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

+
Yeiiow;n8420720 said:
As do we all, its specially painfull considering this is how Geralt story is gonna end, on a low note :/

Simply put,we gotta make our voices heard by CD projekt and make it LOUD! The devs done screw the fans from behind like they did! We'll pretty have to pester them and force them to give into our demands in bringing out Iorveth and much of the cut off content in witcher 3(Iorveth mostly since he was a main character and played a huge part in the game but dumb devs cut him off a year before release and instead replaced him with Ves..urgh). This really makes me wanna commit a crime GRRRR! They had the guts to say 'this will not do him justice' YEAH.. REMOVING HIM FROM THE GAME DOES HIM JUSTICE,RIGHT?
 
Jou05;n1853875 said:
Yeah TW3 is a great game as a standalone (or for book fans) but damm it really fails as a sequel to TW2

Sadly not even this is true, even books fans had tons of reason to be dissapointed:

- Not a single mention to fake Ciri
- The White Frost is now an entity that can be defeated rather than a force of nature
- Dijkstra acting out of character
- Everybody went from wanting to have babies with Ciri, to simply wanting Ciri as she is now the Chosen one, rather than her offsprings.

Just to mention a few of the biggest offenders.

 
Yeiiow;n8444460 said:
Just to mention a few of the biggest offenders.

Some of those might have to do with the game being mainly a standalone, the Ciri related bits could be confusing to new players. Dijkstra in Reason of State is just bad writing, perhaps that part of the game was reworked at a late stage of development, and the same may apply to the White Frost.
 
I don't know, maybe they could release some small DLC solving all the plot holes or something. It's not just a bunch of people asking for it, it's basically ALL of the players from the previous games,
 
They had some opportunities with not only a small DLC, but two large expansions, though. And between them, the content related to Witcher 2 is (if I recall correctly) a few Odrin jokes and the one line about Triss in a conversation with Regis. No shortage of references to the books on the other hand, and even to the first game. It seems the current director and/or other leads at CDPR might just not be big fans of Assassins of Kings.
 
(the quoted posts are from another thread, but I reply here to avoid off-topic discussion there)

Sam2305;n9618871 said:
Not true. TW3 didn't respect 70% of TW2's decisions

Which is still better than zero. At least they were trying, as it can be seen here, and the majority of decisions were "respected" in the sense that they were not outright contradicted or canonized, they just did not make much difference. Sure there is no Iorveth in TW3 for story reasons, but the game does not tell you that you sided with Roche in TW2, both paths are still valid. The same applies to Shani in TW1. Also, we got a very good game and expansions. If I had the choice between what we have now vs. not having TW3, HoS and BaW, it might be that the new game is overall still worth the price of some disappointment regarding the imported choices. But TW3 was meant to be the end of a trilogy and Geralt's story in particular, therefore one could expect the endings to be final. I would not want some kind of fan service DLC at the cost of rendering major decisions meaningless, in this case the DLC would not offer enough value to make that worth it.

Sam2305;n9620661 said:
Don't want to be rude. Normally I appreciate your posts but for me, that argument is bullshit for logical reasons.

Why? It does not logically follow from choosing Iorveth's path in TW2 that Iorveth has to appear in TW3 by all means (I understand it is something you are very disappointed about, though). And there is definitely a difference between a choice not mattering in a sequel or only making a small difference, which can happen without breaking continuity, vs. having only one canon path and denying that the other(s) ever existed. Also, TW3 respects choices to a much greater extent than FOTWW does (or rather, does not at all, as far as I have seen). Yes, the mod does have Iorveth in it, but does it respond in any way to the choice between Roche and Iorveth, or does it at least make sense on both paths?
 
sv3672;n9621011 said:
Why? It does not logically follow from choosing Iorveth's path in TW2 that Iorveth has to appear in TW3

It does, it completely does. For two main reasons: they left it's story to be concluded at the end of TW2, like they did with Roche. Secondly, he was announced to be in the game and, after being internally removed, CDPR never said that his character wasn't going to appear before TW3 release.

The decisions weren't respected. If you respect them you should see some consequences from the fact of choosing them and don't leave them in some kind of limbo (don't know if its the correct word in english) trying by all means not to talk about it, which is what they did with 70% of TW2

An another reason to logically expect all this is that CDPR also said that we were going to be able to import or simulate our saves. and that was true, but only for a small dialogue with minor consquences (the one with Vroohis)
 
Last edited:
sv3672;n9621011 said:
If I had the choice between what we have now vs. not having TW3, HoS and BaW, it might be that the new game is overall still worth the price of some disappointment regarding the imported choices.

