Right. They ended the game the same way they started. In a relationship. The "lock-in moment" was the first moment of TW 2 when he wakes up beside her. Things like the Rose of Remembrance and being given the opportunity to prioritize Triss at the end of TW 2 only served to cement the lock-in. The fact decisions made in TW 2 were not reflected within it. How does that help the case of CDPR after they claimed decisions mattered? Those mistakes getting repeated in TW 3 do not excuse but worsen them in nature by repetition alone.I've just explained how TW2 didn't acknowledge any particular moment as the "Triss romance lock-in". Those decisions you've made didn't even mattered in TW2. Geralt's relationship with her was railroaded from the very beginning to the end, there was no choice involved, there was no alternate path for Geralt who doesn't want to be with her. With that in mind, everyone, not just you, finished TW2 in the same place regarding the relationship with Triss.
You know, I would have no problem with the nullification between the games and the ignoring of choices made within a particular game except for one teeny, tiny caveat of a detail.
The Witcher games are classified and marketed as role-playing.
Taken from thewitcher.com:
I'll not argue with visually stunning or open world, but with the rest, yeah, I have a T-Rex sized thigh bone to pick.The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is a story-driven, next-generation open world role-playing game set in a visually stunning fantasy universe full of meaningful choices and impactful consequences.