis is given to Natalis at the end of Witcher 2. Then the Witch Hunt would begin and Henselt would die in Lormark. They can blame Saskia only because she began a revolution but no for killing Henselt.

This makes sense, really, but still it does not account for why Anais is missing as a figurehead of the Temerian resistance...although maybe not if she got captured by Nilfgaard when John Natalis got crushed...but then, she should be used politically by the Emperor in "Nilfgaard wins - Temeria semi-independent realm" scenario.

 

[LiarOnElmstreet]

The fate of Loredo - who cares. He is an insignificant character and Flotsam is an insignificant location. No need for any consequences of that in Witcher 3.
Although it would be cool to see him in Novigrad if he is alive spending his money he got from selling Flotsam at Passiflora : )

But there is a lot of more to Loredo than just his character. For example there is the elven woman he holds captive and her baby you can deal with. There are the elves and dwarves in general: Was there a massacre or was there none? That is a lot of stuff that doesn't have any influence on the world state but it is reasonable that it would haunt Geralt in some way.

Vergen winning/losing (Iorveth/Roche side) - this should have had the biggest impact.
If Saskia wins, there is an entirely new state created as big as/or even bigger than Dol Blathanna, all the nonhumans start moving in there and yet, nobody talks about it and Nilfgaard allegedly just destroyed it as the ambassador said that there was no resistance which does not make sense with so many rebellious freedom fighters in the area + Saskia said she expected Nilfgaard to attack if you free her so its not like they took her by surprise.

So this was a big let down.

+1

If you went with Roche, Henselt gets the area and then Nilfgaard can pretty much annex it. So that makes sense.

That makes sense, but there are some decisions missing for that path as well. For example: What if I slept with Ves? Nobody talks about that anymore. There is a big fuss about Triss, that I will never get, but no word to Ves is okay? I mean, I get the tattoo, but nothing else. Not even some tweaks in the conversation.

 

[dragonbird]

Vergen winning/losing (Iorveth/Roche side) - this should have had the biggest impact.
If Saskia wins, there is an entirely new state created as big as/or even bigger than Dol Blathanna, all the nonhumans start moving in there and yet, nobody talks about it and Nilfgaard allegedly just destroyed it as the ambassador said that there was no resistance which does not make sense with so many rebellious freedom fighters in the area + Saskia said she expected Nilfgaard to attack if you free her so its not like they took her by surprise.

So this was a big let down.

I disagree on this one. The news came to Loc Muinne about Nilfgaard crossing the Yaruga roughly a week after the victory, during which time Saskia was in Loc Muinne, and it didn't seem to take them long to work their way North. It wouldn't matter who won, the Vergen area would still have been in disarray after the battle.

Totally agree with you on the rest. Things like the fate of the Elven Women are pretty minor and everyday events in Geralt's life.

I don't think that anything that happened in TW2 would have really changed things. None of the decisions made at Loc Muinne, or the Vergen victory, had time to come into effect. At the most, I'd have liked some minor dialogue updates, but that's all. Aryan, Saskia and Anais are the only significant gaps in knowledge, as far as I'm concerned, and I really hope that these get addressed in one or other of the expansions.

I think that the biggest flaw on continuity is the end-states as described within TW2 itself. Especially the one that Geralt narrates to himself at Loc Muinne if Stennis was still alive, which is clearly NOT what happened.

 

[Sam2305]

OK, so after reading through the relevant threads here, it seems like indeed the Roche path is more W3 world-state friendly, as Sam notes that:

This makes sense, really, but still it does not account for why Anais is missing as a figurehead of the Temerian resistance...although maybe not if she got captured by Nilfgaard when John Natalis got crushed...but then, she should be used politically by the Emperor in "Nilfgaard wins - Temeria semi-independent realm" scenario.

I'm expecting that Anais will appear in a BaW Expansion as a hostage of Nilgaard. In any case, the Witcher 3 has very huge holes in it's story so I wouldn't surprise if even after the expansions there are things that still doesn't makes sense or characer that doesn't appear.

---------- Updated at 11:42 AM ----------

I disagree on this one. The news came to Loc Muinne about Nilfgaard crossing the Yaruga roughly a week after the victory, during which time Saskia was in Loc Muinne, and it didn't seem to take them long to work their way North. It wouldn't matter who won, the Vergen area would still have been in disarray after the battle.

Totally agree with you on the rest. Things like the fate of the Elven Women are pretty minor and everyday events in Geralt's life.

I don't think that anything that happened in TW2 would have really changed things. None of the decisions made at Loc Muinne, or the Vergen victory, had time to come into effect. At the most, I'd have liked some minor dialogue updates, but that's all. Aryan, Saskia and Anais are the only significant gaps in knowledge, as far as I'm concerned, and I really hope that these get addressed in one or other of the expansions.

I think that the biggest flaw on continuity is the end-states as described within TW2 itself. Especially the one that Geralt narrates to himself at Loc Muinne if Stennis was still alive, which is clearly NOT what happened.

After the events of the Witcher 2, Aedirn was a mess but in both paths the Upper Aedirn was occupied by an army: the Kaedweni Army (a big one) or the Nonhuman fighters (a small one but with a dragon even if her was wounded). It's normal that Lower Aedirn was occupied quickly: their were in shock after the north independence / conquest by Kaedwen but the North should have offered a much bigger resistence. This simply doesn't makes sense. And none of the outcomes in the Witcher 2 would have us suppose that Temeria would fall so easily.