I admit that this train of thoughts is shared with the majority of players (otherwise, no one could explain the success of TW3) but not by me. Sorry, but I like good stories and, more important, story consistency and TW3 lacks of the latter and the former is clearly improvable comparing with other games.

I agree with you, some dissapoinment could have been acceptable, but for someone like me, who really liked Iorveth's path and scoia'tel-non human story in The Witcher saga, what happened is not just some little disappoinment, they ripped everything off. Everything, while the rest of players have at least some glimpses of what they were looking for. Not even a secondary quest like the one with Roche

 
Last edited:
Sam2305;n9621251 said:
It does, it completely does. For two main reasons: they left it's story to be concluded at the end of TW2, like they did with Roche. Secondly, he was announced to be in the game and, after being internally removed, CDPR never said that his character wasn't going to appear before TW3 release.

It is true that there should have been better communication regarding the removal of Iorveth from the game. Although it is clear that CDPR really did try to give him a role, but the content did not make it into the final version of the game for various reasons.

I still do not see how his absence contradicts choosing his path in TW2, though, it could plausibly be explained in many ways why he is not in Velen or Novigrad.

The decisions weren't respected. If you respected you should see some consequences from the fact of choosing them. You don't repect a decision by leaving it in some kind of limbo (don't know if its the correct word in english) and trying by all means not to talk abou it, which is what they did with 70% of TW2

Leaving a decision open (without showing consequences) is still respecting it when the alternatives are negating it or choosing a canon path. It is at least not a worse situation than what you would have by not getting a sequel. Similarly, not having a major character in a game can sometimes be better than a meaningless cameo role.

An another reason to logically expect all this is that CDPR also said that we were going to be able to import or simulate our saves. and that was true, but only for a small dialogue with minor consquences (the one with Vroohis)

I agree that the save import feature is not perfect, I criticized it myself before, but it is better than nothing. It is difficult to make decisions matter in a major way across games, so one's expectations have to be realistic, even if it could probably be better if more than 1-2% of the content was devoted to this aspect of the game. Of course, if developers do not see a real demand for improvement (this other thread gives the impression that people tend to be fine with ignored choices if that means they can get more fan service), if the depreciation of game content over time is considered normal by the audience, then why spend more on it? In the end, it is a matter of priorities.
 
I know it's an old discussion but the answer is very simple. New players. Both Witcher 1 and 2 didn't appear on PlayStation and with the PS4 having a lion's share of the market, they didn't want to alienate new players.

Being one of those PS4 players, I take issues with that. Before jumping on the Witcher bandwagon with the GOTY edition, I took it upon myself to get into the world of Witcher. I bought books and then the first 2 games on PC. It only made the Witcher 3 experience better. If players want to jump in a game with number 3 in the title and expect to know everything, that's their problem.

But since CDPR was so adamant about this, the issue could have been simply fixed. Make a Mass Effect 2-like story recap of Witcher 2 and then use the choices there to tailor Witcher 3. A 30-minute recap is enugh to get to know the basics of these characters, like Iorveth. At least it's better than what we got, where Witcher 2 doesn't matter much.
 
Snake_Foxhounder;n9640021 said:
But since CDPR was so adamant about this, the issue could have been simply fixed. Make a Mass Effect 2-like story recap of Witcher 2 and then use the choices there to tailor Witcher 3. A 30-minute recap is enugh to get to know the basics of these characters, like Iorveth. At least it's better than what we got, where Witcher 2 doesn't matter much.

There is a similar feature in the game if you choose to simulate a Witcher 2 save, although without a detailed story recap. You can tell what your major decisions (about 5 or so, a few additional smaller choices are imported from a real save) were in Witcher 2 to Voorhis near the end of the prologue, and then the rest of the game changes accordingly. The complaints are mostly about the relative lack of actual consequences to them.

