[Spoilers] Why did my choices in the Witcher 2 matter as much as last years snow? And is anyone else mad about this?

+
@Inariele, I agree that they could have given a passing mention but would that really satisfy people? I think Skirlasvoud has it right in that Saskia and Iorveth are probably being saved for the DLC's.

@Skirlasvoud, you make some fine points. They could and might have mattered if that was the route they picked. On the other hand these choices could have been handled in the same manner as Henselt. Our choice of letting Roche kill him or not didn't matter in the end. It might have some impact in that if Roche kills him Radovid has a super easy time taking it over, vs. fighting and killing Henselt on the battlefield. But in that sense it would matter as to how strong Radovid is. How many troops did he lose etc. And for the game would that matter.

After all the game is really about Geralt and his story. The rest is a backdrop.

And the same goes for Stennis. Let's quickly review how it might matter if Stennis lives. If he does that means he fights Nilfgaard. But in W2 it was said many times that he was weak. He had no real army. In my mind a dragon would cause more damage and death to Nilfgaard then Stennis and a few soldiers ever could.

And I would love to actually debate the effectiveness of rebels, militia and partisans during WW2 (they in reality had a very small impact) but that is for another time and place. May I suggest Paradox forums for Hearts of Iron as this has been discussed there in great detail.

My point is this. Our W2 choices had an impact. The question is how severe and lasting is that impact. In W2 the witch hunts are minor in half the choices but does that mean Radovid doesn't go ahead full force after W2? I think the error and mistake that we make is our choices are somehow binding on the other powers that be and that they can't change their minds or pick different routes.

I ahven't finished the game yet but I was under the impression that Anais wasn't with Radovid and that Adda was still dead from W1.
 
@Inariele, I agree that they could have given a passing mention but would that really satisfy people? I think Skirlasvoud has it right in that Saskia and Iorveth are probably being saved for the DLC's.

@Skirlasvoud, you make some fine points. They could and might have mattered if that was the route they picked. On the other hand these choices could have been handled in the same manner as Henselt. Our choice of letting Roche kill him or not didn't matter in the end. It might have some impact in that if Roche kills him Radovid has a super easy time taking it over, vs. fighting and killing Henselt on the battlefield. But in that sense it would matter as to how strong Radovid is. How many troops did he lose etc. And for the game would that matter.

After all the game is really about Geralt and his story. The rest is a backdrop.

And the same goes for Stennis. Let's quickly review how it might matter if Stennis lives. If he does that means he fights Nilfgaard. But in W2 it was said many times that he was weak. He had no real army. In my mind a dragon would cause more damage and death to Nilfgaard then Stennis and a few soldiers ever could.

And I would love to actually debate the effectiveness of rebels, militia and partisans during WW2 (they in reality had a very small impact) but that is for another time and place. May I suggest Paradox forums for Hearts of Iron as this has been discussed there in great detail.

My point is this. Our W2 choices had an impact. The question is how severe and lasting is that impact. In W2 the witch hunts are minor in half the choices but does that mean Radovid doesn't go ahead full force after W2? I think the error and mistake that we make is our choices are somehow binding on the other powers that be and that they can't change their minds or pick different routes.

I ahven't finished the game yet but I was under the impression that Anais wasn't with Radovid and that Adda was still dead from W1.

Dude I love the game too but how can you say that our TW2 choices had an impact?
Sounds like you are trying too hard to justify CDPR in this regard

Of course they can "change their minds" but this isn't real life but a roleplaying game we need consequences for our choices not being railroaded to a default world state
Very lazy excuse imho
 
@Goodmongo

i personally would be okay with it lol. though i do posted my head canon in an other thread: with saskia either dead or fleeing in search of her papa. since saskia doesnt exsist in the book i am okay with that. iorveth on the other hand is still alive in the books, my headcanon here is that he either followed isengrim or that francesca keeps him hidden in Dol Blathanna ( which would be my prefered choice, since i am still hopeing for a dlc with that sorceress, she is my favorite of the lodge lol)
 
First off Iorveth is alive as far as I can tell based on the one mention of him. At least they didn't say he died. So that leaves open DLC's. But even him alive doesn't mean he MUST appear in W3 simply because he was in W2 and you picked his path. He simply isn't part of the story here.

