TW2 Endings [SPOILERS]

[fchopin]

TW2 Endings [SPOILERS]

After playing the game 4 times 2 on normal and 2 on hard i am not sure what to think on the different endings, not sure if i like them.

The first two times choosing the two different paths concerning Roche and Ioverth the game was solid but the more times i play the game the more the plot begins to break down and not make sense.

A more solid ending with fewer choices would have made the ending better imo.
At the moment i have no idea how to play the ending and not even sure which path i like the best as i never know what i will get from the options i choose and can never get the ending that i like.

 

[ratiasu220]

the more times i play the game the more the plot begins to break down and not make sense.

Can you elaborate?

 

[fchopin]

Can you elaborate?

One example is Saskia, depending on which path you take she is supposed to be controlled when she attacks Foltes in the beginning, but taking Ioverth’s path they give a different reason that i cannot remember now.

 

[ratiasu220]

I think Saskia isn't controlled in the beginning at all. Not on Roche's or on Iorveth's path.
She just shares La Valettes ideals so she wants to help them out..?
She'll become controlled in Chapter 2 on both paths (but on Roche's path you don't see Saskia in ch. 2).

 

[fchopin]

From my understanding i thought that she was controlled depending on the path you choose, i think i remember one of the NPC’s mentioning this but maybe i was mistaken.

Maybe someone who remembers can tell us.

 

[arist4]

...
She'll become controlled in Chapter 2 on both paths (but on Roche's path you don't see Saskia in ch. 2).

MAJOR SPOILERS

Actually you see her on Roches part the first time at the beginning of Ch. 2 and the second time when you get her sword for the main quest. OK, you don't get to know anything about her like in Iorweths path.

My favorite and the real main story after some plays is Iorweth patch:
-> Ch. 1 getting Iorweth from the boat
-> Ch. 1 helping the Elf women
-> Ch. 2 letting prince Stennis die
-> Ch. 3 not helping Triss
-> Ch. 3 not killing Dragon (Saskia) (talking with her father know from the books)
-> Ch. 3 not killing Letho

OK, after reading the books I would never understand how Gerald can even think about helping the Scoia'tael but in Witcher 2 this part seems to be the more right one.

 

[Zanderat]

Saskia was not controlled at the beginning, on any path. She wanted to assist the LaValettes.

 

[fchopin]

Saskia was not controlled at the beginning, on any path. She wanted to assist the LaValettes.

Thanks for letting us know.

 

[saintmagician]

OK, after reading the books I would never understand how Gerald can even think about helping the Scoia'tael but in Witcher 2 this part seems to be the more right one.

What makes you say that?

Geralt dies in the books from a pitchfork after he tries to help the non-humans, so he obviously protests against their mis-treatment.

Do you think he wouldn't help them because they are the rebels / 'evil' party? Or because of political neutrality?

 

[fchopin]

MAJOR SPOILERS

Actually you see her on Roches part the first time at the beginning of Ch. 2 and the second time when you get her sword for the main quest. OK, you don't get to know anything about her like in Iorweths path.

My favorite and the real main story after some plays is Iorweth patch:
-> Ch. 1 getting Iorweth from the boat
-> Ch. 1 helping the Elf women
-> Ch. 2 letting prince Stennis die
-> Ch. 3 not helping Triss
-> Ch. 3 not killing Dragon (Saskia) (talking with her father know from the books)
-> Ch. 3 not killing Letho

OK, after reading the books I would never understand how Gerald can even think about helping the Scoia'tael but in Witcher 2 this part seems to be the more right one.

Played the same ending apart for not killing prince Stennis.

 

[secondchildren]

OK, after reading the books I would never understand how Gerald can even think about helping the Scoia'tael but in Witcher 2 this part seems to be the more right one.

Not likely. Or this is not as I interpreted Roche\Iorveth path. You can see clearly it on those "four" different choices you can do at Flotsam, in Act I.
Basically, siding with Scoia'tael\Roche means siding with a friend (depending on what you like most of the two).

If you side with Roche, you can still be friendly with non-humans and Iorveth. In fact, during Vergen siege, he says something like that he didn't expect that a "d'hoine" finally decided to help him.

If you side with Iorveth, Roche says something pretty similar when you enter the Kaedweni camp in the night, althought he cannot forget the fact that you decided to help his nemesi\Iorveth.