But if the shift of focus towards console markets really was responsible for the world state import not to be given a higher priority, then at least it might be improved in a future game (that is, assuming that it is a sequel where TW3 choices could even matter in the first place, interviews hinted that a new story would be started). After all, Wild Hunt is already on the PS4 and XB1, and with 10+ million copies sold it is hardly an unknown game now.
 
sv3672;n9641391 said:
There is a similar feature in the game if you choose to simulate a Witcher 2 save, although without a detailed story recap. You can tell what your major decisions (about 5 or so, a few additional smaller choices are imported from a real save) were in Witcher 2 to Voorhis near the end of the prologue, and then the rest of the game changes accordingly. The complaints are mostly about the relative lack of actual consequences to them.

But if the shift of focus towards console markets really was responsible for the world state import not to be given a higher priority, then at least it might be improved in a future game (that is, assuming that it is a sequel where TW3 choices could even matter in the first place, interviews hinted that a new story would be started). After all, Wild Hunt is already on the PS4 and XB1, and with 10+ million copies sold it is hardly an unknown game now.

The issue is that most of these decisions are based on assumption that players know something about these characters. You're asked who you sided with, Roche or Iorveth. For someone who hasn't played Witcher 2 that means very little. What I'd like to se is a few minutes of a storyboard explaining a bit of the characters' background. Their basic features, motivations and personality traits. Just a few minutes of introduction.

I was a bit surprised how you get to decide futures of entire kingdoms, like the choice with Foltest's children, and have them have no impact on Witcher 3. Nilfgaard just takes over. I think a 20-30 minute story recap, with choices being thrown in, would do wonders. It's still a good story, though, so I won't complain...much.

Witcher 3 definitely put REDs on the map, big time. It was HUGE and the praise was well deserved. And I wouldn't mind a new story, as long as it's in the same, beautiful world. And as long as REDs do what they did with Witcher 3, it'll be a day one purchase for me. Something that was previously reserved only for Naughty Dog and Rockstar.
 
I hope in a future Witcher installment,we'll get more background story about the characters that were lacking.
 
They had some opportunities with not only a small DLC, but two large expansions, though. And between them, the content related to Witcher 2 is (if I recall correctly) a few Odrin jokes and the one line about Triss in a conversation with Regis. No shortage of references to the books on the other hand, and even to the first game. It seems the current director and/or other leads at CDPR might just not be big fans of Assassins of Kings.

Indeed!

Altough the expansions were great(heart of stone being the best of the two), i personally feel that they were a wasted oportunity overall(specially blood and wine). The time and resources spend on them would have gone a very long way into a proper Enhanced Edition for the core game in stead.
So many recuring characters from the books, some even back from the grave, that serve as nothing more than bad fan service(for the sake of fan service, rather than to add to the story and or narrative in a meaninfull way).

Its a shame the triology ended in such a low note, with previous two games being mostly ignored.
Even on the technical aspect Red Dead Redemption 2 is puting The Witcher 3 to shame(to nones surprise as Rockstar has more resources and tw3 is several years old).

With all the money CDPR made from the game and its expansions, they should have put some aside to further improve their signature tittle. Oportunities were aplenty(10-11 year aniversary would had been a perfect moment for such anouncement) and the resources are still there, the only thing missing is the will to do so.
 
What people here largely seem to fail to realise is that, in the end, The Witcher 2 was never about who sided with whom, it was about a larger scheme of things that Geralt had been completely unaware of up until the summit in Loc Muinne. Hence the unmet expectations where there should be none.

First off, the Nilfgaardian invasion acts as force majeure, rendering the "pro-state" decisions in TW2 completely irrelevant, as an independent Temeria would still be far from stable when the Nilfgaardians crossed the Yaruga, and thus an easy target (alternatively, its new ruler(s) could not realistically secure their newly acquired positions there in such a short timespan), as for the Upper Aedirn, the best they could reasonably hope for against the Redanian+Kaedveni or Nilfgaardian army is guerilla warfare Queen Meve style, especially since one of the pillars of their state (powerful sorceresses) had been no more by the end of TW2. In the new political reality, their idealistic cause was bound to be a lost one anyway, so why include them in TW3? Were they to make a cameo appearance, how could they have contributed to the story in an impactful way, given the very nature of their ideas? I just don't see an opportunity for that, whereas Roche and Taler following the Maravel Plan have found their way in, and justly so.