Now for the parts of the story that were "modified" to fit W3 cannon (thinking Henselt as an example) it makes more sense and is much easier to just handle it this way. Honesly, within the scope of the area and story of W3 what big decision from W2 would have an impact. In fact I see the biggest impact from W2 to W3 is in how the romances are resolved. I think Triss doesn't get her due if you picked her and gave her the rose to illustrate your love for her. To me this was a much bigger impact on the story then anything Iorveth, Saskia, Stennis, Henselt, Anais, Roche, Flotsam, Loredo, Letho etc. could have on Geralt's story.

I would really like to know how you think the game should be different based on any of W2 choices? Nilfgaard easily defeats Aderin with/without Stennis/Saskia etc. Iorveth is doing his thing in that area. One big story point is that Radovid back stabs Kedewin and takes it over. This can easily happen no matter what your W2 choices are. And in fact it is probably sound advice to gain more money and strength to stand up to Nilfgaard. Same for the witch hunts. The Eternal Fire fits in perfectly in this area.
 
First off Iorveth is alive as far as I can tell based on the one mention of him. At least they didn't say he died. So that leaves open DLC's. But even him alive doesn't mean he MUST appear in W3 simply because he was in W2 and you picked his path. He simply isn't part of the story here.

Now for the parts of the story that were "modified" to fit W3 cannon (thinking Henselt as an example) it makes more sense and is much easier to just handle it this way. Honesly, within the scope of the area and story of W3 what big decision from W2 would have an impact. In fact I see the biggest impact from W2 to W3 is in how the romances are resolved. I think Triss doesn't get her due if you picked her and gave her the rose to illustrate your love for her. To me this was a much bigger impact on the story then anything Iorveth, Saskia, Stennis, Henselt, Anais, Roche, Flotsam, Loredo, Letho etc. could have on Geralt's story.

I would really like to know how you think the game should be different based on any of W2 choices? Nilfgaard easily defeats Aderin with/without Stennis/Saskia etc. Iorveth is doing his thing in that area. One big story point is that Radovid back stabs Kedewin and takes it over. This can easily happen no matter what your W2 choices are. And in fact it is probably sound advice to gain more money and strength to stand up to Nilfgaard. Same for the witch hunts. The Eternal Fire fits in perfectly in this area.

The Henselt/Stennis thing not mattering is fine. As you say, it's reasonable they lose their kingdoms regardless. Iorveth being saved for DLC is fine, but there are Scoia'tel who could offer a quest, some dialogue, items, etc. because you sided with him.

Some issues:
  • Roche pretty much treats you the same regardless of which path you took. It's silly. Just cut him out of Kaer Morhen and make him grumpy during your interactions.
  • Stopping the witch hunts doesn't matter because...well they happen regardless. That's fine though. Radovid can do that, but there needs to be a transition period and that transition period gives CDPR time to show you that you still made an impact. Maybe that sorceress when you first enter Novigrad lives because she had time to escape, and Triss gives you an extra "I appreciate what you did in Loc Muinne".
  • If you choose Saskia or Anais, give us a journal entry. That's all we need (like what we had with Shani)
  • Thaler resurrecting from Witcher 1 is slightly bothersome, but more so because it would've been absolutely amazing to me to have a TW1 choice matter in TW3.


Most of these things are easy to implement. They could've removed one, maybe two contracts from the game and given us just enough to show what you did meant something. As it stands, TW1 choices impacted TW2 more than TW2 did on TW3. As good as TW3 is, this is one area that took step backwards.
 
First off Iorveth is alive as far as I can tell based on the one mention of him. At least they didn't say he died. So that leaves open DLC's. But even him alive doesn't mean he MUST appear in W3 simply because he was in W2 and you picked his path. He simply isn't part of the story here.

Now for the parts of the story that were "modified" to fit W3 cannon (thinking Henselt as an example) it makes more sense and is much easier to just handle it this way. Honesly, within the scope of the area and story of W3 what big decision from W2 would have an impact. In fact I see the biggest impact from W2 to W3 is in how the romances are resolved. I think Triss doesn't get her due if you picked her and gave her the rose to illustrate your love for her. To me this was a much bigger impact on the story then anything Iorveth, Saskia, Stennis, Henselt, Anais, Roche, Flotsam, Loredo, Letho etc. could have on Geralt's story.