But as I've said this is mostly based on the choice you did in Chapter I.

-giving\not giving the sword to Iorveth
-help Iorveth\Roche at Flotsam

@fchopin
Well I must say that I quite agree with you (except concerning the dragon issue, which is as Zanderat said ). Those sixteen different endings are mostly about the different political asset of the Northern Kingdoms and on who lives\dies in the game. But the main path and the story is basically the same.

I guess we can only wait for W3 to see how these different endings will have their impact.

 

[dragonbird]

Regarding Saskia being controlled...

(Given the context of this post, I'm not going to bother with spoiler tags - I assume everyone is fairly familiar with the endings)

On Iorveth path, if you rescue Philippa, you have the opportunity to ask her what she would have done if Geralt hadn't inadvertently helped her. She says she would have found some alternative method.

On Roche path, Cynthia still betrays Triss and Philippa, and delivers Triss to the Nilfgaardians. There's no reason to think she didn't leave the rose of remembrance behind, so Philippa would still have had this, and could therefore still have enthralled Saskia. She would presumably have had to find a different excuse though, as there's no indication in the story that Saskia's poisoning still happened.

On Iorveth path, you know the details of when and how Saskia was enthralled. On Roche path, at your final meeting with Sile, she insists that the sorceresses had no desire for Foltest's death. Geralt questions this because of the dragon attack at La Valette. Sile replies that "they didn't control the dragon then".

So there is no inconsistency. The timing and manner of Saskia's enchantment was probably around the same on both paths, the only difference being that Roche path used some other unstated excuse, and not a "poison cure".

Incidentally, there are 14 different political endings in the game (12 without TW1 import. And yes, I've played them all.) This is slightly different from the CDPR list of 16 as one of their decision points doesn't have a major political consequence in the game (i.e. it doesn't change who rules any state), but probably will later, and there are a few minor differences in political impact that I think CDPR will ignore. List below, in spoiler tags this time

Spoiler

Iorveth Path: (Stennis dead, Stennis Alive) x (Rescue Philippa, Rescue Triss+Save Saskia, Rescue Triss+Kill Saskia) = 6 endings

Roche Path with TW1 import: (Henselt dead, Henselt Alive) x (Anais to Natalis, Anais to Radovid+Adda dead, Anais to Radovid+Adda alive, Rescue Triss) = 8 endings

Roche Path without import: (Henselt dead, Henselt Alive) x (Anais to Natalis, Anais to Radovid, Rescue Triss) = 6 endings

 

[ratiasu220]

So the import affects only to the Radovid thing? (excluding some minor things we see ingame)

 

[Dona.794]

What dragonbird said :]

The decision about Aryan counts towards different ending state and I think it should be added to the list, even though there are no consequences in TW2 itself.

 

[Garrison72]

It's true there aren't sixteen endings per-se, but I'd venture there are at least four to five different ways to experience the bulk of the game. For example, I've played through the prologue at least eight times, and maybe twice has it played out the same; it's rather amazing how much it changes. The strength of the game is how each major plot point can vary, not the ending. As to whether it weakens the plot as a whole, this is entirely possible, but I'll have to play it to completion several times to have an educated opinion.

This brings up another interesting topic. Unlike traditional role playing games, where the emphasis seems to be on basic evil/good/neutral paradigms, the Witcher games focus exclusively on choice and consequence. It'd be hard to play through either game as as an 'evil' Geralt or a 'good' Geralt...which begs the question, are we really role playing then? I mean, you're not really creating your own character, you're responding to decisions as a player. It's like the game breaks down the fourth wall.

Gad, I need some coffee, maybe I'm just rambling..

 

[dragonbird]

So the import affects only to the Radovid thing? (excluding some minor things we see ingame)

In terms of political impact, yes. I played a random sample of other endings to see if there was any impact, and there wasn't. A cynical player would probably say that it won't affect the future anyway, as the variation is based on what Radovid says he's going to do, not on what he actually does, which is probably why CDPR don't count it as a different ending.

@Dona - I agree. If CDPR play fair with us, and use the endings in the next game, the Aryan decision has the potential to have a huge impact. I was very nit-picking when I decided on my criteria for the "different endings" - it had to be something we saw in the game, or a commitment by someone of significance, such as a king. But that means you have to trust in the word of kings, and of course the Nilfgaardian attack may change everything that was said at Loc Muinne anyway.