 

[Toyen]

If Saskia won, Kaedwen left the area and there would only be some civil uprisings if Stennis was actually crowned king and even then her free state is created.

I agree that she doesn´t have legions of soldiers up there BUT she´s a damn dragon! With just one warm breath, she would have scorched the Nilfgaardian legions trying to take over upper Aedirn.

And even though she did not want anybody to know her secret, in this situation she would definitely go for it as it would be perhaps the only way to stop Nilfgaard.

Besides, Emhyr must know a dragon is guarding Uppear Aedirn as suggested by the conversation with the Morvran.

What special weapons he has to fight one? Ballistae and trebuchets maybe.

But it takes time to relocate these things and horse cavalry simply stands no chance against dragon fire.

So it just makes my ears bleed every time I hear the ambassador say that there was "no resistance."

It makes total sense to take over the lower part of Aedirn whether Stennis is king or not in there. If he isn´t well, what´s a few leftover nobles gonna do and if he is, he is still a very weak ruler.

This is just a very major plot hole : (

 

[Waldlaeufer]

If Saskia won, Kaedwen left the area and there would only be some civil uprisings if Stennis was actually crowned king and even then her free state is created.

I agree that she doesn´t have legions of soldiers up there BUT she´s a damn dragon! With just one warm breath, she would have scorched the Nilfgaardian legions trying to take over upper Aedirn.

And even though she did not want anybody to know her secret, in this situation she would definitely go for it as it would be perhaps the only way to stop Nilfgaard.

Besides, Emhyr must know a dragon is guarding Uppear Aedirn as suggested by the conversation with the Morvran.

What special weapons he has to fight one? Ballistae and trebuchets maybe.

But it takes time to relocate these things and horse cavalry simply stands no chance against dragon fire.

So it just makes my ears bleed every time I hear the ambassador say that there was "no resistance."

It makes total sense to take over the lower part of Aedirn whether Stennis is king or not in there. If he isn´t well, what´s a few leftover nobles gonna do and if he is, he is still a very weak ruler.

This is just a very major plot hole : (

This seems to point out to the Roche path with Roche and Geralt doing the kingslayer stuff on Henselt themselves. If Kaedwen conquers Upper Aedirn but Henselt is killed by Roche, then it makes perfect sense that whole of Aedirn was conquered with "no resistance". With Stennis of Aedirn dead on Roche path, Aedirn falls into chaos. With Saskia defeated by Kaedwen (on Roche path), Upper Aedirn would be in no shape to offer any serious resistance to Nilfgaard either, even if Kaedwen army probably falls back after it looses its King. The folks of Upper Aedirn would probably welcome Nilfgaard, given that it treats non-humans decently. Kaedwen would probably fall into internal turmoil as Henselt had no direct heir.

As for Temeria falling quickly to Nilfgaard... why not? Even with John Natalis at the helm in the name of little Anais, there was part of Temerian nobility disposed favourably towards Nilfgaard, so no surprise here, especially given the fact that the kingdom's power was really fragile after Foltest's death. This is most probable scenario as the resistance is flying Temerian colors and is composed of the remnants of the actual Temerian army (so no division or annexation of Temeria happened).

 

[OutgoingHermit]

Upper Aedirn is screwed. They are BARELY able to repulse Henselt's attack at the last moment with the arrival of Iorveth's commandos. In fact, they don't so much win the battle outright as they do capture Henselt and get him to order his men to stand down. The only reason Vergen could plausibly survive is because Henselt has given his word that he will recognize its sovereignty, and so has Stennis. That's it. Radovid is under no such compulsion and as soon as he decides to conquer the rest of the north, they're done.

 

[Toyen]

Don´t forget about the possible dragon fire! : D

Neither Radovid nor Emhyr are ready to fight a dragon.

If Saskia wanted, she could have scorched an entire Henselt´s camp with one breath.

 

[Waldlaeufer]

Don´t forget about the possible dragon fire! : D

Neither Radovid nor Emhyr are ready to fight a dragon.

If Saskia wanted, she could have scorched an entire Henselt´s camp with one breath.

Exactly, that is why it seems like Roche path took place with the Ambassador noting the "no resistance" of Aedirn (on Roche path Aedirn is totally screwed, both the Kingdom of Aedirn with Stennis dead as well as the Upper Aedirn with Saskia defeated by Kaedwyn - she was not able to prevent it at the time, as she was under the control of Phillipa). This or Emhyr made Saskia a good offer she agreed to. This could also make sense especially with regards to Iorveth path (Upper Aedirn as a second Dol Blathanna), but it could make sense also regarding Roche path (as she commands influence over the remnants of Upper Aedirn guerilla forces). In any way, I think Emhyr would want to be on good terms with Saskia.

 

[Sam2305]

This seems to point out to the Roche path with Roche and Geralt doing the kingslayer stuff on Henselt themselves. If Kaedwen conquers Upper Aedirn but Henselt is killed by Roche, then it makes perfect sense that whole of Aedirn was conquered with "no resistance". With Stennis of Aedirn dead on Roche path, Aedirn falls into chaos. With Saskia defeated by Kaedwen (on Roche path), Upper Aedirn would be in no shape to offer any serious resistance to Nilfgaard either, even if Kaedwen army probably falls back after it looses its King. The folks of Upper Aedirn would probably welcome Nilfgaard, given that it treats non-humans decently. Kaedwen would probably fall into internal turmoil as Henselt had no direct heir.

As I said many times, it's obvious that the Roche Path is canon but I don't remember nobles of Temeria supporting Nilfgaard except for Mary Louise La Valette