I would really like to know how you think the game should be different based on any of W2 choices? Nilfgaard easily defeats Aderin with/without Stennis/Saskia etc. Iorveth is doing his thing in that area. One big story point is that Radovid back stabs Kedewin and takes it over. This can easily happen no matter what your W2 choices are. And in fact it is probably sound advice to gain more money and strength to stand up to Nilfgaard. Same for the witch hunts. The Eternal Fire fits in perfectly in this area.

how did you got a mentioning of iorveth :(
you are right with the resolve of the triss story, i was rather confused that the rose wilthed, even though i told her i loved her and never strayed from her. ( yes i hate yennifer, hated her in the books, hate her in the game). what i really liked though about W2 was actually the political situation. so yeah i would liked to read maybe a book how nilfgaard took over aderin even though the upper part had a damn dragon for defending or the ambessedor in the beginning could have said something. Iorveth actually cant stay in that area, since he is one of the commanders that were supposed to be executed after the cetra pact thingy (which actually would make it unlogical that he shows up in the game area you are absolutly right there like mentioned some posts earlier), the Radovid situation i actually saw coming makes even sense political wise.

@sarkocreme

there actually is one quest where you have diolog with them its one of the contracts cant remember which one though, but i do talked with some.. they tried to kill me later though
 
Last edited:
Iorveth being saved for DLC is fine, but there are Scoia'tel who could offer a quest, some dialogue, items, etc. because you sided with him.

They don't really care and why believe you anyway? It's just your word. They didn't have a big news service back then. And you can side with them or kill them.

Some issues:
  • Roche pretty much treats you the same regardless of which path you took. It's silly. Just cut him out of Kaer Morhen and make him grumpy during your interactions.


  • Didn't get to that part yet so can't comment on it.

    [*] Stopping the witch hunts doesn't matter because...well they happen regardless. That's fine though. Radovid can do that, but there needs to be a transition period and that transition period gives CDPR time to show you that you still made an impact. Maybe that sorceress when you first enter Novigrad lives because she had time to escape, and Triss gives you an extra "I appreciate what you did in Loc Muinne".
    There is/was a transition period. It's been 6+ months since W2. Radovid invaded and took over Kedewin. Nilfgaard did the same to other other lands. Lot's of stuff has gone on so far in the game. Even the W2 ending without the massive witch hunts still had minor ones and could easily escalate into big ones.

    As for the one escaping Novigrad your W2 endings should have no impact there. She simply got caught. heck Triss knew about the hunts and would ahve got caught on the rat mission. They made a dumb mistake and got caught. happens to the best of criminals sometimes so it can happen to them. I simply don't see a connect here with your W2 choices.

    [*] If you choose Saskia or Anais, give us a journal entry. That's all we need (like what we had with Shani)
    I would have liked to see that also. but then again it really has no bearing on W3's story. It is a nice to have but has no impact.

    Most of these things are easy to implement. They could've removed one, maybe two contracts from the game and given us just enough to show what you did meant something. As it stands, TW1 choices impacted TW2 more than TW2 did on TW3. As good as TW3 is, this is one area that took step backwards.

    W1 choices had zero impact on W2 outside of one changed line of dialogue in regard to Adda. Please tell me what choices in W1 impacted W2. And how should the story (not one line about Saskia etc.) should have changed in regard to W2 choices? I've asked this a few times and no one has really answered it. How would a W2 choice actually change the plot and story of W3? It sure didn't from W1 to W2.
 
Eh, as much as the Choices don't matter, they're not mattering in the context that a war kind of renders a lot of stuff immaterial.

Roche says, "Who cares about the Elves when Nilfgaard has invaded."

The whole Pontar valley thing is rendered moot by Fantasy Germany.
 
@Goodmongo Regarding the Iorveth and sorceress comments, I was simply suggesting possibilities to provide some type of long term impact to your choices from TW2. I'm certainly fine with that sorceress being burned, and it fits the story well. I proposed an outcome based on your choices from TW2 (and choices that TW3 even acknowledges as important by creating a world state from). These currently don't really exist right now except for Letho.

Again, I am not saying things in the game need to be majorly different. That would be too much work. However, something of note changing such as a minor character living, a conversation with a friend of a friend, an item being given, a quest to undertake, etc. would actually make TW2 changes feel like they mattered.