Next we have the witch hunt. While it may seem that another major decision to help Triss and expose Philippa and Sila prevents this calamity, it really only postpones the inevitable as the only two major monarchs left in the North (and since Henselt is killed either way, it leaves us with Radovid as our only option, and he is completely nuts) did not hold mages in very high regard and it would make all the sense for them to use half an excuse to crack down on mages, especially since there is no denying their role in the success of the Nilfgaardian onslaught. With pursuing other paths in TW2 you just make it all pretty straightforward, with no Council and Conclave to sugarcoat the bitter reality the adepts of magic and various other mutants had found themselves in in the North at the end of TW2 - or did you think that with Radovid and those gentlemen from the Order of the Flaming Rose it could have been any different? Besides, technically speaking, including a reality in TW3 in which for mages everything is safe and sound would've been the same as creating two different games, hence couldn't have been an option in the first place.

No matter what «important» choices you make in TW2, the plan preceding the Nilfgaardian invasion is largely successful (with 2-3 kings dead, their realms in turmoil and the northern mages compromised big time thanks to the Lodge's actions), and you can't help but feel played when talking to Letho, especially if you let Shillard play his little spectacle at the summit to the royal amusement. The game itself is but a prologue, it is only logical that the choices you make while playing it will matter very little. CDPR did not disregard your decisions, they simply took them for their real value on the bigger picture.

So, while you may weep and curse CDPR for forcing certain decisions on you, they all make total sense story- and canon-wise when you give it a good consideration.
 
Last edited:

Guest 3847602

Guest
Next we have the witch hunt. While it may seem that another major decision to help Triss and expose Philippa and Sila prevents this calamity, it really only postpones the inevitable as the only two major monarchs left in the North (and since Henselt is killed either way, it leaves us with Radovid as our only option, and he is completely nuts) did not hold mages in very high regard and it would make all the sense for them to use half an excuse to crack down on mages, especially since there is no denying their role in the success of the Nilfgaardian onslaught. With pursuing other paths in TW2 you just make it all pretty straightforward, with no Council and Conclave to sugarcoat the bitter reality the adepts of magic and various other mutants had found themselves in in the North at the end of TW2 - or did you think that with Radovid and those gentlemen from the Order of the Flaming Rose it could have been any different? Besides, technically speaking, including a reality in TW3 in which for mages everything is safe and sound would've been the same as creating two different games, hence couldn't have been an option in the first place.
"Neutral ending" to TW2 implied that Radovid was fine with reestablishment of conclave under his conditions and he wasn't portrayed as anything resembling the mad king prior to TW3. Commencing the witch-hunt while you're under existential threat by foreign invaders is completely illogical and insane - you're destabilizing your country and spreading your forces too thin. It's like Stalin deciding that it's perfect time to initiate his purges while Germans are entering Smolensk.

I don't think too many people were expecting for every decision from TW2 to matter in the sequel, just that the war outcome would be influenced by major ones (like having unified Temeria, free Upper Aedirn or Super-Kaedwen). Otherwise, what was the point of having them, at all?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Commencing the witch-hunt while you're under existential threat by foreign invaders is completely illogical and insane - you're destabilizing your country and spreading your forces too thin. It's like Stalin deciding that it's perfect time to initiate his purges while Germans are entering Smolensk.

Radovid is a tough cookie with glaring distrust for mages after years of playing the 2nd violin in Philippa's orchestra. He wants to reign supreme above all, and sees powerful, cunning and ambitious mages as a destabilising force not only for his personal quest for power, but also for raison d'état in a broader sense. Where you (and myself) clearly see a potential for another Sodden Hill, he sees a potential for another Vilgefortz. What I'm saying is that he had his reasons, his actions were internally justified and coherent. In my opinion, he resembles Ivan the Terrible very much: both are objectively capable statesmen, but had their demons and were too thirsty for power and control. They even share similar nicknames.

As for the Council and Conclave, these are just simulacra to do his bidding and to be disposed of at first opportunity. Or else why would he give home and shelter to the Order in Redania after the events of the 1st game? He already had ample other soldiers and knights. I think that his plan to commence a witch hunt goes way back, it isn't something very spontaneous. Same as with destabilising a neighbouring state by sponsoring a terrorist organisation only to take advantage of it by offering a helping hand in squashing the fruits of his own actions. He is a potent politician, above all.

Speaking of making many major decisions matter, I think it was clearly a matter of the sheer amount of resources to make all this count in such an enormous game, and they decided against it, nullifying what they could using story tools and pushing for a universal narrative. It might seem controversial, but understandable once you try to shift optics just a little bit.