@slimgrim - Oh yes, the beauty of the game isn't in the 12, 14, 16, 168, whatever endings. These take no consideration of the short-term consequences, which affect the way quests play out.

I only found one major inconsistency in the game, that ridiculous fight between Roche and Iorveth in Act 1. There are some minor issues (like exactly when Demavend died relative to the start of the game, and who the fourth assassin was), but nothing else that made me say "hold on, it couldn't have happened that way - it doesn't match the other paths".

 

[saintmagician]

So there is no inconsistency. The timing and manner of Saskia's enchantment was probably around the same on both paths, the only difference being that Roche path used some other unstated excuse, and not a "poison cure".

Before Saskia was poisoned, looked like Philippa was already a trusted / well respected advisor. Couldn't have been hard for Philippa to find her own way to poison Saskia, if need be. Besides, Philipa was already suspicious of Saskia at the time (You ask Philipa if she always knew Saskia was a dragon. She says she was suspicious but not sure until she had a chance to examine Saskia).

This brings up another interesting topic. Unlike traditional role playing games, where the emphasis seems to be on basic evil/good/neutral paradigms, the Witcher games focus exclusively on choice and consequence. It'd be hard to play through either game as as an 'evil' Geralt or a 'good' Geralt...which begs the question, are we really role playing then? I mean, you're not really creating your own character, you're responding to decisions as a player. It's like the game breaks down the fourth wall.

Role playing just means you are playing the role of something else. Playing a character that someone else made is just as much role playing, as playing a character you made.

You are role playing Geralt. Geralt's past is fixed, Geralt's current personality (as far as the start of the game goes) is fixed, but his progression and future is not.

It's true that you respond to decisions using a limited set of options.
But compare with say, DA:O. You make your own character fully. But you respond to decisions (e.g. you are made gray warden) using a limited set of options.

Or if you compare with pen & paper, you can make your own character and role play.
Or you can buy a pre-designed campaign, with pre-designed characters and backstories, and role play.

I only found one major inconsistency in the game, that ridiculous fight between Roche and Iorveth in Act 1. There are some minor issues (like exactly when Demavend died relative to the start of the game, and who the fourth assassin was), but nothing else that made me say "hold on, it couldn't have happened that way - it doesn't match the other paths".

How does it not match the other paths?
In both paths, you play either Roche or Iorveth, and you have the choice of winning or losing. If you lose, the game goes on, so it's not like either Roche or Iorveth wins depending on what path you take.

 

[dragonbird]

How does it not match the other paths?
In both paths, you play either Roche or Iorveth, and you have the choice of winning or losing. If you lose, the game goes on, so it's not like either Roche or Iorveth wins depending on what path you take.

Timing. If Iorveth was taken prisoner and you're on Iorveth path, Roche leaves Flotsam before you rescue Iorveth. There's no point in time when the fight could have taken place. If Iorveth was a prisoner and you're on Roche path, it could only happen if Iorveth was freed before your attack on Loredo's mansion, but apparently this mass attack by the non-humans caused no uproar in Flotsam and Iorveth inexplicably went back into the forest afterwards instead of heading for Vergen.

Regarding the role-play issue, I agree with you. I think that this is just a sign of the maturity of RPG's. Originally, we had clear-cut good character vs bad character. Then we started to get shades of grey and moral relativity (done well in many games, but then there was DA2). In the Witcher games, we get decisions that have consequences, but we've moved away both from black and white and shades of grey - they're just "different".

 

[Garrison72]

But in The Witcher, do your choices matter to the Geralt you are currently role playing, or do they matter to you the player? If they matter to the actual player, if you are responding with your own set of values, then experiencing the different paths is counter intuitive and you are not putting yourself in a different role. This is off topic I suppose so if I can better word what I'm trying to say, I'll start a new thread.

 

[fchopin]

But in The Witcher, do your choices matter to the Geralt you are currently role playing, or do they matter to you the player? If they matter to the actual player, if you are responding with your own set of values, then experiencing the different paths is counter intuitive and you are not putting yourself in a different role. This is off topic I suppose so if I can better word what I'm trying to say, I'll start a new thread.

I always play a neutral Geralt in TW1 and try to do the same in TW2.
Some of the decisions in TW2 don’t always allow that but i usually do what i consider to be the middle way or the Buddha way.