TW1 affected the following in TW2:
  • Thaler sends you a care package if you saved him
  • Journal entry for Shani if romanced
  • Adda is mentioned by someone else other than Foltest I believe (though it's been a while)
  • Siegfriend can show up in Loc Muinne and prevent Geralt from having to fight the Order
  • Dialogue changes with Iorveth depending if you want Scoia'tael or not
  • Starting with old equipment + bonus money

IMO, that's a greater impact on TW2 both absolutely (more things were impacted from TW1 actions than were impacted by TW2 actions) and relatively (a higher % of major events from TW1 were touched on than in TW2).
 
@sarkocreme, I did forget about Shani (because I liked Triss way more :)) and what you said did happen. I guess my point was in regard to the story being altered or changed. In that regard the only possible story change is that if you give Anais to Radovid he intends to marry her unless Adda was saved. But that is the only story change that I'm aware of.

So when I say what "change or what impact" I'm referring to a change in the plot or story and not a mention in dialogue etc. Along those lines W1 had as much impact on W2 as W2 does to W3.
 
@Goodmongo I'm not arguing for the overall story to be changed. I'm arguing for the choices to impact TW3 in a meaningful and reasonable way. Scale and weight of these decisions also have to be taken into account.

The impact of TW1 decisions on TW2 make sense. Their impact on TW2 are proportionate with their scale and weight. Could more of been done? Sure. That's always going to be the case. The decisions of TW1 are mainly self contained though so there's just not going to be a lot that could carryover into TW2.

Your decisions in TW2 have more far reaching implications, both political and personal. As such they should have have a greater impact on your story in TW3. This does not mean the world has to be radically changed. In a relative sense, TW2's decisions are certainly taken less into account than TW1. And I disagree that even in an absolute sense TW2 has as much impact as TW1. Sile, Letho, and La Valette are fine. But the two biggest decisions of Roche/Iorveth and Triss/Anais/Saskai are completely ignored. I believe each decision gets one line of dialogue that is poorly done.

Roche's interactions don't change in a reasonable way based on your choosing his or Iorveth's path. That's silly. Roche is your BFF even if you "betray" him? No. And then Iorveth isn't in the game, which hey that makes sense. But Geralt should perhaps be treated like someone who assisted at Vergen because that was a pretty big deal. And I'm not saying that is the only way to handle it. I'm saying there are a lot of options that CDPR had to show the player that the game remembered their choices.

Anais isn't mentioned in the game ever AFAIK. If Saskia is freed, that seems to be ignored. The witch hunt happens regardless of if TW2 says it happens or not with the only explanation being "Radovid hates mages". There's no transition elements. There's only CDPR saying "This is the world". It creates dissonance in the plot because the player isn't even sure if their decision was imported correctly because nothing changes. Please don't take that to mean the witch hunts shouldn't happen. They are clearly central to the plot. But more should have been done to transition the player from what they thought the state of the world was to what the state of the world actually is.

As a bonus to all of this, a potentially dead character from TW1 gets resurrected for TW3. The story for TW3 does not need to be changed. It's good. Choices simply need to be handled in a way that makes sense without jarring what the player understands of the world. TW2 didn't retcon anything from TW1. They just made it work. The way CDPR handled TW3 makes it feel like they retconned the previous games.
 
@sarkocreme TW3 is Geralt's story placed int he backdrop of an invasion etc. So in one aspect the one choice from TW2 that should have a huge impact is your relationship to Triss. Personally this is where I think your choices from TW2 fall flat.

I disagree with your premise that TW2 choices should have a much greater impact or "far reaching implications" as you call it. In regard to Roche I might be remembering this wrong but doesn't he say in TW2 that he understands why you went Iroveth path. It was when you had to cross over to the other side in act 2. I can't recall the words but I'm sure he was fine with it and you had the option of saying that you still planned to kill the king slayer and he said something like "it's good to see you will keep your word".

As for assisting at Vergen how should this have a "far reaching implication"? It seems you go back and forth where a single line of dialogue would have been fine to saying that it wouldn't be enough. Remember I had no issue if they had Zoltan or someone mention it but I do have issues in these choices really impacting TW3.