That's just my take on it, because I, too, was at first disappointed with how they handled my choices, but on the second thought I reconciled with it.
 
Last edited:

Guest 3847602

Guest
Radovid is a tough cookie with glaring distrust for mages after years of playing the 2nd violin in Philippa's orchestra. He wants to reign supreme above all, and sees powerful, cunning and ambitious mages as a destabilising force not only for his personal quest for power, but also for raison d'état in a broader sense. Where you (and myself) clearly see a potential for another Sodden Hill, he sees a potential for another Vilgefortz. What I'm saying is that he had his reasons, his actions were internally justified and coherent. In my opinion, he resembles Ivan the Terrible very much: both are objectively capable statesmen, but had their demons and were too thirsty for power and control. They even share similar nicknames.

As for the Council and Conclave, these are just simulacra to do his bidding and to be disposed of at first opportunity. Or else why would he give home and shelter to the Order in Redania after the events of the 1st game? He already had ample other soldiers and knights. I think that his plan to commence a witch hunt goes way back, it isn't something very spontaneous.
It's not that I find unrealistic that he would turn on the mages (knowing his history with Philippa) at some point, it's that the timing was so incredibly inopportune and facepalm-worthy in case of the neutral ending.
Same as with destabilising a neighbouring state by sponsoring a terrorist organisation only to take advantage of it by offering a helping hand in squashing the fruits of his own actions. He is a potent politician, above all.
You're right, that's a good example of potent politician. The problem is, he never does anything that's not self-destructive in TW3. Sure, the game loves to tell you what a mastermind and tactical genius he is, yet his every action tells you the exact opposite. He has managed to alienate every potential ally (Knights included), save for the Church, while being vastly outnumbered by Nilfgaardians. There's being evil and there's being stupid evil.
Speaking of making many major decisions matter, I think it was clearly a matter of the sheer amount of resources to make all this count in such an enormous game, and they decided against it, nullifying what they could using story tools and pushing for a universal narrative. It might seem controversial, but understandable once you try to shift optics just a little bit.
That's the thing - TW3 is by the large a very personal story with politics and war being far second (and mainly isolated from the main plot). Having more, or at least some variety in regard to the worldstates, based on what have happened at the end of the previous game would have helped the game immensely at not too great of a cost. Obviously, TW3 has turned out to be a great and beloved game, but the way politics, war, and save imports are handled were pretty much universally among the most disappointing and heavily criticized aspects of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think too many people were expecting for every decision from TW2 to matter in the sequel, just that the war outcome would be influenced by major ones (like having unified Temeria, free Upper Aedirn or Super-Kaedwen). Otherwise, what was the point of having them, at all?

Besides, no one says there wasn't, say, a unified Temeria at one point, or free Upper Aedirn. It's just that they were eventually overwhelmed, hence your choice didn't really matter in the end. Same with mages: sparing Radovid the effort to wipe them out in Loc Muinne doesn't mean he won't try it later (and he had evidently been planning to do precisely that for quite some time before the events of TW2).

That was the point of my original post: it's not that your choices were completely brushed off or not acknowledged, it's that they were made to be a dead end to justify the status quo of TW3. One may like it or not, but there is some sense and ground to how things are in TW3.
 

Guest 3847602

Guest
Besides, no one says there wasn't, say, a unified Temeria at one point, or free Upper Aedirn. It's just that they were eventually overwhelmed, hence your choice didn't really matter in the end. Same with mages: sparing Radovid the effort to wipe them out in Loc Muinne doesn't mean he won't try it later (and he had evidently been planning to do precisely that for quite some time before the events of TW2).

That was the point of my original post: it's not that your choices were completely brushed off or not acknowledged, it's that they were made to be a dead end to justify the status quo of TW3.
Yes, I'm aware of that, it's certainly efficient way of railroading every player toward the same spot from where to start TW3, what's more, it's even consistent with the general theme of futility and pessimism.
But, at the same time, this are the role-playing games, choices and consequences are the big reason why folks love them as much, so getting virtually no payoff for what they worked towards previously will always be perceived as a big negative.
Again, I get the concept, it didn't ruin the game for me, but I think it's totally understandable why people feel disappointed about it. Especially, given how lackluster everything about the war and politics in TW3 turned out to be. ;)
 
Top Bottom