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

+
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..

Yeah, but everyone was expecting that her character would appear in TW3 and, in the end, is what happened, so, I wouldn't put it as an example. I'm agree with you on Yaevin but his character was properly replaced with Iorveth. At this point, I would be glad if they had done the same with Isengrim. My complains are not just because of Iorveth but the whole scoia'tel plot, which was much more important and there is no word about it in TW3. Also, Yaevinn had a line in a dialogue with Iorveth back in TW2.


Being realistic, TW saga is finished and a future game about this world it's not just unlikely, it's impossible from my point of view. TW3 was the end and sadly, those who chose Iorveth paths were completely ignored
 
Last edited:
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.
I know there were such plans but they decided that it would be too difficult for general audience (read not us) to understand so I suggested another way to make wild hunt interesting. Ideally I would love both flashback scene and infiltration quest.
Back to the topic of Iorweth and his absence in Witcher 3. I'm a huge Vernon Roche fan, I like Iorweth but I still haven't finished his path in Witcher 2. My main problem with Roche in Witcher 3 is that he is always going to appear it doesn't matter if you sided with him or with Iorweth in Witcher 2. Meeting him doesn't feel special he is just another npc. If there were two paths in Witcher 3 a) I would feel rewarded meeting with Roche b) I would be motivated to finish Iorweth's path in second game so I could continue it in Witcher 3.
 
I know there were such plans but they decided that it would be too difficult for general audience (read not us) to understand so I suggested another way to make wild hunt interesting. Ideally I would love both flashback scene and infiltration quest.

I think they would have preferred the infiltration quest because it would have told events from Geralt's point of view as they are actually happening in present time, while long flashbacks are generally avoided when possible. For the few that are in the game, there is an explanation why their use makes sense: the prologue in Kaer Morhen with young Ciri is a dream, while Ciri's flashbacks are NPCs (like the baron, Dandelion, or reanimated Skjall) telling their stories with her to Geralt who needs the information to find her.

Back to the topic of Iorweth and his absence in Witcher 3. I'm a huge Vernon Roche fan, I like Iorweth but I still haven't finished his path in Witcher 2. My main problem with Roche in Witcher 3 is that he is always going to appear it doesn't matter if you sided with him or with Iorweth in Witcher 2. Meeting him doesn't feel special he is just another npc.

It does make sense that Roche is always in the game regardless of who you sided with in TW2, after all, choosing Iorveth's path would not prevent him from still becoming the commander of the Temerian guerillas near Novigrad. And I suspect if Iorveth's content was not deleted, he would also have ended up in Novigrad regardless of the imported choices. It is more of an issue that Roche does not seem to care about who Geralt sided with, the only difference it makes is the scene when entering the camp for the first time.

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.

It seems the save import is given a similar priority in terms of resource management to the free DLCs, the new dialogues added with the Hearts of Stone patch, and the vineyard guests in Blood and Wine - all roughly 2% of the content of the respective game or expansion they are released with. That might be what is seen by the management as acceptable for non-essential "bonus content". I guess the best way to avoid problems with bad save import in TW4 (or whatever it would be called) is not making the story a continuation of the existing trilogy. :)
 
Yeah, but everyone was expecting that her character would appear in TW3 and, in the end, is what happened, so, I wouldn't put it as an example. I'm agree with you on Yaevin but his character was properly replaced with Iorveth. At this point, I would be glad if they had done the same with Isengrim. My complains are not just because of Iorveth but the whole scoia'tel plot, which was much more important and there is no word about it in TW3. Also, Yaevinn had a line in a dialogue with Iorveth back in TW2.


Being realistic, TW saga is finished and a future game about this world it's not just unlikely, it's impossible from my point of view. TW3 was the end and sadly, those who chose Iorveth paths were completely ignored

He will probably feature in the single player campaign for Gwent, though I am sure that will not satisfy everyone.

The series has always been terrible at handling the save import between games but, to be fair, that is to be expected and probably for the best. It is nigh impossible to do right by your previous choices no matter what they do, and it is even harder if you want to have a good, self-contained story. To be honest, I did not find Roche's appearance in the third game to be all that satisfying, and I am sort of glad that Iorveth did not go through the same.