Saskia is busy in Upper Aderin and that is far away so once again outside of a dialogue line what impact should it have? Anais is 8 years old or something like that. Again I see no real impact.

As for the witch hunts 2 out of 4 main endings in TW2 had massive witch hunts. The other two still had witch hunts on a smaller scale. It was a matter of degree. And in TW3 the witch hunts are done by Radovid. I think TW3 did a fine job here. Radovid is nuts with hatred towards Phillipa. He is paranoid about her. He is paranoid about the lodge. Remember these witch hunts are being done in this area. Kovir it says is fine as is Nilfgaard. Radovid is the driving force behind the witch hunts and has allowed the Eternal Fire to do the dirty work for him. Not sure if you ever studied history and witch hunts in Europe but TW3 really nails it. You scoff at "Radovid hates mages" but that is all it actually takes. And TW2 (all endings has Radovid as the main guy leading the killing of mages.

I think the problem is some players misinterpreted the state of the world after TW2. Mages and others have lost their standing no matter what ending you had. Sorceress's were being killed in TW2 no matter what ending. It would never be the same. That was very clear to me. Radovid just had a higher level of hatred. And this game is covering his territory you should expect that.

But I'm curious what "far reaching implications" actually means when it comes to the political aspects of TW3.
 
The game also had Radovid mention that the Conclave is in existence and fine, if a bit weak because Phillipa and her cronies were the strongest mages in the world.

The Mage-Hunt in my game is purely in Novigrad.
 
Greater impact is relative. I said the events in TW2 have more far reaching implications than the events in TW1. The personal and political scopes of TW2 were much larger than TW1. Do you not agree with this?

TW3 itself tells you the importance of the Triss/mage hunt decision by blaming the witch hunts on you during the world state creator questions in Vizima. It seems like you're happy because the game's story makes sense the way it is. The story and world is still good and immersive. However, I do not feel TW3 adequately acknowledged previous choices. The problem isn't misinterpreting the state of the world. The world is plenty believable. The problem is TW3 pretty much feels the same whether you start with a blank slate or import your choices.
 
as i posted before in another thread,
this world is not player created, it is based on an existing property.

would you complain that if a Game of Thrones game came out, you played as one of the characters, make some decisions in the game then when the sequel to that game came out and the story moved on to be in sync with the actual story and ignores the decisions you made in the previous game?

It's more of an adaptation of the books then an exact replica of their narrative.. Just like most books translated to film. Also Mr. Sapkowski sees it that way himself.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...r-of-the-witcher-books-thinks-about-the-games

So honestly does not matter what CDProject does with the source material. To the fans of the game series it would make more sense to keep some type of coherent plot thread throughout the entire series. Which technically there was with the main narrative (via the Wild Hunt). Nevertheless some of the major sub plots that were suppose to be verily important to the next game simply evaporated, while others were railroaded into the main story (even if you did not make that particular choice). Going from Witcher 1 to Witcher 2 sort of kept things in check better then what happens going from Witcher 2 to Witcher 3.

Anyone coming in for the first time into the series will be fine as well as those who enjoyed the novels. However anyone who played through the entire series will notice how much has been dropped in the end.

CDP is not Biowhore, they have never said that the decisions you made in TW2 would drastically affect the subsequent game, only the current one.

the are so many different decisions, it is stupid for developers to cater to every single one.
just accept that there is only one canon version of decisions and the rest are alternate uninverse stuff

By that statement alone I could easily ask this question. Why have the save import at all if the idea of choice was irrelevant? It was a pointless feature that made even little sense to have compared to it's predecessor. Basically It was a waste of resources and time if your going by the logic alone.

Don't get me wrong I enjoyed the game, but I also see less replay value there is compared to Witcher 2. Especially if these choices got knocked off simply because it was easier to forget that Iorveth (including most of the Scoia'tael) sub plots never existed.
 
Last edited:
The sad part for the books fans - Sapkowski told many times that Geralt story is ended. He wrote some kind of alternative ending with marriage of Geralt and Yen, but it was only because fans asked him, he told that it was just a fan-fic but from author himself. The latest book about Geralt - Season of Storms, even not a prequel for the main saga, just a things which was before it. So, I really don't think what we will see something about the main saga from Sapkowski, so all we have - games plot, maybe it's not an official cannon, but we don't have and will not have something better.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom