Well the main decision was whether Adda survives the first game. In TW2 it felt like her survival was an inconvenience to the story they wanted to tell. It felt weird that Radovid wanted to marry so-and-so when she comes of age despite already being married, or that being married to Adda was considered inappropriate, even though he married her for political/strategic reasons in the first game?
Honestly, with the way they've been referring to this as a "standalone" story and still suggesting that your TW2 choice will have some weight on the world. My guess is that the game's main story will not be influenced by TW2 choices; if they do show up they'll be limited to small callbacks and cameos that are totally superfluous. Anything more significant is probably optional side content.
Or they'll do the Bioware handwave with some of the major choices like... Yeah, you saved Trish and the Council was created but then X-Y-Z happens before the start of Witcher 3 and the witchhunt happened anyway.
This is why I think they might be overdoing it with the self-praise. You can't talk about the importance of choices, then disregard previous choices because they took place in a different title.
Not including any Witcher 1 choices is extremely disappointing to hear.
I know there isn't much to draw upon from the first game, but callbacks to the Alvin / Grand Master fiasco would be extremely relevant given Ciri's presence and the potential White Frost. There is also Adda's fate (and in effect, King Radovid's wife) to take into account. That isn't much from the first game, but it is still something that I think should be given some importance, especially the former.
That being said, I really hope the Witcher 2 choices affect the game because Witcher 2's end state could vary significantly. Sweeping it under the rug will bring forth a lot of disappointment (at least from me).
I know there isn't much to draw upon from the first game, but callbacks to the Alvin / Grand Master fiasco would be extremely relevant given Ciri's presence and the potential White Frost. There is also Adda's fate (and in effect, King Radovid's wife) to take into account. That isn't much from the first game, but it is still something that I think should be given some importance, especially the former.
That being said, I really hope the Witcher 2 choices affect the game because Witcher 2's end state could vary significantly. Sweeping it under the rug will bring forth a lot of disappointment (at least from me).
Yeah but its understandable, having to carrying those choice across even a single game is already very challenging. Having to do it across multiple titles is an incredible burden, especially if youre creating a AAA game of notable size+scope.
I much prefer having previous choices minimized in subsequent titles than just not having any choices at all though.
I'd argue that massive, world changing decisions shouldn't even be a part of the plan if they will end up being scrapped as it breaks immersion. If the developer knows it is unrealistic for the sequel to take into account many of the choices made in the previous game, then the choices you make in the previous game shouldn't be so significant so that if they end up being ignored or minimalized, it won't be as big of a deal from the player's perspective.
Take Mass Effect 3 for example. Saving the Human Reaper's corpse (and thus your relationship with Cerberus) and saving the Rachni (an entire race) are something one would expect to be very world changing things from the previous games. In the end, though, they are trivialized beyond belief, turned into a meaningless statistic in the former's case and pretty much swept under the rug in the case of the latter. I'm sure there are other offenders in that series, but I haven't played the series in several years so I don't quite remember all the choices.
But in the case of the Witcher 2, things like Henselt, Stennis, and Saskia's fates shouldn't be made unimportant - these are rulers of countries, or people with significant enough influence to be comparable to one. Siding with Roche or Iorveth is also a pretty big deal considering the allies you could have (or couldn't have) made. Even the fates of less politically important characters like Letho and Sile are also potentially important.
I know its a lot to expect, but at least when we're talking about the first factor I listed (the fates of the leaders of countries), those are things that cannot be trivialized without making me raise an eyebrow.
Take Mass Effect 3 for example. Saving the Human Reaper's corpse (and thus your relationship with Cerberus) and saving the Rachni (an entire race) are something one would expect to be very world changing things from the previous games. In the end, though, they are trivialized beyond belief, turned into a meaningless statistic in the former's case and pretty much swept under the rug in the case of the latter. I'm sure there are other offenders in that series, but I haven't played the series in several years so I don't quite remember all the choices.
But in the case of the Witcher 2, things like Henselt, Stennis, and Saskia's fates shouldn't be made unimportant - these are rulers of countries, or people with significant enough influence to be comparable to one. Siding with Roche or Iorveth is also a pretty big deal considering the allies you could have (or couldn't have) made. Even the fates of less politically important characters like Letho and Sile are also potentially important.
I know its a lot to expect, but at least when we're talking about the first factor I listed (the fates of the leaders of countries), those are things that cannot be trivialized without making me raise an eyebrow.
So you'd rather all choices be trivial or very linear from the onset? I disagree. I'm ok with those choices only being truly impactful within the context of a singular title. If they had stripped all those choices out of Witcher 2, that would have hurt that game far more than those decisions not having the same weight moving forward.
When I played Witcher 1 I felt like the white frost/ithlline's prophecy was going to transcend the individual games and be relevant to the story arc of the whole trilogy. I wonder if it'll even get a mention.
The thing is that a big portions of the choices you make in Witcher 2 regarding the political end state aren't made until the tail end of the game, and thus their reflection in Witcher 2 is nothing more than cosmetic . . . but the implications of their effect in the long run is definitely there, which is why I'd be underwhelmed if they are trivialized.
---------- Updated at 11:41 PM ----------
---------- Updated at 11:41 PM ----------
I saw this Gamestop poster, so I was at least hoping it might get a mention. Read the text beneath the Wild Hunt: "The time of the White Frost and the White Light . . . "
Oh good.The thing is that a big portions of the choices you make in Witcher 2 regarding the political end state aren't made until the tail end of the game, and thus their reflection in Witcher 2 is nothing more than cosmetic . . . but the implications of their effect in the long run is definitely there, which is why I'd be underwhelmed if they are trivialized.
---------- Updated at 11:41 PM ----------
I saw this Gamestop poster, so I was at least hoping it might get a mention. Read the text beneath the Wild Hunt: "The time of the White Frost and the White Light . . . "
EXACTLY.
I mean SURE it has no major effect on the MAIN story, since the main story is about Geralt, the Wild Hunt, Yennefer and Ciri. But it should be reflected in the WORLD itself. Of course there should be a "canon" state of the world if you do not import the saves or make the decisions in the bard-dialogue.
But Saskia, Iorveth, Stennis, Temeria, the Conclave, such things should definitely have a big impact on the way sorceresses are seen. Since most of the areas are in Nilfgaardian territory (or rather territory occupied/conquered by Nilfgaard) there should be no big impact, but at least in the dialogue AND in the regions which are NOT under Nilfgaardian jurisdiction there should be a difference.
And I do not talk about one or two heralds talking about reporting mages and sorceresses, I am talking about real Witch Hunts taking place there. Prefferably as side quest content in a way that we get to see it. After all this IS a big thing.
Also meeting one or two characters from TW2 should definitely also be in.
Well it seems pretty obvious that the most important choice from TW2 (the state of the Northern Kingdoms) will matter in TW3. I mean, I'm sure we will be aware of what's happening, how far Nilfgaard has gone ect. and it depends on how Temeria, Redania and the other nations reacted after the events in Loc Muinne.
Apparently I've read an article saying we'll get to talk about previous adventures and we will be able to decide what choices we made and what happened in our story, so it makes me wandering whether it changes something or not when you played previous games and did some particular things. Anyway this will allow all new players who didn't play other witcher games to get in the story and choose their past actions.
On a related note, has there been any word on whether or not any items will carry over, like the Dark Mode gear? I'm mostly asking because my SSD died recently and took most of my TW2 saves to the grave with it (and yes, should've backed them up, I know, I'm a moron, thank you), and since apparently it'll be possible to set the decisions manually, there's really no need for me to run through the game again to create proper saves unless any equipment carries over.
Yeah, I would also like to know that.
NO only that, would also like the Vran Armor to be carried over, after all we get it only about half an hour before the end (approximately) and the Vran Sword. Really liked those two in terms of design.
Don't know about items but in an interview they said character progression won't carry over but gold "could be".
Considering how incompetent the items were which carried over w1 to w2, I wouldn't mind the items not carrying over to w3.
Considering how incompetent the items were which carried over w1 to w2, I wouldn't mind the items not carrying over to w3.
I sort of hope even on PC they will allow you to make your own save. Sure I may have my old save, several in fact, but It's nice to see what matters and then make a definitive choice regarding just those choices and move forward. For instance
I know its a bit spoiled to ask for such a thing, but heck the rest of the game is looking to spoil us so why not this too eh
In my last play through, I forget if I killed the saskia/the dragon. I have yet to get another play through in, but have since read the first Witcher story. Now knowing Geralt would never kill a dragon, I don't want to live with a choice that would go against his character
I know its a bit spoiled to ask for such a thing, but heck the rest of the game is looking to spoil us so why not this too eh
It was confirmed. The ability to "make" your own save within the game is present on all three platforms. For PC it is optional since you can import a TW2 save,I sort of hope even on PC they will allow you to make your own save. Sure I may have my old save, several in fact, but It's nice to see what matters and then make a definitive choice regarding just those choices and move forward. For instance
In my last play through, I forget if I killed the saskia/the dragon. I have yet to get another play through in, but have since read the first Witcher story. Now knowing Geralt would never kill a dragon, I don't want to live with a choice that would go against his character
I know its a bit spoiled to ask for such a thing, but heck the rest of the game is looking to spoil us so why not this too eh
I admit I was very disappointed in the end of the witcher 2, you get the best armor and weapon of the game and it's finished, I would love to get my equipment back in the witcher 3 just to look great and for us to see it's the next step of our journey as Geralt