Or what about the worst offender, in my personal opinion? Shani is the go to choice for me in the first game, and yet she is utterly absent from the second game and Geralt is forced not only to have Triss as a sidekick, but also as a lover. I find that to be by far the most egregious case of ignoring player choices from previous games, and part of me would like to insist that carrying that choice over in a proper way would not have taken much. But in the end, I understand why they did it, and it's easier to complain than to actually make the damn game. That doesn't do away with my dissatisfaction, but it does help me deal with it.
 
The series has always been terrible at handling the save import between games but, to be fair, that is to be expected and probably for the best. It is nigh impossible to do right by your previous choices no matter what they do, and it is even harder if you want to have a good, self-contained story.

It is not impossible to implement a save import that is at least noticeably better than what is in the current games, it is a matter of the amount of resources devoted to this aspect of the game. In The Witcher 2 and 3, only about 2% or less of the content is related in some way to the save import, so you cannot expect much from that. It could be more if the developers really wanted to improve it, but I guess since the bad import does not cost them a significant amount of sales, it is just not made a high priority. At best the next Witcher game (if there will be any) will start a new story and will not need to rely on the save import much, if at all, as I doubt the policy of not making it more than an afterthought would change.

Or what about the worst offender, in my personal opinion? Shani is the go to choice for me in the first game, and yet she is utterly absent from the second game and Geralt is forced not only to have Triss as a sidekick, but also as a lover. I find that to be by far the most egregious case of ignoring player choices from previous games, and part of me would like to insist that carrying that choice over in a proper way would not have taken much.

Actually, it would not have been as easy as it may seem at first. Keeping Shani as a lover in TW2 would not only have required giving her a major role in the story and changing the existing scenes with Triss, but it would also have made implementing relationships in TW3 more difficult. When TW2 was written, it was already known that a trilogy is planned and that Yennefer would return in the final game. Three LI choices in Wild Hunt and taking into account all the possible paths from the first two games would have been a lot of extra work (considering all the content in TW3 that now assumes unconditionally that Geralt was in a relationship with Triss recently and they broke up after the second game with no explanation), so with that in mind CDPR's decisions are understandable, even if disappointing.
 
Last edited:
He will probably feature in the single player campaign for Gwent, though I am sure that will not satisfy everyone.

The series has always been terrible at handling the save import between games but, to be fair, that is to be expected and probably for the best. It is nigh impossible to do right by your previous choices no matter what they do, and it is even harder if you want to have a good, self-contained story. To be honest, I did not find Roche's appearance in the third game to be all that satisfying, and I am sort of glad that Iorveth did not go through the same.

First, if you don't care about save import, don't import any decision. It's unfair to see Roche or Ves and not Saskia and Iorveth. With that, IMO, they are saying that the decisions of some players were more important than the others. And more important, what's the point of simulating save games at the beginning of the game?. It was completely USELESS (except for Letho). By doing that,you are telling the player that you're decisions mattered which was a LIE. If you are going to remove a important character from the story which has been previously announced, the righ thing to do is to tell to your clients and they didn't. The problem it's not just the bad save import. It is that they gave the impression that, at least. some of the big choices of TW2 would be implement in this game and that didn't happened. It would have been fair if, at least, none character from TW2 would had made it into TW3.

As for the Gwent card game, there hasn't been any confirmation by CDPR refering to the incluison of Iorveth or Saskia. In my experience, when CDPR's doesn't say a word about something in especific, that means "no". I'm tire of assumptions. I would believe only when I hear it from CDPR. And believe me, no one who chose Iorveth's path or really like the character would be satisfied with that. The only way to "make justice" to the character would be his inclusion in the game
 
It is not impossible to implement a save import that is at least noticeably better than what is in the current games, it is a matter of the amount of resources devoted to this aspect of the game. In The Witcher 2 and 3, only about 2% or less of the content is related in some way to the save import, so you cannot expect much from that. It could be more if the developers really wanted to improve it, but I guess since the bad import does not cost them a significant amount of sales, it is just not made a high priority. At best the next Witcher game (if there will be any) will start a new story and will not need to rely on the save import much, if at all, as I doubt the policy of not making it more than an afterthought would change.

I don't know. I have yet to see any case of a save import implemented in a way that was more than just okay. Usually it comes down to a bunch of lackluster cameos of old characters that serve for little else than making the world smaller and the story more awkward, when not outright ruining those characters. Think Roche and Thaler in TW3. I've heard Letho and Sile are not much better. Large decisions are even harder to carry over from one game to the other. When I saw the epilogue of TW2, describing the political fallout of the story, I knew immediately that none of that was going to matter in the next game. There was just no feasible way to make it matter, and the Nilfgaardian invasion was bound to make it irrelevant anyway.

Actually, it would not have been as easy as it may seem at first. Keeping Shani as a lover in TW2 would not only have required giving her a major role in the story and changing the existing scenes with Triss, but it would also have made implementing relationships in TW3 more difficult. When TW2 was written, it was already known that a trilogy is planned and that Yennefer would return in the final game. Three LI choices in Wild Hunt and taking into account all the possible paths from the first two games would have been a lot of extra work (considering all the content in TW3 that now assumes unconditionally that Geralt was in a relationship with Triss recently and they broke up after the second game with no explanation), so with that in mind CDPR's decisions are understandable, even if disappointing.

That is my point. I realize it would have been nearly impossible to carry over that decision without altering the story as is, and it would have been likely to be done in such a way that it would negatively affect the plot and the characters involved. So I can see why there's no Shani in the second game, even if I find it disappointing. I was presenting it as a case of the save import being lackluster, but having a reason for it. If you had given me the choice between a series that tried to respect the Triss/Shani decision from the first game and the Iorveth/Roche one from the second and what we got, I would probably still go with the latter. At the end of the day, The Witcher is made up of self-contained stories, so choice and consequence ought to matter more within a given entry in the series than throughout them.

Although, I cannot deny I would have liked them to do just a little better regarding the Triss/Shani debacle in the second game. At the very least, I would have preferred it if Geralt was not forced to be with Triss. For a developer that boasts on respecting the concept of player choice (and I would say they do, more often than not) that was somewhat... disappointing. It is like in TW2 you sided with Iorveth, only for TW3 to come around and tell you that actually you turned him in to Roche in the time between games.

First, if you don't care about save import, don't import any decision. It's unfair to see Roche or Ves and not Saskia and Iorveth. With that, IMO, they are saying that the decisions of some players were more important than the others. And more important, what's the point of simulating save games at the beginning of the game?. It was completely USELESS (except for Letho). By doing that,you are telling the player that you're decisions mattered which was a LIE. If you are going to remove a important character from the story which has been previously announced, the righ thing to do is to tell to your clients and they didn't. The problem it's not just the bad save import. It is that they gave the impression that, at least. some of the big choices of TW2 would be implement in this game and that didn't happened. It would have been fair if, at least, none character from TW2 would had made it into TW3.

I did not say I didn't care about the save import, just that I never expected much from it. The transition between TW1 and TW2 was poor enough; there was no reason to think the one between TW2 and TW3 would be in any way superior. I should say that I actually went with Iorveth in my so far only playthrough and would have liked to see him in the third game. However, I don't think a forced cameo would have added significantly to my experience. Roche and Ves' did not, even if I also liked the two of them.

I understand Iorveth was supposed to be in the game originally, but they scrapped him? Stuff changes during game development all the time. I understand the disappointment, and I agree that it is not fair that Roche, Ves, Letho, Shile and even Thaler get crappy cameos but Iorveth and Saskia don't. But I would hardly call it underhanded deception that made it turn out that way. I believe they didn't add Iorveth because, ultimately, he was not important to the story of TW3 and the cost was deemed to high to make it practical. Such is the way of things.

As for the Gwent card game, there hasn't been any confirmation by CDPR refering to the incluison of Iorveth or Saskia. In my experience, when CDPR's doesn't say a word about something in especific, that means "no". I'm tire of assumptions. I would believe only when I hear it from CDPR. And believe me, no one who chose Iorveth's path or really like the character would be satisfied with that. The only way to "make justice" to the character would be his inclusion in the game

It would depend on how the solo mode turns out, but I would argue a single player campaign dedicated to him and/or Saskia is far preferable to the treatment he would have gotten in TW3 e.g. a pretty bad cameo. That is just my opinion, though, so I understand if you just don't feel the same.
 
I understand Iorveth was supposed to be in the game originally, but they scrapped him? Stuff changes during game development all the time.

I'm sick of hearing this excuse. Ok, everyone knows that things happens during the development but if you are forced to remove a character previously announced, you must tell it to your client. On the second place, IMO, there were reasons to think that the save import was going to be better in TW3 because, during the month before the realease, they said from the previous that our decisions will matter in TW2 and there was an especific option to simulate save games
 
On the second place, IMO, there were reasons to think that the save import was going to be better in TW3 because, during the month before the realease, they said from the previous that our decisions will matter in TW2 and there was an especific option to simulate save games

Which is indeed an improvement for those who do not have (or no longer have) any save files to use, although it may also have been added because of the console players. But other than that, there is hardly much improvement, it is again basically one NPC with a half decent cameo and some small bits here and there.
 
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.


I joined this forum to add to this thread. I loved this series of game. It might be my favorite and completely eclipsed my love of Elder Scrolls games. I've been saving a third playthrough for winter as I have yet to go through new choice paths and DLC. I love the improvement of immersive experience in Wild Hunt but I was left with something really missing: the relationships have disappeared.

6 months prior to the Wild Hunt, the choices I made in 2 helped of friends liberate a city. Friends I fought with seemed completely detached. Did Geralt realize with regaining his memory that he hated his friends? I was completely dissatisfied with the disjointedness. Sure, more content shedding light on key characters from 2 -- wherabouts, survival of the invasion, so on would've been easy gains to the immersion but the real loss of opportunity to make the experience feel connected were the cutscenes where Geralt and old friends had little to engage with regarding their rather formative pasts. Vizima got crazy prior to the invasion, no discussions, bigotry was convincing non-humans to join guerrilla forces, an invasion of a new overwhelming force doesn't stop underground movements. Resistance movements of France, Germany, and Italy against their political leaders existed before and after U.S. involvement. I get the Empire would steamroll with brutality but the emperor is aware of the importance of swift conquest to find his daughter and deal with the growing discontent of his political rivals for lack of heir. In fact, why weren't there more factions that sided with the Empire to curry political clout? References to the first two games would have made them feel like a part of a story arc that stretches beyond the big finale.

I agree with others here, Bioware dropped the ball on the ending delivery but the Mass Effect trilogy was sewn together well and maintained the relationships and cumulative life experiences of the characters that felt real and meaningful. I suspect relationships and story continuity are important to gamers here. It was an awesome game, but I replayed the second Witcher after the first playthrough of Wild Hunt to see if much changed choosing different paths but I have been throroughly disappointed with the negligence in story attentiveness by CD Projekt. I love what the gals and guys have done with their studio. I just hope they learn from these mistakes going forward.

---------- Updated at 02:26 PM ----------

There are probably developers who do care or even already said so in interviews, but if the top dogs responsible for actually making the major decisions say that no more Witcher 3 content is planned because the resources are better spent on other projects, then there will not be more Witcher 3 content. A petition by a few hundred or even thousand people - out of 10+ million who bought the game - might not be enough to change the strategy of a large company. However, they may still return to the game at some point in the future, for example because of a new generation of consoles (even TW2:EE was likely related to the Xbox 360 port) if it is predicted that the game would sell well on those with some upgrades. Although for the improved versions of the PS4 and XB1 the enhancements might be limited to increasing some settings to closer to what is possible on PC.

The irony of this is that all of my friends who bought Witcher 3 and hadn't played the previous titles felt they were stepping into something in the end and none followed through to finish the game anyway. Seems a stupid move to alienate your dedicated fans in a gamble to bring more people into the fold but I thing you're right.
 
I think CDPR tried too hard to make TW3 appealing to everyone, forgeting its main fanbase who played TW1 and 2. To be honest I even prefer TW1 to 2 transition, i felt it smoother, even though I chose Shani and then magicaly appeared with Triss, at least they gave me an explanation on why that happened and I could keep my armor and swords, giving me a feelling of "continuity".

In TW3 I have to get Arondight again even when I had it in TW1 and 2. Anais gets ignored without explanation (was it really that hard to write some lines about her in "characters") and the same goes for Iorveth, Saskia, Aryan, John Natalis, etc. Also why the fuck is Radovid so fkin crazy? He was kind of nice in TW1 and 2 (I think it's because Adda got ignored too). I mean, they make like 1000 side quest where like just half of them are truly interesting and well made (but damn when they are good they are pretty good) and 1000 useless bandit campaments instead of keeping the continuity for us the fans. I'm not talking about every single choice having an impact but at least the very important ones (Henselt's murder, Iorveth or Roche, Adda alive or not and maybe something about love interest) I don't think it was that hard.

I am really pissed off to be honest. I like the game, I think it was a great game on his own (one of the best) but as a whole it has disapointed me. I was so fkin excited when playing TW2 and having to make all those choices thinking about the consecuencies that when I finished TW3 withous seeing any change I don't know, it was a big disappointment.

I also think choices in tw2 were better because you could more or less figure out the outcome (like killing Henslet and knowing the north will be weaker) in TW3 you have thing like: a) Calm down Ciri b)Let's destroy the lab; like how can you posibly know one of those will lead you to the good ending and the other to the bad one?

But it was a rly good game overall. Loved mos of it.
 
Still think they should have done it Dragon Age Keep style.

Dragon Age Inquisition reflects so many choices you have made in the previous 2 games and look how popular it was even among newcomers.

I think approach like this lifts the whole series up instead of it confusing new players.

Look at the Queen Anora cameo in Inquisition, a cameo like this for Queen Adda for example was all we needed!!!
 
I think the biggest issue all in all is the way too many mentions and showcasing of book-related stuff, and almost no thought given to the previous 2 games actions and concecuences in comparison. I mean i am all in for more book interconection, however not at the price of making the previous 2 games feel almost completly unrelated to the 3rd.
 
Yeiiow;n7926320 said:
I think the biggest issue all in all is the way too many mentions and showcasing of book-related stuff, and almost no thought given to the previous 2 games actions and concecuences in comparison. I mean i am all in for more book interconection, however not at the price of making the previous 2 games feel almost completly unrelated to the 3rd.

Agree. And also the few references to TW2 are related to Roche's path. No sign of elves or scoiatel
 
Yeiiow;n7926320 said:
I think the biggest issue all in all is the way too many mentions and showcasing of book-related stuff, and almost no thought given to the previous 2 games actions and concecuences in comparison. I mean i am all in for more book interconection, however not at the price of making the previous 2 games feel almost completly unrelated to the 3rd.

Indeed, it gives the impression the developers do not value their own previous work particularly much, and that it is anticipated that the books remain more popular in the long term as the games become technically outdated. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how (if at all) the upcoming single player GWENT campaigns handle the major choices made in Wild Hunt, should any of them be written as a continuation of the story.
 
Yeiiow;n8317900 said:
Where are you CDPROJEKT?!

At this time, they are probably more concerned with Cyberpunk development, maybe even the next Witcher game is already in some early (concept) stage, just not announced yet. One can only hope that a similar thread to this one will not be needed for Witcher 3 decisions.
 
sv3672;n8325060 said:
One can only hope that a similar thread to this one will not be needed for Witcher 3 decisions.
Oh, but we will see such a thread for Cyberpunk. . . In fact, I'm anticipating a total lack of Witcher III decisions and content there.
 
Riven-Twain;n8325160 said:
Oh, but we will see such a thread for Cyberpunk. . . In fact, I'm anticipating a total lack of Witcher III decisions and content there.

Well, if Ciri and Avallach just happen to be in the Cyberpunk's universe during one of her wandering through space and time, there's room for inconsistencies, too (I'm joking). I could see that happen, it would be a nice form of fanservice.



Anyway, the criticism exposed on this thread is unfortunately spot on. I love Wild Hunt, I really do, it's one of my favourite games, but damn, I feel quite let down when I think about all the missed opportunities, the plot holes and the watered down narrative.
 
eloise;n8328110 said:
Anyway, the criticism exposed on this thread is unfortunately spot on. I love Wild Hunt, I really do, it's one of my favourite games, but damn, I feel quite let down when I think about all the missed opportunities, the plot holes and the watered down narrative.

As do we all, its specially painfull considering this is how Geralt story is gonna end, on a low note :/
 
Top Bottom